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: 1,779 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 72
Set Bookmark
William B
Wed, Sep 30, 2020, 1:20pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S1: Dax

The other thing I'll add in the episode's defense is that the episode's structure is designed to highlight the ambiguity of the situation. Sisko argues that Jadzia is not responsible for Curzon's actions while simultaneously Jadzia endangers herself by honouring a promise made by Curzon, which she clearly feels responsible for. I think maybe Sisko provides true and correct but incomplete arguments which Jadzia's own actions belie. Kind of interesting.
Set Bookmark
William B
Tue, Sep 29, 2020, 11:50am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Ship in a Bottle

@Mpondaj, I like that theory. I'm not sure it entirely fits (e.g. I think Moriarty would have been able to provide the illusion for the Countess without needing to trap Picard et al., if he knew it was an illusion), but it's something to think about.
Set Bookmark
William B
Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 3:34pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S2: Tribunal

I agree that the courtroom scenes in this episode is definitely structured a comedy. IMO it basically plays like a Ferengi episode -- the bizarre, upside-down rules of the Cardassian system play out similarly to the way that Ferengi society runs, where the society has seized on certain ideals to such a strong extent that lots of common sense gets inverted, and then that leads (hypothetically) to yuks. I mentioned this above, though I think I was too harsh in my rating. What's interesting is that while the Cardassian system is heavily satirized, and we don't have any Cardassians in this episode we are meant to take seriously, I think we are meant to see O'Brien in a dramatic light. I think this owes a lot to Kafka's "The Trial" (and maybe Orson Welles' movie adaptation of it), or "Brazil," the everyman in a crazy, incomprehensible system.
Set Bookmark
William B
Wed, Sep 9, 2020, 1:28pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S1: Encounter at Farpoint

@Jason and Peter,

I agree in general with your respective comments on this episode, which I appreciate more over time. I think what I'd say is that it makes many interesting choices, many of which don't come off (Crosby as you mention), but some of which do. The scale of Q's putting mankind on trial is really ambitious, and while there is a lot of silliness in the courtroom and in the actual "test," this gets points for tackling such a big topic, and Stewart and De Lancie really sell it (even if, as mentioned, Stewart's performance is a bit at odds with the eventual characterization).
Set Bookmark
William B
Tue, Sep 1, 2020, 11:30am (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S1: Charlie X

This discussion reminds me of this exchange from Plan 9 From Outer Space (substitute gender for generation gap):

Lieutenant John Harper: Modern women.
Colonel Tom Edwards: They've been like that all down through the ages. Especially in a spot like this.
Set Bookmark
William B
Sat, Aug 29, 2020, 4:54pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S5: Rapture

(I already regret getting Involved, I realize. I sweat as I wonder who has found my self-insert fanfic, and whether the het or slash will be easier to discover.)
Set Bookmark
William B
Sat, Aug 29, 2020, 4:46pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S5: Rapture

@Trent et al

I'm pretty sure I'm closer politically to you than others but

"Mikey was making a rape joke. He thought the actress was worth forcing into sex, even if it meant spending the rest of Voyager's journey back to earth, in the brig. Hence Booming's objection, which people reflexively ignored ("Don't police what we say!")."

The episode Mikey was commenting on is one where Harry breaks Starfleet law by having consensual sex not approved by his CO. Your read is not impossible but it did not occur to me that this statement was any more than that he would be willing to suffer a worse punishment than Harry for the same (consensual) act.
Set Bookmark
William B
Tue, Aug 25, 2020, 10:34pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S5: Rapture

@Peter,

We're getting somewhere! (Or, maybe you and Elliott aren't, but....)

I agree with you both that it's a cool idea to show that a religion has a factual basis, and further that there are interesting potential sci-fi ideas there (2001, e.g.). I also think that this *does* appear to be a lot of what's going on in "Emissary" in particular.

This maybe ties into Trent's suggestion that the Piller era of the show dealt with religion in a bit of a different way than the later seasons, but: one of the things that's interesting is, and I might be misremembering, but in "Emissary," Sisko had an encounter with something interesting via Opaka, was given the Orb, and then got Dax to study it, and then they went to investigate, and then found the wormhole. What's significant about this is that Sisko, in this scenario, is someone who can rely on, and balance, Opaka and Dax, and it's because of *both* the traditional/religious and the novel/scientific approaches that he is able to make contact with the "gods." This is also part of what makes "Emissary" feel like it's reaching for both a religious experience and for something that fits into a material conception of the world. Even there, the highly rationalistic Dax is left in the cold and unable to contact the WAs (they literally have completely different experiences inside the wormhole, possibly because only Sisko is sufficiently open to them). This conception of Sisko as the one able to reach them *because* he is able to balance different worlds is a very cool one.

However, future episodes, as most of us seem to agree on, just have the secular Federation characters appear to be idiots, who have nothing to bring to the table. It's not even that they are shown to be wrong in a way that is fair to secular people: they are just wrong because they stubbornly refuse to see the evidence before them. Now you are right that initially there is only Sisko's word to go on, so maybe for a little while it would make sense, but still, I don't get the sense that anyone ever doubts Sisko's communication with them or that they are nonlinear, or whatever, they just refuse to accept it. I also really agree with Elliott that having direct contact with their gods, at least on occasion, should have transformed Bajoran society more fully, at least some of the time.

I think Elliott's position in part is that he is arguing that the *good things* about religion, as it is practiced today, relies on distance, on it being specifically about the parts of life that are not explicable, at least not currently. IIRC, he's said he volunteers for local religious institutions and his husband is religious (or something? sorry!) and so while he's an atheist and all, I don't think he's as contemptuous of religion as he is sometimes accused of, but understands religion primarily through the lens that it is about what is intangible, etc. What is *lost* in bringing gods back down to earth, so to speak, in finding that belief is no longer required about certain aspects, albeit not all? Maybe nothing, or very little, or maybe a lot. Don't meet your heroes, kid: what if they're not who you think you are. ("What does God need with a space ship?")
Set Bookmark
William B
Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 3:50pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S5: Rapture

@Peter,

That interpretation is fine, except that again in your interpretation, as I understand it, there's a big gulf between how the Bajorans and the Prophets see these things. As far as I understand it, the Bajorans believe that the Prophets "will them" to do certain things, go to temple, break up if visions tell them to, do djarras or not do djarras, etc. The thing I was articulating is not so much whether the Prophets care about any particular point as whether or not the Bajorans are wildly projecting all sorts of things onto them, or are currently interpreting what behaviours they are "supposed" to do; who is it that decides these things; etc. It's not that these issues are never addressed at all, but it seems like the issues of whether the Prophets are real, whether they can really "see the future," whether they have a plan for Bajor, whether the plan is worth following, whether it's their will that Kira and Odo break up, etc. all get tossed together all the time. I don't mind that the Prophets are mysterious, but I can't even really figure out why Bajorans believe what they do, and at what point they have any evidence at all that the Prophets actually want them to do x or y and at what point it's just a vague faith, and even there the difference between "I have faith that the Prophets exist," "I have faith that the Prophets have a plan," "I have faith that the Prophets' plan is worth following," and "I have faith that whatever I 'believe' is the Prophets' plan is in fact the Prophets' plan" is pretty huge.

@Elliott,

I admit in spite of your quoting both sections I didn't even catch Winn's throwing Kira's remark back at her. It's more of a meow than I remembered.
Set Bookmark
William B
Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 12:07pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S5: Rapture

@Elliott (cont'd)

"Wow. What an fucking clumsy and lazy line. Poor Kira is apparently tasked with the chore of filling in the gaps for the audience. Bitchwhore interrupts (apologising) Kira's latest episode of “everything that happens confirms my bias for my religion” for a private word with her. See, since Sisko discovered the lost city, Bitchwhore has realised that she is on the wrong side of the religious conflict, at least as far as this supports her own power. While she's being motivated by a desire to align herself with what the Bajoran people accept as gospel for her own ends, I don't think she's feigning this contrition. I think she sincerely believes herself to be destined to be the Kai and is trying to make up for past actions which now jeopardise this. Federation membership is a threat to her power, but if she opposes The Sisko, she'll lose it anyway. Her best hope is to follow him and make the best of it. But she definitely doesn't miss an opportunity to Karen:

WINN: Those of you who were in the Resistance, you're all the same. You think you're the only ones who fought the Cardassians, that you saved Bajor singlehandedly. Perhaps you forget, Major, the Cardassians arrested any Bajoran they found teaching the word of the Prophets. I was in a Cardassian prison camp for five years and I can remember each and every beating I suffered. And while you had your weapons to protect you, all I had was my faith and my courage. Walk with the Prophets, child. I know I will.

Meow."

I think I get what you are saying, and it's hard to take Winn seriously after we've seen her scheming, assassination plans, etc., but I think the "meow/Karen" stuff is not quite in keeping with the "I was beaten daily for five years" content of Winn's speech. I think we're meant to see her as sincere here, and if she's laying on a passive-aggressive guilt trip, it's based on real suffering she experienced, rather than how I understand the Karen meme stuff.

I like what you write about the "Close Encounters" stuff. I don't think Sisko needs to *completely* abandon his loved ones, like the protag at the end of CEot3K, but certainly the episode suggests this will drive a wedge between him and Jake and Kassidy. I'm not sure that this episode itself does much wrong on this point though -- Sisko is not allowed to "go on the space ship" at the end because Jake forces him not to, and Sisko forgives him for the moment because there's nothing else that can be done. I guess we know how the rest of the series will go, but even without that, it doesn't appear to me from this that the story of story of Sisko's alienation from his family because of his spiritual experience is *finished*, but rather interrupted, and possible to be taken up again in the future. Both his family and his spiritual experience are still present, to different degrees, but he's been forced back to the family plane.

SPOILERS: I do think that the series makes things too easy for Sisko, by, e.g., having Jake fully 100% on board with Sisko being willing to kill him in The Reckoning, by the vagueness about Sisko's abandonment in What You Leave Behind because of Avery Brooks' refusal to have Sisko be fully-abandoning. But I don't know that the *interruption* in this episode necessarily had to be the story's end.
Set Bookmark
William B
Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 11:46am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S5: Rapture

@Elliott,

"I should note that this is the best explanation I can come up with, but it still doesn't actually make sense, annoyances with this cynical view of the Federation aside, because the Federation expends a lot of resources *helping* Bajor recover its self--sustenance and lost artefacts and establishing doomed colonies and whatnot. It's not really possible to reconcile that fact with the notion that Bajor's admittance will somehow make the Federation better able to survive a coming war, which means the whole train of logic pretty much falls of the rails anyway."

Well, you get to it later, but the cynical explanation is that they want the wormhole.

"Well, no. First we have to have a gag with Quark and Worf that returns us to the subject of root beer. B- on that one. Here's an interesting Freudian slip. The written script has this line:

DAX: As far as I'm concerned, the Federation should accept a new member every week."

At first I thought the Freudian slip you were describing was that frequently-horny Dax had another idea about what kind of "member" should be "admitted."

Maybe more later.

@Peter,

I get what you're saying, and it's certainly possible this is what the writers (etc.) were going for. I have a hard time with that because it does seem to me that Elliott is correct about the way the story bobs and weaves, going in and out of the difference between believing in the Prophets as existing, believing in the Prophets as having moral authority, believing in the Prophets having a plan, believing that any random humanoid claiming to be a representative of the Prophets actually speaks for them, etc., in a way that I don't find particularly comprehensible. To take an example, the Prophets as we see them in Emissary seem to be almost completely unable to comprehend humanoid, mortal, linear-time life, and don't show much evidence of having particular interest in Bajor. I'm not saying that we need to take what they show us at face value, but that they seem so completely alien that Sisko has to explain basic concepts to them should at least be discussed at some point, if whether their will should be trusted, or can even be understood by linear time mortals, is a question to ask about them that seems so rarely at the nub of it.

There are so many questions that I have: did they deliberately send the orbs to do what they are doing? Did they deliberately want the Bajorans to have d'jarras or was that just Bajorans being Bajorans? Do they care about Bajorans, and, if so, why? Do they want Opaka to stay with the Battle Lines people? Do they control the orb visions or are they kinds of space drugs? Does one have to do everything "they say" or is it possible to select out some parts of what they say or not? When they are apparently taught by a mortal, as with Sisko (or with Quark), does this retroactively affect their past behaviour from the outside-the-wormhole perspective, because of their nonlinearity? How do we know then that their earlier-from-our-perspective actions, if they did indeed take any actions at all, come from the place of higher rather than lesser understanding? Is Bareil or Kira more correct about what the Prophets *want*, when they sincerely disagree, and what is their evidence, if any? Did the Prophets have "an opinion" about the Occupation or is that just Bajorans projecting beliefs onto them? How frequently do the Prophets actually will the things Bajorans attribute to them? (Do the Prophets have anything to say about real life faith, or is it a weird alien thing?) Now of course some of these are addressed sometimes -- Sisko's angry smashing the tablet because the Prophets' will is so vague is an example of such. But much of the time I just lose track of what anyone is really saying. That might be more about me than the show.
Set Bookmark
William B
Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 12:02pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S3: Macrocosm

Now I can't wait to find out about the EAF for EAF (Encounter at Farpoint).
Set Bookmark
William B
Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 9:59am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S3: The Q and the Grey

"I was referring to the difference in Picard's attitude about saving innocent lives with the power of the Q. In "True Q," he implores Q to save Planet Climate Change. It isn't about undoing something Q had done to them like in "Q who," it's about getting a freebee."

Oh right, good point, I forgot about that.
Set Bookmark
William B
Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 2:45pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S3: The Q and the Grey

@Peter,

I agree about the heteronormativity issue, definitely.

What you say is true, but I'd argue a step further. As science-fiction this has nothing at all to say and makes no sense at all. As myth, it has little to say and makes little sense. It appears to be tackling issues involving breakdown of society, decadence and meaninglessness leading to conflict and war, the transformative power of a messiah figure. As Elliott alludes to, messiahs are frequently demigods in some way (in some interpretations); what's unusual about this one is that the demigod is meant to rearrange the world of the gods and not of the mortals. Or something. It's incoherent and balderdash, but except for the take-home tip that supernovae are cool but rare, what the episode appears to be at least attempting to or trying to say are mythic issues rather than SF ones (nothing really about technology, the practicalities of life in space, etc.). This may seem like a narrow definition of sci-fi which can talk about all sorts of things, but I guess what I am getting at is that I don't detect very much in the episode's themes that means it works *more* in the sci-fi realm than in the mythic one, except that it has a space ship in it.

It's all moot anyway, because the episode is bad no matter what kind of story it is. I guess I just wanted to say why the ludicrious biology itself doesn't bother me particularly in the morass of things that do.
Set Bookmark
William B
Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 2:12pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S3: The Q and the Grey

I'm reading a translation of "The Odyssey" right now, so that's maybe influencing my reaction, but in any case, a god(like being) offering the captain safe passage home on her long journey in exchange for sex does feel more mythic than science-fiction, and maybe should be judged as such.
Set Bookmark
William B
Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 2:09pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S3: The Q and the Grey

@Elliott,

Glad to see you back and can't wait for "Rapture."

"As I mentioned in the “Death Wish” review, that script reconciled the disparities between “Hide and Q” and “True Q” in as best a way as it could, as far as I can imagine, by retaining the character development for de Lancie Q and ignoring the inconsistent portrayal of Picard as the moral compass in both stories."

I don't necessarily disagree that there's an inconsistency there, but to defend the distinct portrayal of Picard: Riker is a human adult -- and Picard's officer -- upjumped to a Q. Amanda is an apparently human teenager exchange student, born Q. While the metaphors are not too different, and I think Picard would advocate for Amanda to give humanity a try, that Amanda might be distinct, non-human in nature might be unavoidable, and is somewhat beyond Picard's purview in a way identifying what is right for Riker isn't. More generally, Picard *knows* that Riker is not a Q, and that Q is grafting powers (and identity) beyond Riker's ability to handle. He doesn't *know* that with Amanda. All he can do is make the case for humanity and leave the choice to her -- similar to, e.g., how he deals with Worf (as a person, not as an officer), telling him that he values Worf's human qualities while also recognizing that how Worf views his own heritage is only Picard's business so far.

@ Peter,

I agree that QPid is fun and dumb, which gives it the edge over this one.

"That much is fine, as all it's saying is that particular conditions would have to be met to produce a new energy being that wasn't just a copy of a previous one. But trying to map that onto *human* male/female jumps the shark so badly that they may as well have suggested that since Janeway is "female" she could mate with a "male" HDMI cable. It's idiocy on the order of Threshold and Macrocosm. Ok, ok, I don't want to be mean, nothing is as dumb as Macrocosm."

I think it depends whether we're talking Trek-as-sci-fi or Trek-as-myth in SF guise. Humans mate with immortal gods in myth all the time, and there is a lot of precedent for weaving in and out of more myth/fantasy elements, particularly going back to TOS.

Within universe, I might be forgetting something but I don't think Q actually cares that Janeway is a woman, so much as that he's interested in her because of her involvement in "Death Wish," and has some kind of super-high-tech means of incorporating aspects of Janeway's human DNA into the Qenome in some way that would make sense, but which are beyond our understanding.

I think this episode is terrible, so I'm not trying to mount too much of a defense of it, more just that I think the episode is playing off different storytelling precedents for what it's talking about, regarding the "biology" in play.
Set Bookmark
William B
Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 12:26pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: The Drumhead

@Peter, I was thinking something very similar.
Set Bookmark
William B
Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 10:34am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

@wolfstar, that makes sense to me re: Voyager. I think that viewing the show as a Sirkish self-aware melodrama enhances it. It reminds me that Angel/Firefly writer Tim Minear has said that he and Whedon had discussed the Mutant Enemy (Buffy/Angel/Firefly/etc.) house style as being Sirkish, stylized, colourful, grandiose, a bit cheeky, and that's another set of shows with a big queer following.

In terms of classic Hollywood movies with a queer following, I was just thinking about Suddenly, Last Summer and I can somewhat imagine the Voyager-era Melgrew, Ryan and Picardo in the Hepburn, Taylor and Clift roles. I'd sure like to see that.

It will probably come up at some point in the discussions surrounding Elliott's commentary (when he gets back to it), but the differing responses to Voyager are probably worthwhile to check into. I feel like I'm kind of on the edge of appreciating Voyager's pleasures and being put off by its numerous, well-documented (c.f. Jammer's reviews, Ron Moore essay, etc.) flaws.

@James,

"In the first episode of Lower Decks, we have a disease turning people into bile-spewing zombies, and a giant spider which attacks a crew member. For what purpose? Presumably to acquaint us with the crew. That doesn't make it a good use of the sci-fi premise. There's no reason it couldn't have been done in the Stargate or Firefly or Battlestar universe, or any other fictional universe."

I don't know about Stargate, but I can't see this happening in Firefly or Battlestar (at least the modern iteration), at least not in the way it sounds. I guess if it's a specifically engineered virus (by the Alliance or by the Cylons) and a...robot giant spider, maybe, but both of those universes were deliberately excavated of alien elements and tended not to do the "wacky disease" trope too much. Both are precedentedly Trekkish though, which is not to say that they are good Trek tropes.
Set Bookmark
William B
Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 11:03am (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S1: Fortunate Son

@Jason, Focksbot:

FWIW, the species Picard describes as anarchists in Allegiance are not Nausicaans but the Chalnoth, who do look like Nausicaans but are distinct. I think it's in Tapestry that Nausicaans proper are introduced.

Anyway I think you both make good points. Here's my take. Generally speaking, when a species is *introduced* to be a long-running, sympathetic species (or specifically for a long-running, sympathetic *character*), they are usually made up to be mostly friendly, like the Bajorans, Betazoids (their irises are black), Ocampa or Trill when their appearance was rebooted for DS9. Notably in all four cases I just referenced, the reason is partly not to hide the recurring female actor's attractiveness (more specifically Michelle Forbes than Nana Visitor when Bajorans were introduced). With Denobulans and Talaxians, there is a kind of friendly clownishness to the makeup, befitting weirdo quasi-comic relief types (Phlox are more varied character than Neelix though). Data and Odo are characters with Outsider-y limited makeup that marks their difference but I'm not sure if it makes them *ugly* exactly, though maybe with Odo somewhat.

Spock/Vulcans are a special case because TOS makeup was so limited that although the Vulcan ears and eyebrows seem pretty tame now, I think Spock was being made to look almost devilish within the confines of what was plausible to do for a regular. Really I don't think Vulcan make-up is any less off-putting in TOS than Klingon makeup, and most of the species just looked either like regular humans or like disembodied props. And when they looked ugly it was often a case like the Gorn or the Horta where the eventual point is that the humans misjudged them. TOS is probably the least guilty of this type of thing, in conclusion.

What is interesting to me is that Trek does eventually uphold the values where "ugly" alien makeup eventually does not interfere with supporting characters, but it's usually in "second generation" versions. The Klingons (makeup introduced in TMP), Cardassians, Ferengi, and Borg were introduced as adversaries and have frightening appearances. But then eventually Worf, Garak, Quark, and Hugh (Seven's full Borg makeup is ditched almost immediately so I'm not counting her) come along with the same makeup and become essentially lovable figures who are largely aligned with (or *are*) our heroes, if not on every point. I do think that some effort was made to keep adjusting Worf's makeup to make him look a bit better, but I don't think his fundamental non-human-ness was taken away from his appearance. So Trek kind of falls down when these races are introduced, but the effort to eventually rehabilitate at least individuals (and sometimes whole societies) means that eventually we look past their off-putting appearance.
Set Bookmark
William B
Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 10:38am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

@ONTP, sure. It's good to talk about things, respectfully. I just meant that it's expecting a lot for someone to explain others' reactions, or a lot for a Discovery fan to explain why Discovery non-fans dislike it so much. But I think anything is largely fair game to discuss.
Set Bookmark
William B
Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 11:09am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

@OTDP,

"I'm serious about this. I would really love to know how Nu Trek fans explain this situation. I mean, what, do they *really* believe that these fans are just a bunch of grumpy narcissist ninnies?"

Without getting into the specifics of your conversation with Tim C, I wanted to comment on this point. I understand your concern about fans of the current Trek era who dismiss all fans who reject the current era as wrong. That said, personally, I think it is asking a lot for anyone to "explain" these huge demographic trends. I've been fans of unpopular things before (of seasons etc. that turned many, possibly a plurality of fans off) and putting the burden on the proponent to *explain* why everyone else dislikes it (and, by extension, why they like it) is not that pleasant for the proponent, in my experience. Probably some are up to the challenge of finding a judicious way to explain why the work they like has pissed so many people off, but it's a tall order IMO. While it'd be good to find out if someone *does* have an explanation, I think in general fans of something aren't the best people to talk to about why other people don't like it, and (again IMO) that's okay.

For what it's worth, I'm not a "Nu Trek" fan. I haven't seen much of the Kurtzmann era and I didn't much enjoy what I saw. (I also didn't make it far into Enterprise back in the day.)
Set Bookmark
William B
Fri, Jul 17, 2020, 10:08am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

"when they decided to name a black female lead character Michael"

IIRC, Bryan Fuller said about his lead female character Jaye in Wonderfalls something to the effect that he deliberately gave his female leads male names because he found that it was too difficult to get into a female character's head if she had a female name (?). I think BF gave his female Discovery lead the male name Michael for a similar reason, before parachuting out of the show. I guess it's sort of a compromise position because it suggests that on some level Fuller has to trick himself into thinking he's writing a male lead, but also wants to have more female leads.
Set Bookmark
William B
Fri, Jul 17, 2020, 10:00am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

"Kurtzman has said his favorite TOS episode of all is “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” which I don’t see how that could genuinely be someone’s favorite episode but I could see why some people would want others to THINK it was their favorite"

I'm not exactly trying to defend Kurtzmann's Trek bona fides here too much but FWIW a friend of mine, one of the first people I talked to about Star Trek back in the day, and a kind of weirdo not overly concerned with appearing conventional or woke, identified that as his favourite TOS episode. No accounting for taste and all, it's certainly not my favourite but I think it's an episode with some striking and memorable images and moments.
Set Bookmark
William B
Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 2:42pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

@Jason, agreed. And your examples, Whedon and Breaking Bad (Vince Gilligan in general), some Marvel, are pretty much what I was thinking. I agree that it's unlikely this will be those things.
Set Bookmark
William B
Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 11:40am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

For what it's worth, the Lower Decks animated series idea does have potential, IMO. It's a good opportunity to imagine everyday life in the Trek future while dealing with smaller scale problems. The lighter tone also seems appropriate. What I think the show should be would be to emphasize diversity of being, philosophy, and problem solving approaches while doing Trekky research. The emphasis would be on what different people value in Starfleet, why they joined, what they hope to get out of it, how they solve small scale problems and conflicts in more enlightened ways, and how they manage being in an environment where crazy and dangerous things happen over which they have very little decision making power, but, presumably, still some input. I think it could be helpful to explore what it means to be an everyday person in a sometimes bewildering time, and having a limited but important role to play rather than being one of the decision makers. And tech going haywire, etc. can be part of the fun. I'm, to be clear, not optimistic that this will be the focus.
Next ►Page 1 of 72
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2020 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. See site policies.