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: 3 (Showing 1-3)

Page 1 of 1
Set Bookmark
Welihall
Sat, Oct 14, 2017, 9:33pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: The Butcher's Knife Cares Not for the Lamb's Cry

@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi,

Thanks for telling me how flawed my knowledge of Star Trek is, and for telling us what other people's motives "really" are when they complain about ratings systems.
With respect, and I doubt you intend to act this way, your comments (explaining why Jammer gave STID three stars, as if someone could not figure it out for himself or herself) sounds pompous and ministerial.

One of the reasons I do not post much on this site is because certain posters rather zestily are eager to show how superior their knowledge is to that of others'. It is intimidating, the idea of posting a thought only to be struck down by someone who claims to know better. I like discussions on this site where, if factual errors are ,as by someone, the error serves as a basis for a richer discussion, as opposed to an opportunity to try to destroy someone's credibility.

I have no idea how much you do or do not know about Trek

An earlier point I made was that humanity becoming enlightened in Star Trek has always been something more talked about than developed dramatically over time. I think I should be more clear (my apologies) in what I mean by "enlightened."

In the 2300s, Picard tells Lily that humans do not succumb to revenge, as by that time we have an "evolved sensibility." (Lily actually called bullshit, but that is tangential).
Not succumbing to revenge, not engaging in petty arguments, not responding with diplomacy or thinking over fists first-these I think we can agree are things reviewers and commenters talk about when they talk abou "enlightenment."

Your most recent response to what I wrote suggested that Enterprise was led by an at least semi-enlightened Jonathan Archer. To be sure, the characters act more civilized on ENT than on DIS. However, and this is the point I have been trying to make all along, that doesn't mean they acted as superior, enlightened beings. They kidnapped people (Stratagem). They ruthlessly deserted peopl in need to get to Atari Prime. Although I guess you are the ultimate arbiter of whether this is true, I actually watched the Xindi arc carefully. It was riveting TV. What I noticed though once the Xindi were defeated, Terran xenophobia reared its head immediately (see "Home," where Phlox was too afraid to go out with his shipmates). The question is, by the time of Enterprise, did prejudiced attitudes that had been cast aside by the Tim eof 200 years later, still exist?

Yes. I think a more probing question is: were they the exception and not the rule? I would like to think that even today, most folks are good at heart and it takes an ugly turn of events (such as 9/11) to bring out the most unenlightened aspects of ourselves. By Archer's time, we still reacted to traumatic events by attacking people different from us (my point, which I guess is a tangent now, about the Vulcans and Andoriams, is that although bigotry may present itself in subtler forms at later times, such behavior is universal - even, as the Trek writers tell is - across different species).

What we have been chewing over is whether Discovery shows humanity as not being as civilized as other pieces of Trek canon over the years have told us, ipse dixit, it is, or should be, and all I am saying is, it is unfair to attack the show on this basis of characters acting badder than they are "supposed" to when they have done so in EVERY Trek incarnation. "I was used to hating Klingons" Kirk said in Trek Vi )a human sentiment. How exactly was this sentiment eradicated by the time of TNG?)

There is a differnce between what Leonard Maizlish, whispering into Roddenberry's ear, says and what we are shown on the screen. The Trek powers that be can talk all they want about how conflict is gone by the 23rd century, but if we see it on the screen (as we did again and again in TOS, in movies 1-6), we see it. It is there; it is part of the canon. The writers' telling us that what we see is not the actual reality is the equivalent of interpreting a law by looking to what legislators "meant" (as evidenced in the legislative history record) as opposed to what the law actI ally says on its face (which is what a judge must look at first and foremost).

Also, and I do no write this to excuse lazy screenwriting, but not EVERY character we see on TNG is "unenlightened." Stamets, the Doctor, and Michael's roommate don't seem to act savagely. It is up for debate as to whether the events and behaviors we are witnessing on DIS are typical of humans at the time, or are atypical, either because the Lorcas of the world have exploited the opportunity of a war to push their agenda; or because the universe is a mirror universe, or for other pieces of stOrytelling yet to be told.

Finally as Jammer cautioned in his review of STID, Who Watches the Watchers, and others, trying to draw, from the actions of a mere handful of characters, what an entire society thinks, feels, or stands for, is a pointless exercise. We may be dealing with, on the Discovery, a ship that was made a warship by virtue of self-selection on the part of a few. This tells us little about what The billions of other people on Earth are like at the time-savage, perfect or otherwise, and I hope the show does give us more information going forward that allows us to get a clearer picture of where humanity at large (not humanity as represented solely by Lorca and Landry) is at
Set Bookmark
Welihall
Sat, Oct 14, 2017, 5:38pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: The Butcher's Knife Cares Not for the Lamb's Cry

Worth reading:

www.jammersreviews.com/info/ratings.php
Set Bookmark
WeliHall
Sat, Oct 14, 2017, 5:36pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: The Butcher's Knife Cares Not for the Lamb's Cry

I have been reading the latest round of comments , to find that Jammer is being attacked for not having sufficiently "explained" what his rating system is based on. I don't understand what the people who have a problem with the system are animated by. Maybe they do not like the scores given, but that fact is not grounds to attack the system as arbitrary

Please keep reviewing, Jammer, without taking to heart these calls to define what but definition can't be defined
Page 1 of 1
▲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.