Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 4,060 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 163
Set Bookmark
The President
Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 11:05pm (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S3: Distant Origin

Minister Odala would have made an excellent cabinet official in a certain U.S. political administration.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Feb 26, 2021, 8:36am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S7: Firstborn

Any Alexander episode that does not end with Alexander lying dead in a pool of his own blood and vomit is, by definition, a poor episode.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Feb 26, 2021, 8:29am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S7: Genesis

One thing about this episode is that we finally got a chance to see Worf's pajamas. Not exactly the pajamas of a warrior; they look like something you would find in the discount aisle at Target.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Feb 24, 2021, 10:06pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S7: Genesis

You can see how bridge officers rate on the good 'ol Enterprise. One them is found at his station brutally murdered and does Picard or Data say something like "Oh no, Ens. Davies has been killed!". Nah, the poor sap doesn't even have a name. Picard's like "hey Data what killed uh ... this ... guy?"

Good luck writing that note to the grieving parents Jean Luc...
Set Bookmark
Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 11:09am (UTC -6)
Re: MAND S2: Chapter 16: The Rescue


I am perfectly cool. I also stand by every word I've said.
Set Bookmark
Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 9:33am (UTC -6)
Re: MAND S2: Chapter 16: The Rescue

@Jason R.

There is something here that I don't get:

Why should there even be a connection between the stuff that an actor posts on social media and the hiring studio's name?

Actors are not hired for their political acumen. Nor are they hired for being well-rounded people or examples of moral virtue.

Actors are hired to act. If the do *that* badly, then I'd agree that this reflects negatively on the studio that hired them. But why care about their personal and political views? How does this reflect on the studio in any shape or form.

I just don't get it.
Set Bookmark
Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 9:19am (UTC -6)
Re: MAND S2: Chapter 16: The Rescue

"It is more like describing a phenomenon without justification of any kind."


Let's summarize your latest post, shall we:

1. You've painted one half of humanity as being backwards and racist and governed-by-fear, while painting the other half as being enlightened and progressive and tolerant.
2. You've equated these two groups with the two sides of the political spectrum.
3. You give ridiculous examples for what being "conservative" or "progressive" means, and they always paint the former in a bad light.
4. You constantly say that conservatives being ostracized is "just the way things" are and interwine this claim with rhetoric about "progress" and "being left behind".
5. You always treat the persecution of "those left behind" as "their problem" and a source for "their fear". It never occurs to you that these people are just human as you are, and that their persecution is also your problem.

And then you claim you're not making any moral judgement? That you're just "describing a phenomenon"?

Sorry, but this doesn't fly.

The truth is that you *are* making a moral judgement, and it's a terrifying one. The rhetoric in your latest comments is a classic example of how demonizing and hate-mongering starts.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 3:09pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S2: Shades of Gray

A rubbish exit for Pulaski but when I first saw this episode I remember being happy to see Tasha again.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 1:13pm (UTC -6)
Re: MAND S2: Chapter 16: The Rescue

@Dave in MN

"And frankly, a lot of the time, Booming DOES have a point"

I agree. A lot of the time, she does. Unfortunately, this was not one of those times...

BTW have you read the entire comment in question? Or did you stop at first sentence (which was the thing you praised)?
Set Bookmark
Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 2:25pm (UTC -6)
Re: MAND S2: Chapter 16: The Rescue

"Very recently it has become more pronounced on the left. It will calm down now, I think, now that nobody is Trump crazy anymore. "

This is factually wrong.

Trump has been gone for over a month now, and it isn't calming down. On the contrary: It looks like the PC mob has just gained *more* confidence from the fact that "nobody is Trump crazy anymore".

"Let's separate people into conservative and progressive."

Let's not.

Seriously, it is this kind of sh*t that has gotten us into this mess in the first place. This belief that "our side" (whichever that side it may be) is the paragon of virtue while the "other side" is a barbaric echo of the past which needs to be purged.

"In general for several decades, with some shortlived reversals one could argue for 200 years now, societies progress..."


Now here is an interesting challenge for you:

Can you describe what "social progress" entails, without referencing any political agenda?

"...societies progress which means that conservatives sooner or later become reactionaries, not because they changed but because societies changed. Then they are ostracized or canceled. Progressives are cancelled if they are too far ahead. That is why progressives sometimes later on are vindicated while conservatives who fall behind are not."

Do you realize how cultish this sound? Just because you call yourselves "progressives" does not mean you have a monopoly on social progress.

I'm reminded of all those religious nuts who claim "our religion is the ultimate truth and source of morality" while also committing - at the same time - horrendous amoral acts.

I mean seriously... look at all the things that people have done in the name of your allegedly enlightened views in the past few months. You call this living nightmare that's constantly getting worse "progress"? Are you f***-ing kidding me?

The worst of it is: This is exactly how the PC mob justifies what they are doing to themselves. They are so sure of their moral superiority that they treat everybody who thinks otherwise as subhuman.
Set Bookmark
Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 1:27pm (UTC -6)
Re: MAND S2: Chapter 16: The Rescue

@Dave in MN

When did Booming do that?

Let's not let ourselves get distracted from the main issue here. As Jason stated:

"There isn't any serious doubt at this moment in history that left is the perpetrator, end of story. Left against right; left against centre; left against left.
This is not a symmetrical phenomenon."

This is precisely why cancel culture - in it's present form - is so terrifying. If it were only about random groups of people who ostracize other random groups of people, it wouldn't be a big deal, would it?

Now note that 99% of Booming's comment is aimed at denying Jason's statement. So what point, exactly, did she concede when she said "cancel culture is a problem"? Context, my friend, is everything.
Set Bookmark
Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 8:50am (UTC -6)
Re: MAND S2: Chapter 16: The Rescue

"It's interesting that people say 'How will lefties feel when cancel culture is turned around on them' because that scenario describes most of the 20th century, at least in the US. Cancel culture wasn't invented by Twitter lefties, it's always been with us, often wielded by conservatives."

That's true, and it's not just the 20th century. This has been going on since the dawn of history.

But this just strengthens Dave's point:

You don't need to "imagine" what a reverse situation would be like. There are plenty of historical precedents, and history has proven just how bad and oppressive those precedents are.

So why are so people okay with the current situation? Was McCarthyism so fun that we want to go through it again? Do these things suddenly become okay when it is your side of the political map who does them?

"That said, I am not necessarily a big fan of Twitter-style cancel culture. Exposing powerful people as predators and bigots is good, but there can be elements of mob-mentality..."

It's not just an "element" of mob-mentality. It's the very nature of the psychological process that's going on.

There's absolutely NOTHING in the current cancel culture that is aimed to expose predators and bigots.

Just like McCarthyism wasn't really about exposing Russian spies, and the post 9-11 mania wasn't really about stopping terrorists. At best, you could argue that these things have *started* with these goals in mind, but even then, the end result was inevitable to anyone who knows anything about human psychology. At worst, you could argue that they were a deliberate ploy to use an existing crisis to gain more power over the others.

Have you noticed how these things *always* get out of hand? It's quite telling that all your examples of historical cancel-culture ended up badly, isn't it? When will we finally learn the lessons from history and stop doing this sh*t?

"But here in the US, people with politics like Carano might endanger their revenue stream. They want everyone's money so they can't risk offending anyone."

Ah. But ask yourself this question:

Why does Carano's politics endanger Disney's revenue stream, any more than Pascal's politics? Both of them referenced the Nazis. Both of them have also made plenty of controversial tweets in the past. So why does this logic only works in one direction? After all, roughly half of Disney's viewers are Republicans. Why aren't Disney afraid to offend *that* half of their customers?

It's funny how people use this argument of "this isn't censorship! It's just business!" without actually stopping to think what that argument really means: Apparently the mob of the extreme left has become so powerful, that the mega-corporations find it "profitable" to fire actors who exhibit wrongthink.

I don't know about you, but I personally find such a situation to be much scarier then a simple "we've let her go because we find her views appalling". This kind of thing only becomes a danger when it is systemized, and "systemized" is exactly what you get when there's a mob that pressures everyone to conform to the same way of thinking.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Feb 16, 2021, 8:24pm (UTC -6)
Re: MAND S2: Chapter 16: The Rescue

"I don't know if my post created any responses."

You made me curious and I looked. My God, that was surprisingly mean-spirited, even for you.

Anybody keeping a tally of how many times Booming deliberately tries to hurt another person with a wild under-the-belt attack? I wonder if we're in the 3-digit zone already.

"I didn't read them because I'm too sensitive and afraid..."

Let me get this straight:

You're such a tender sensitive soul, that you're deathly afraid of the responses you might get. Yet you don't give a hoot that you've just DELIBERATELY hurt another poster? Heck, you've done this dozens of time before, and not even once have you shown a hint of remorse?

Forgive me if I'm having trouble buying your "poor sensitive little me" routine.

At any rate, you'll be happy to learn that nobody retaliated to your vicious post in kind, so your saintly pure soul remains protected.


We apologize for the above interruption, and now return you to your regular program.
Set Bookmark
Mon, Feb 15, 2021, 8:51am (UTC -6)
Re: MAND S2: Chapter 16: The Rescue

@Cody B
"It will be a never ending back and forth."


These "discussions" with this guy achieve absolutely nothing, because he isn't interested in an actual discussion. He is doing this because:

(1) He has a need to "prove" to everybody how right and smart he is and how stupid they are.
(2) He is bored sh*tless and this is a way to pass his time (that's not my interpretation but something he openly admitted many times). This also means that often his replies are deliberately provocative and nonsensical because that's the best way to lure you into an endless cycle.
(3) He simply can't refrain from replying.

This is why these arguments go on and on in circles, without anybody ever learning anything.

So what's the point? I can't speak for anybody else, but I - personally - have decided that I'm not going to waste any more of my time on pointless verbal sparring with people who aren't interested in an actual honest conversation.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Feb 14, 2021, 11:26pm (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S7: Author, Author

I always enjoy this episode, and as a piece of 90s TV, it works. But the more it becomes looked at in comparison to some of the best of Trek, and especially in modern-day retrospect (I believe certain modern day TV series have really raised the bar for consistency and sensibility across a series where it was far more in fashion in the 90s to have characters personalities suit the story of the week).

I don't know if I would give this one less than 4 stars - maybe 3.5 - But ,y biggest issues with this episode is the Doctor's positions in the episode.

Perhaps he's just clouded by ego - I think we've seen this happen a few times - like when he became a famous opera singer. So it's not inconsistent, but considering he's a computer program, it always struck me as stretching credibility for him of all people to be so egocentric and context-blind.

Jammer points out that this episode mirrors living witness. Yet in that episode, the Doctor is outraged by the misportrayal of his crew (by holograms that look vaguely like them). I guess it's arguable that he really thinks he changed the characters enough to make them fictional - I'm sure some tales of people changing the names of real people in a story to another with the same first letter are true. But seriously - in the 24th centry, is he really so incredibly naive as to think that putting dark hair on Captain Janeway's face and calling his captain another 'J' name make it an original character? I know there's supposed to be some element of overconfidence and naivety here, but surely the doctor is well versed enough in literature and especially in light of his own reactions in Living Witness to know that isn't going to be seen as anything else - especially when it's the entire crew, not just one character.

But then after vehemently defending his position even after Paris's stunt, and reluctantly agreeing to revise his work, in the trial he's all of a sudden adamant:

JANEWAY: "We might win on those grounds. But what about the Doctor?"

EMH: "What about me, Captain? It's the crew's reputations that are as risk. "

This about face is irritating. The Doctor's outrage at the start seems to be the publisher taking advantage of him and claiming he has no rights - the very thing his novel is about. Instead, he momentarily becomes the selfless martyr, seemingly willing to sacrifice his rights for the good of the crew - but that files in the face of the first half of the episode and even where it goes. I guess the writers felt they had to shift from the audience rooting for the crew against the Doctor's wild position on his novel, to rooting for the downtrodden Doctor against the publisher's oppressive position. It would have worked just fine if his objection had consistently remained "that make solve your problem Captain, but what about mine? I still have no more legal right than a toaster!"

From a lawyer's perspective, while I appreciate it doesn't necessarily satisfy the episode's plot requirements, but it's an extremely common legal tactic to argue alternatives to make sure you don't lose. "The doctor is a person. You MUST expand the legal definition to include him. But in the event this court finds he is not a person, the story is defamatory." or "But if he isn't a person, there's no legal contract here." There's nothing wrong with making BOTH arguments contrary to the episode's suggestion that you have to pick one lane and ride it out.

As a huge fan of Measure of a Man and Drumhead (courtroom realism aside, I found the episode became a bit too jam packed, and the pivotal courtroom scenes were just far to glossed over - it basically amounted to a few anecdotes about how the doctor just "seems" like a person. I would have liked to hear some semblance of a legal argument be made for why the Doctor qualifies as a person. After the initial legal definition of a protected work was quickly addressed, the rest became a matter of "oh come on, of course he's a person". Comparing the doctor creating an original story to a replicator producing a programmed item hardly seemed like a worthy counter-argument to the Doctor's personhood - at least the publisher could have raised an analogy of something ORIGINAL a computer produces like a statistical data analysis or a level 3 diagnostic report or something.

I also thought it went somewhat unaddressed as to whether the story, created by a Starfleet computer program (Doc) might somehow therefore be property of Starfleet. I still fail to understand how if the Doctor is not a person and has no creative rights, the publisher somehow has gained rights/authority to sell the program. I guess this got lumped a little bit into Janeway not wanting to make any other legal argument than the Doctor's personhood, but it stands out to me.

As a final aside, I thought it was a bit ridiculous that it took Neelix to come up with the obvious idea of "you have to change the names and faces so it doesn't seem like us". Brilliant author Tom didn't think of that? Nor the Captain? Perhaps the intention is that the crew is so hurt/offended that they can't see past that - as much as the doctor's ego is so big he can't see past being offended by the suggestion that his work is offensive. Again, it works in the 90s "larger than life" personalities that work for the story of the week, but in modern times, it comes off as stilted and a bit one-dimensional on all parts.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Feb 14, 2021, 9:52am (UTC -6)
Re: MAND S2: Chapter 16: The Rescue


Given that the TV Networks and the media generally try really hard to pretend that nothing I've stated is a big deal, your statement doesn't make any sense.

Perhaps it is you who should stop believing the narrative you're being fed by that little box? Turn your TV off and do your own research for a while. I guarantee that you'll find it illuminating.

@Dave in MN

"If you want to understand someone's fear, put yourself in their shoes. Or create a hypothetical where the current paradigm is reversed? Would you be okay if these tactics were used against you? "

The funny thing (in a sad way) is that this is bound to happen at some point. These witch hunters always turn against their own, eventually. Unfortunately, by the time thing get so far that these people wake up, it is usually too late to do anything about it... :-(
Set Bookmark
Sun, Feb 14, 2021, 6:23am (UTC -6)
Re: MAND S2: Chapter 16: The Rescue

"That's the thing. Most people probably *don't* fit into any particular binary political box, but the partisan (and increasingly polarized) state of our electoral politics has all but forced everyone into one, and the no-compromises, take-no-prisoners political combat media infrastructure has made it very hard for sane voices and middle ground to be paid any attention."

The real problem with the current style of discourse, is that it politicizes everything. What's currently going on in the world (and in the US in particular) is terrifying, and one does not need to be affiliated with any political party to openly state this.

We are slowly but surely deteriorating into a "1984"-style dystopia. This scares the heck out of me, and at this point I couldn't care less about right-wing or left-wing ideologies. Those quibbles could wait after this crisis is over. At this point, I simply want this nightmare to stop, and I would support any public figure - regardless of their political affiliations - who decides to fight these worrying trends.

@Paul M.
"As someone who is not American, I must say that I think that cancel culture over there is reaching horrendous levels. Surrendering your basic human rights - and the right to work is a basic human right - to unaccountable corporations is downright scary."

Agree 100%

"The scariest thing, to me, is how seemingly willing people are to hand away their freedoms. Interested in reactions of fans, I went to Mandalorian reddit and was amazed by what I found there. They were all cheeeing! This is McCarthyism come again."

The original McCarthyism serves as a fine reminder of how both sides of the political spectrum can go down this route.

Back in the 1950's it was the right. Now it's the left. Needless to say, these witch hunts are equally repugnant regardless of who is doing them.

The big problem, however, is that the current witch hunters have the insane power of social media in their hands. Nobody could achieve such total control in the 1950's. So this time it's going to be much harder to fight against.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 10:01pm (UTC -6)
Re: MAND S2: Chapter 16: The Rescue

@Dave in MN
"Why is it wrong to compare a historic political party advocating national socialism a current one?"

The history nerd in me would like to point out that this is factually incorrect: The Nazi party was anything by socialist, despite its name.

Doesn't change the legitimacy of the comparison, though. It's interesting how the process of targeting and dehumanizing dissenters is pretty much the same, regardless of who is doing it.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 10:47am (UTC -6)
Re: MAND S2: Chapter 16: The Rescue

Funny how this only happens to people from one side of the political map, eh?

Democrats can freely compare Trump to Hitler, call Republicans "Nazis" and "terrorists" and whatever they please. I don't recall any of them being fired or canceled.

And Gina didn't even call anybody a Nazi. Nor did she accuse anybody of "planning genocide". She just mentioned a specific dangerous process that happened in Nazi Germany and argued that a similar process is happening right now in the US.

She is 100% right.

The kind of demonizing that's being done to Republicans right now is downright scary. The fact that a person can't even *say* this simple truth without fear of being fired by a mob trial, only proves just how serious this situation is.

I'm not interested in endless arguments about this. I've never had much patience for either bullies or people who support bullying mobs.
Set Bookmark
The Chronek
Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 4:26am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S3: That Hope Is You, Part 2


Jammer's wife and I must agree on this episode, because I thought the season finale was better than you did, sir. For the record, I watched TNG in first-run from start to finish. I can see why some of the old fogies like us don't care for Discovery, the reboot films, etc., but I'm enjoying Discovery.

I like Trek for its continued dedication to showing that everyone has a place and for reflecting current events. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to say that the fractured Federation depicted in Discovery's third season very much mirrors a fractured US and a fractured world in current time. Some people probably didn't like it. I thought it was apt.

I think it was in the second to last episode that had the discussion between Osyrra and Vance about the Chain joining the Federation. I liked how that discussion was portrayed. Vance was willing to listen and be reasonable, but he was justifiably cautious about Osyrra. I like that he wanted to hold her to account for her crimes. To compare her with another criminal in another franchise, she's no Tom Zarek. Zarek, I could at least sympathize with more. I ultimately found him to be self-serving and out for power, but he had flashes of decency and practicality. Osyrra struck me as someone who would only do whatever serves her and not what's right.

As long as I'm comparing Discovery to BSG, I'm ok with the music not being fully explained at the end of this season, just like I'm ok with Kara Thrace not being fully explained by the end of BSG. For me, the bigger questions were answered with Discovery. Does the crew survive? Will they fit in with the current Federation? Will they resolve the conflict with the Chain?

I'm not fully onboard with how emotional everyone seems to be on Discovery. I can buy it a bit, though. They left everything and everyone they knew behind. At the start of the season, they didn't even know if they'd fit in with the Federation during this time, let alone if there even was a Federation. It was, and is, a traumatic shared experience. That kind of thing shakes you. Takes a while to find a new normal and steady yourself emotionally after that.

I could take or leave Mirror Georgiou. I can kind of see why Discovery's crew was attached to her, thanks to the whole time-jump all-alone-out-here thing. Sure, she was a pain, but she was their pain, and she was good in a fight.

I'm also ok with Burnham getting promoted. She, too, had to find her place. Burnham's background aside, it's clear that in this season of Discovery, the Federation isn't what it used to be, so it makes sense that highly qualified, experienced officers would rise the ranks quickly. But, "hey, we've been decimated and we need every warm body we can get" doesn't make for an inspirational season-ending speech from an admiral.

Not sure if I'll sign up again for CBS All Access in time for Discovery's fourth season, but I'll get around to it. Picard? I'll subscribe in time for the season 2 premiere.

Side note: the Lower Decks series was a lot of fun, too.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Feb 9, 2021, 1:02am (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S7: Repentance

I really enjoy this episode, but even these good ones fall into the Voyager trap of lazy writing. And it's rarely even necessarily.

"Our home is only 13 light years away, could you take us home?" "Oh sorry, we're headed in the other direction." "Oh, ok, we'll have a ship come here then - it'll take several days, and you'll have to set up a prison" "Sounds good".

Oh come on. This is Voyager. We know they can make 13 light years in a matter of anywhere between half a day an a couple of days, depending on the episode. But when as Janeway EVER refused to help someone whose ship just blew up? They can't go two days out of their way to help these people? So they'll just sit in place and way for several days anyway? This was a completely pointless piece of writing. They could have been much farther from home, or the fastest drop off point could have just been a rendezvous with another ship in the first place. There was simply no need for the comment that makes Janeway look stingy, and it's uncharacteristic.

At warp 8.5, they could have been there and back in
Set Bookmark
Sarjenka's Brother
Sat, Feb 6, 2021, 4:46pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: Insurrection

Bottom line: We wanted a GREAT movie with cinematic impact. Instead, we got a merely good movie with no real lasting repercussions.

I don't understand the hate for "Insurrection," though. I watched it last night here in early 2021 (I think this was my third viewing). I stayed entertained start to finish. But it simply isn't a hall of famer like ST 2-4, Undiscovered Country and First Contact. It's a middle child. It's not a stinker, it's not epic. (It actually would have been a good two-parter for TV, as others have said.)

I think they actually had a GREAT idea/theme but just didn't sell it all the way. And that's the Federation has taken a lot of hits. It's weakened and wounded. And maybe ready to be a bit more flexible, to say the least, with its ideals in this weakened and humiliate state.

I agree with the person who posted that Patrick Stewart thought that should be the theme for a trilogy of movies. I agree: A battle for the soul of the Federation, as members cross lines that shouldn't be crossed.

While I had nothing per se against the entire Ba'ku / Son'a storyline, I think there were better vehicles to explore this idea of the Federation crossing ethical and moral lines. And I think I would have stayed with races and planets already established, at least in the first movie for the "Battle for the Soul of the Federation" trilogy.

I'd borrow from "In the Pale Moonlight" and "Empire Strikes Back" to some degree:

Open up with the Enterprise under attack by several Orion ships after falling into a trap set by them. The Enterprise, which supposedly has better technology, should prevail but is surprised to find the Orions have more powerful weapons than previously known and in is serious danger of losing the battle. At the last minute, a Federation ship of Andorians come to the rescue. Turns out the Orions (and the Tholians and Gorn off-screen) have become increasingly aggressive since the Dominion War.

Picard feels a grateful kinship with the Andorian captain because he loses his ship and some of his crew while saving the Enterprise. The A captain tells Picard he has now gathered conclusive evidence that Romulans (specifically Tomalak) are secretly assisting the Orions, Gorn and Tholians to further weaken the Federation in a proxy war. And Beverly meets an Andorian scientist she's always admired who survived the battle.

Starfleet calls both vessels to Earth for highly secretive talks. The Federation Council decides to launch a secret preemptive attack on Romulus, with just the Enterprise and a special Andorian ship, both equipped with cloaks and new weapons technology developed and repurposed from captured J'em Haddar ships. Also along for the ride, a J'em Haddar officer to assist.

Long story short: Turns out the Romulans are NOT aiding and abetting the Orions.

It's the Andorian captain, who dreams of heading a more aggressive and militaristic Federation. He's promised an ambitious Orion "slave woman" -- who is anything but a slave -- that they'll be calling the shots. It's unclear who is leading who in this power-hungry duo.

And what better place to start than an attack on Romulans, who have been so sneaky in the past? (And it later turns out the Federation Council KNOWS of this plot but the leadership thinks they'll be able to scapegoat the Andorians and Orions after the deed is done. This includes Vulcan, Human and Tellarite council members.)

It's the good Andorian scientist, Beverly and Geordi who first get wind of this on the Andorian ship en route to Romulus, but there's a lot of peril for them and can't warn Picard (however you set that up).

So the orders are: Do the attack. Picard has grown increasingly uneasy with the enthusiasm of his new Andorian buddy, but until minutes before the attack, doesn't have true evidence. Finally, the A scientist, Beverly and LaForge are able to warn Picard (and the A scientist is killed and Beverly severely injured in getting the evidence to the Enterprise).

Picard turns on the A ship, there's a huge battle as Romulan warbirds approaching. The A captain and his Orion accomplice escape just before their ship blows up. Before the crippled Enterprise can pursue, the Romulans surround the Enterprise and force it to surrender, genuinely having no idea what's going on other than it appears the Enterprise was about to launch an attack.

The movie ends with several scenes set a week later:

-- The Federation Council announcing that Picard and the Enterpise went rogue and they disavow all knowledge of the attack in front of the Romulan ambassador.

-- The Andorian captain and his Orion woman ally are seen meeting with a Ferengi about the purchase of a derelict Klingon ship.

-- Geordi and Beverly, near death, are in an Andorian escape pod drifting in space with no communications equipment. No one knows they are alive. All of a sudden, a Delta Quadrant Vidiian ship, of all things, approaches them.

-- Picard, Riker, Troi, Data, Worf and the J'em Haddar officer (the latter two who have bonded) are paraded in front of Tomalak and the Romulan Senate. Tomalak condemns them to death for crimes against the Romulan Star Empire.

BAM. Movie ends with a close-up of a stony faced Picard.
Set Bookmark
The River Temarc
Wed, Feb 3, 2021, 11:44pm (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S2: Paradise

I just rewatched this episode, and I'm surprised at all the reviews panning it. I thought it was superb.

"Paradise" was an examination of charismatic leadership and its abuse. It was an examination of the allure of cults. These themes ought to resonate in the age of Trump and Q-Anon. Stockholm Syndrome is a thing; and of course some communities, such as the Amish (bizarre as though it might be to the rest of us) do live a luddite lifestyle.

I have no doubt that Starfleet sent a horde of counselors to this colony a couple of weeks later to deprogram them. That's not the point of the final scene. The point is that the cult can outlast its leader.

To those who say that the episode glorified luddite thought, I ask: what were you watching? Someone died from an easily-cured disease; two people were tortured, including a gallant Starfleet captain. The last shot of the two children made it clear where the episode's sympathies lie, as did Dax's line about an old Hopi adapting to the modern world by teaching a Trill rope tricks.
Set Bookmark
The River Temarc
Fri, Jan 29, 2021, 3:02am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S4: Paradise Lost

"Humans [prefer] a compelling smile over a compelling set of qualifications. And we're poorer for it."

An interesting point, but I'm not sure I buy the conclusion. Plenty of experts counseled that by 1940, Britain stood little chance of resisting a German invasion; yet would you say we were better off without Churchill's oratory of "blood, sweat, toil, and tears"?

Similarly, in the 1930s when, yeah, the Depression was a thing -- would the US have been better off without FDR saying "we have nothing to fear but fear itself"?

Leadership is more than credentialing.
Set Bookmark
The River Temarc
Fri, Jan 29, 2021, 2:56am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S4: Paradise Lost

"but watching this episode only two days after Trump's attempted coup was downright eerie."

The parallels are far from exact, though. Trump failed because he had almost no elite support, including in the military, which (setting aside the issue of who had the authority to deploy the National Guard) remained firmly true to its longstanding tradition of not interfering in politics. Leighton was exactly the opposite.

Moreover, as I noted in the review of "Homefront," Joseph Sisko's stubbornness today looks a lot more like a Covid19 denier or mask resister than anything else: there *were* four changelings on Earth, and Sisko refused to do the slightest thing for the common good (i.e., a blood test) if it would inconvenience himself.
Next ►Page 1 of 163
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2021 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. Terms of use.