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: 359 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 15
Set Bookmark
Aaron Edwards
Sat, Oct 26, 2019, 4:09pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: The Motion Picture

An ambitious misfire, this film is the closest to Gene Roddenberry’s vision but also one of the more boring entries in the series. The film desperately wants to be the Star Trek version of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but ends up feeling lost and ponderous. Skipping it wouldn’t hurt your viewing experience, but if you like ambitious and existential sci-fi you might find some enjoyment here.
Set Bookmark
Brad Hinds
Tue, Jul 2, 2019, 9:05pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Wars: The Last Jedi

LOST was an astonishing television series. Probably the most ambitious since the turn of the century and certainly one of the very best. I was initially very caught up in the sweeping mysteries of that show, but it was around season 5 and 6 where that changed. I remember going into the series finale just wanting to see what would happen to those characters - answers to questions be damned. I wasn't disappointed and I've never been as moved by a piece of fiction in any medium. Lindelof and Cuse cop a lot of crap (the former in particular even though he's produced equally incredible work such as The Leftovers), but I loved how they ran LOST from start to finish and wouldn't change anything for the world.
Set Bookmark
MidshipmanNorris
Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 7:16am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

I've been reading the comments on Discovery as I have watched it unfold, on and off, and thinking back, there are two major problems that seem to keep cropping up, when people are dissatisfied with this show.

First, the character of Michael Burnam, as played by Sonequa Martin-Greene.
---
Sonequa Martin-Greene may or may not be a good actress (I haven't seen her in anything else). In this show, her character comes off as robotic, forced, and not worthy of all the heaping praise and attention that she is getting from the entirety of the story. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that it's possible SMG herself despises the writing of this show, and is basically phoning it in, because she has an attitude of it being unsalvagable. I'm guessing her opinion of where the character seems like she should go, development-wise, is being paid lip service by a money-hungry Hollywood Type (not naming any names, not the least of which reasons is I don't know who's driving this thing). She is trying to do something memorable with writing that is unimpressive and uninspiring to her. If I were to hazard a guess.

The problem is that Burnham's character being the focal point of such a story basically _does_ come off as the kind of 'shoe-horning*' of a long-lost family member into an established fantasy world's setting that amateur fan-fiction does all the time, usually so that the writer themself can have an 'avatar' in the story through which they end up writing a romantic encounter with the character in the story whom has attracted their amorous urges.

That doesn't happen here, but I'm guessing some several sequences were re-written**. And yes, for those of you whom are keeping track of this comments section, the typical term for such an 'author avatar that doesn't technically belong in the setting but is forced in' is a "Mary Sue." I'm not calling Michael Burnam a Mary Sue, but I am saying that the way this story (Seasons 1 and 2 of Disco) was written raises a lot of those red flags. I am, in essence, saying that Disco comes off as amateur fan-fiction without any real direction or focus, beyond "Michael Burnham goes to SPACE and does SPACE STUFF with her stepbrother, Mr. Spock."

*A shoe-horn is a metal device which stretches out the heel of a shoe a bit, so that a person can fit their foot into a shoe which is not quite large enough for it.

**I'm kidding.
---
Secondly, there is the problem of the haphazard writing and logical inconsistencies that are being machine-gunned out of the writing room left and right.
---
Look, I am not anywhere near anal-retentive enough to sit there and say "If every detail of everyone everything is saying doesn't logically fit with every detail of everything everyone's said in every previous episode, then this is crap." That is way too extreme for me, I just want a night of entertainment once a week that takes my intelligence seriously. ST:Disco does not do that. I am not sure if ST:Disco is capable of taking anyone's intelligence seriously.

The two words which best seem to describe its attitude towards continuity are "who" and "cares." (note: I care, Disco.) ST:Disco wants you to turn off your brain, stop thinking about things, and just watch the show as it is fed to you on a spoon, seemingly being buzzed through the air by a Hollywood Studio Suit making biplane propeller noises. I am insulted. I haven't got a clue why they think this is going to help build the brand's reputation.

I really feel like the two problems here are related. Michael Burnham is a weak character, being written transparently as this Great Unsung Federation Hero Who Is Big Surprise Spock's Stepsister. Such a weakness (having a weak piece of writing at the center) sucks everyone's enthusiasm for keeping the integrity of the storytelling intact right out the nearest airlock.

Intellectual interest in intricate storytelling seems all but extinct from the Star Trek Writer's Room. I am not saying they aren't any good at writing (to be honest they'd have to be pretty good at it to make all this insanity seem like it fits together), I'm saying that nobody on this team is allowed to ask the question of Mr. Big Time Hollywood Guy (again not naming names) "What's the idea? How will this story be interesting? What's the draw?"

I very much sense that Star Trek's Production Team is run similarly to a Fascist Dictatorship at this point, where anyone who questions the leader is suddenly disappeared, and never heard from again, and never allowed to be mentioned again by anyone who wants to keep their situation intact.

I wouldn't take such a job, myself (to quote Gillian Taylor) "for all the tea in China."

At any rate, to conclude this, I will say that ST:Disco is a beautiful piece of tripe. Just lovely VFX, guys. Amazing action sequences, great martial arts choreography. No brain.

Whoever is driving this show, relieve them of command. Commodore Matt Decker, anyone?
Set Bookmark
MidshipmanNorris
Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 1:31am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic

... Reading all this stuff you guys are saying about the plot holes in this show has me doing what is described in this TV Tropes article.

Gosh. It's actually disturbing how desperate I am for new Star Trek. I am willing to simply turn off my brain and completely look over mounds upon mounds of hackjob writing, just so I can feel good about this show.

It is a big realization to come to that I am in this kind of vehement denial. The irrational human thought process goes like this:

Premise A: "I like good shows."
Premise B: "Star Trek is a good show."

Therefore, Conclusion C: "I like Star Trek."

By Corallary:

Premise A: "I like Star Trek."
Premise B: "Star Trek: Discovery isn't good."

Therefore, Conclusion C: "Star Trek: Discovery must be better than I think it is, because I like Star Trek."

I don't want it to be bad. But it is. It's awful. It's boring. It's contrived. It's heavy-handed with its speechifying and morality. It's cheesy. It's dumbed-down. It's an absolute mess of logical wrongness. It's ridiculous, the dried, fly-eaten carcass of a Science Fiction show that once pushed boundaries.

I don't think Star Trek deserves for me to like it anymore. Discovery actually makes me look back at all the years I've watched Star Trek, cared about Star Trek, and thought about Star Trek, and I feel like I've been wasting my time. The end result of it all was that Star Trek eventually aged to the point where it was no longer relevant.

Star Trek is dead, Jim.
Set Bookmark
MidshipmanNorris
Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 8:41pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

Don't want to spoil too much. But I feel better now.

The cockamamie fish story ended with a decent catch. Ok, Discovery. You've got my vote.

Carry on, keep me informed.
Set Bookmark
MidshipmanNorris
Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 7:15pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 1

You know, I feel like crap right now. I've just taken on a new job which starts very early in the morning, have a difficult personal romantic situation going on, have had something tantamount to a total upheaval of my personal life in the time since Discovery first aired, and further, I am not getting younger (I'm 37, I'm not old).

I feel bad. I feel emotionally, mentally, and physically bad. I feel like 10 pounds of bantha fodder in a 5 pound bag.

This is why I watch Star Trek. I don't follow many current "TV" shows. I can list them offhand right now, in fact.

- Castlevania.
- Star Trek: Discovery.
- Dragonball Z Abridged.
- Game Grumps.

That's literally it. I am fairly interested in the MCU (having been a Marvel Comics fan since childhood), and fairly interested in how the end of the Star Wars Saga is going to play out.

But returning to my original point. Entertainment through fiction is meant to be used by it's consumer to salve those bad feelings generated by dissatisfaction with one's 'real life,' as the colloquialism goes.

So, regardless of any other factors (technology details being consistent with the rest of Star Trek as it's been presented, for one thing), the question I am asking myself tonight, on the 30 minute eve of the Season 2 Finale of ST:Discovery, is:

"Why am I watching this?"

I want to be transported (sorry if that sounds like a clunky pun) out of my 'real life' predicaments and worries, into a fantastical universe, so that I can mentally disengage from them for a while. Does Star Trek: Discovery do this?

Yes and no. See, I used to watch the older Star Treks (TOS, TNG, and to a lesser extent DS9 and VOY) to do this for myself. But around the time DS9 came out, I began to feel my interest in that waver. I was reaching adulthood, and that was consuming a lot of my mental faculties. I had taken up music, was looking at my very own high school experience, discovering girls (have kissed many, Bill Shatner, thanks)...I was 'getting a life.'

I didn't care for much of Voyager, didn't find the DS9 Finale satisfying at all, and as for ENT... well... er. Yeah. It just came off as a dumbed-down version of everything that came before it.

Watered-down sequel to TNG on the Silver Screen after watered-down Sequel to TNG on the Silver Screen came and went, and I generally stopped being interested in Star Trek for a time. Then Star Trek (2009) happened, and I felt a brief resurgence in the level of interest I had in it. Then ST:ID came out, and those who recall how I came to be at Jammer's Reviews will perhaps recall my impassioned defense of the movie. I have since gone back and re-watched it a few times, and found many people's criticisms of it to be quite valid.

I haven't finished watching Star Trek: Beyond, and probably will not.

...I can feel my interest in Star Trek sagging again. This feels like the era in which Star Trek: Voyager came around. Except that this time, I am no longer a teenager on the brink of adulthood... I am smack in the middle (pun intended) of Middle Age.

"How do I feel? ... ... ... Old. Worn out."

~ Adm. James Kirk, TWOK

SO, returning to the question I posed earlier, does Star Trek Discovery transport me out of my life's worries and problems for a time, to get lost in a fantastical world? Technically it does.

But it does so in a way that makes me see the seams of it's shoddily constructed plot. [TNG SPOILERS ALERT] At what point do I feel like I'm watching Picard finally realizing that the Borg Cube is going to destroy his ship, and calling out to Q for help? At what point do I feel like I'm watching the Dowg from "The Survivors" explaining why he has recreated his home on this war-ravaged planet? At what point do I feel like I'm watching Juliana Tainor fall into a subterrainean ravine, only to be discovered by Data with electrical diodes sticking out of her head? At what point do I feel like I'm watching Picard prove that humans are mortal and not Gods in "Who Watches The Watchers?"

No doubt there are many moments of shocking dramatic reveals which climacticize the plot arc of many Star Trek episodes throughout the series' long history. At what point does ST:Discovery do that?

At this point, this point right now. In 17 minutes, the last episode of Season 2 will go live on CBS All Access. If it does not thrill me, if it does not give me a satisfying conclusion to this off-the-rails, kick-the-can-down-the-road cockamamie fish story, then I fear my interest in Star Trek will have to be put in cryostasis until they find a cure for boring.

Please, for the love of Kahless, do not make me feel like I've wasted my time watching your show. That's all I ask, Discovery.
Set Bookmark
MidshipmanNorris
Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 10:59pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 1

-_-

I hate to be *emotional* about it, but I am sad to see Trek sunk to such a miserably low level of writing quality. It's like seeing the ruinous wasteland left over from a forgotten age.

There is no way Gene Coon would have let things like this go past the editor, literally no way. Star Trek: Discovery is what Georgi La Forge would describe as a "blurry after image" of a Star Trek show, speaking strictly from a writing cohesion standpoint, and I'm talking about both the quality of the dialogue and the overall plotting of the story.

"I'm very disturbed by what has just happened here."

~ Capt. Katherine Janeway

I don't even think I want to try to go into detail about everything I find wrong with what has happened here. Right around the time someone said "Temporal Cold War" the writing of Trek has focused less and less on ideas for episodes that would be good watched on their own, thus good for a rewatch, turning watching these episodes into a kind of hobby.

I have no desire to watch this show again, after I've seen an episode. None. I couldn't care less anymore what it has to say or about any characters I didn't care about before this show existed. The show devotes SO MUCH time to characters that are not creations of this series, and so little time to it's own creations (Owesekun and Kayla, and POOR AIRIAM!!) that it all comes off as (as Leonard Nimoy speaking with William Shatner about 'Wrath of Khan' in Star Trek Movie Memories) "an acting out of a clause that was in someone's contract" (He was speaking about the death of Spock in WoK, about how it was moved to the end of the movie after the leak, and why it made a better film out of it...it could have been Nick Meyer or Harve Bennett who said it, don't remember).

They aren't spending the time developing the characters that they kill off, and they are wasting copious amounts of time developing characters whom are not as good at expressing those developments as the supporting cast is at expressing the developments to theirs. I don't like the main characters, and I don't feel moved by their "Interesting Story To Tell Someone If We Ever Get Hitched." The only way the show can move on is if they are gotten rid of, and to be honest, their characters are too central to the plot arc for it to continue being interesting without them.

Not only do I not find the journey entertaining, the only way forward seems like it will be depressingly badly written. And that's the worst part of watching ST:DISCO, is that is is bleak and overserious about the ongoing arc. You don't even see "threats to the entirety of existence" in Star Wars, which most people have generally agreed is not typically as narattively parsed as Star Trek has been. More sweepingly operatic and certainly a lot more colorful and action-packed, yes. But Star Trek was always more on the "Twilight Zone" "Forbidden Planet" "Songs of Distant Earth" side of Sci-Fi than Star Wars (which calls back to Buck Rodgers, Arthurian Legend and so forth).

The most common way of expressing this idea is the concept of 'hard' sci-fi and 'soft' sci-fi. Hard Sci Fi is 2001: A Space Oddysey. Soft Sci Fi is He-Man And The Masters Of The Universe. Star Trek and Star Wars are both rather moderate, but with Trek being always just a tad harder Sci-Fi than Star Wars.

That hardness is buckling. Shields are down to 18%, Captain.
Set Bookmark
skye maidstone
Mon, Apr 8, 2019, 10:16am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: The Red Angel

I realise Michael is the "hero" of the show but she does seem to get away with pretty much anything. Ok she's sort of redeemed herself from mutiny. Starfleet are very forgiving and she did save the day in season 1.

But the scene with Leland when he was (for no reason I can work out) telling her about her parents... she punched him in the face a couple of times. I realise section 31 is shadey etc but it's part of Star Fleet isn't it? She punched a captain (I believe that's his rank). Surely that's another court martial.

(Ignoring the amount of times everyone completely disobeys Pike with no repercussions at all)

Doesn't seem very military at all. Enterprise which is set before Discovery had an actual chain of command at least. Even if Archer was a complete idiot sometimes people still obeyed him.

Just something that bugs me about Discovery.

Personally I thought this episode was a complete mess and I was actually bored which is rare for Discovery since it's so high speed.
Set Bookmark
MidshipmanNorris
Mon, Apr 8, 2019, 2:28am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Through the Valley of Shadows

"We made it through the black hole!"

"We're free! We're going home!"

"By Grabthar's Hammer, we live to tell the tale."

"Sir! Time knots opening all over the place!"

"Surrender may be the only option."

"No! Never give up, never surrender!"

"New orders, sir?"

[Dramatic music intensifies]

"New orders, sir?"

"Activate the OMEGA 13!"

TO BE CONTINUED
Set Bookmark
MidshipmanNorris
Mon, Apr 1, 2019, 12:52am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Perpetual Infinity

So HOLD ON LOOSELY
BUT don't let GO
If you hold to TIGHTLY
you're gonna LOSE CONTROOOOOOOOOOOOL
Set Bookmark
MidshipmanNorris
Fri, Mar 29, 2019, 12:01am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Perpetual Infinity

The Nerd Rage Is Strong With Your Cockamamie Fish Stories
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's it. I give up. I give up on Star Trek. This sucks. This story sucks.

All Discovery seems to be able or willing to do is string me along to another moment of angsty retarded drama with it's cockamamie b.s. story. This season spent all this time buidling up to finally getting Spock into the story and while he is played well by the actor, I am not buying this plotline.

1. No, 23rd century technology (like they're even trying to keep it straight anymore) should not mistake biometric readings of Michael's Mom for a biometric reading of her. No, that should not happen. That's b.s., ok?

2. The previous episode was A MESS. It was talky, confusing, and introduced 15 bajillion new plot threads, in what felt like it should have been stretched to two or three different eps. I am getting vibes of "We Are Starfleet" at the end of last season, where they rushed like mad to tie up the plotline at the end of the season. God damn it, stop, DISCO!

3. I know that this seems really single-issue wonk of me, but I will continue to reiterate that I absolutely cannot STAND Sonequa Martin-Greene's acting. She sucks. She is not getting better. She is the acting equivalent of an alarm clock clanging out the one note (emotional distress) she is meant to deliver. She has been that way since Episode 1, and they are not exploring anything else with her. Each new episode of DISCO is simply a new excuse for Michael to get agitated about something, so Sonequa Martin-Greene can look emotionally overwhelmed. I AM SICK OF IT.

4. You are stringing me along with a 'race against time' plotline, and I know it, and I don't like it, and I am sure, absolutely sure, 100% beyond a shadow of even an alternate timeline's doubt SURE, that all sentient life (if it can be called that) in this universe will NOT be destroyed at the end of the season. So shove it.
Set Bookmark
FriendshipTwo
Fri, Mar 15, 2019, 2:37pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Project Daedalus

@wolfstar

I agree with everything you wrote. Most importantly, in this episode, there were whole moments at a time where the story was so compelling that I forgot I was watching "just another episode of Star Trek." The best episodes, including "Q Who?" are just able to pull the viewer along, and the logical questions that immediately present themselves in poorly or merely decently-written episodes, only come up once the episode is over.
Set Bookmark
Birds of Canada
Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 6:50pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S3: The Vengeance Factor

My single biggest Star Trek pet peeve--preposterous one-off applications of immortality, with this episode being the second worst offender after "Battle Lines".

It can work in fantasy because magic is generally supposed to act in a purposeful way, so immortality being an integral part of some otherwise horrible package deal makes sense--trying to devise some way to get the immortality on its own while weaseling out on the rest is liable to be a dangerous and foolhardy exercise.

In sci-fi OTOH nature is generally depicted as blind to purpose or intent, so it's never going to be plausible unless you can come up with a REALLY good reason why something like that doesn't immediately get seized on and exploited out the wazoo by everybody.

"But it makes you feel numb inside" just doesn't cut it, heck for Vulcans it would actually be a selling point.
Set Bookmark
hrthsdfhdsfg
Sat, Feb 2, 2019, 2:09am (UTC -6)
Re: ORV S2: A Happy Refrain

I also hate Isaac's suit. If Data had been in that suit instead of his emotive makeup I think TNG would have been much less interesting in general since data was such a big part of TNG for me. I see it as that important. I'm hoping they find some way to simply allow Isaac to attain his human form outside of the simulator. Something akin to the upgrade VOY did for their doctor.
Set Bookmark
Mads Leonard Holvik
Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 3:55pm (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S1: Jetrel

Some hate this episode because how can Janeway welcome a mass murderer, an evil man? They argue it flies in the face of everything we know today of justice. I don't agree with that. I live in Scandinavia, and one of the principles of our justice system is that the victim's families should not decide the punishment. It is believable that Janeway keeps an open mind and actually sees a man who tries to undo some of the damage he has caused. In my mind this is the future I would like to see. I call it progress to move away from punishment to redemption. The end scene is powerful. I think this is a good episode.
Set Bookmark
MidshipmanNorris
Thu, Jan 17, 2019, 10:10pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Brother

Well, well, well. Star Trek: Discovery, you sassy bassy.

I went through the first 20-40 minutes of this episode irritated. I was sitting there saying to myself "Wow, Captain Pike. Oh, man, he's taking command and I'm supposed to be wondering if he's really evil or something. Thanks for hitting me over the head with it, DISCO. Yee haa, a Star Wars-esque dangerous flight situation, in STAR TREK. Eh. More of the same predictable crap from Season 1. Oh, the obnoxious guy who I didn't like got killed. Oh boyee, such DRAMA!!! Uh oh, is Captain Pike gonna die, I bet he isn't!"

Then, the weird robot drones. The E.T.-esque bio-containment tunnel. The stranded crew on the asteroid being kept alive by an engineer doing scientific technobabble jury-rigging....that lady, whoever it was (I don't remember her name) is the turning point where I became interested. I recognize her from somewhere. Has she been in Star Trek before?

Suddenly, Star Trek is starting to feel like Star Trek again. Pointed dialogue. Emotional reactions that convince me I'm watching a sentient being. An exciting escape sequence for Burnham that seems to reference Alien-vis-a-vis-Samus Aran. Then, Tilly, Burnham and Stamets getting all excited about discovering dark matter that they can actually use and interact with. Huh.

Collecting a sample of said dark matter. Huh. This feels like...

This feels like Star Trek.

Did Alex Kurtzman just apologize to us?

I won't spoil the ending, but suddenly, it seems there is something dire going on concerning the nightmares a certain half-human Vulcan is having recur from childhood...Now, I know lots of you folks on here devour every detail of what may be coming on the latest Trek show, but I prefer to wait and not spoil _anything_ for myself, every time.

I'm giving this episode a solid 3 MidshipmanNorris stars. This feels more like Trek to me. Bravo.
Set Bookmark
Mads Leonard Holvik
Wed, Nov 21, 2018, 2:35pm (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S5: Children of Time

I agree with those who say that Odo's action here is very unforgiving. Even if you love someone to death, would you sacrifice 8000 people for that person? I really like this episode, I especially like the scene where Worf and the klingons come to help with sowing. I do not especially care for the Odo character. He seems kind of insane. If I was Kira I would never have trusted Odo again.
Set Bookmark
MadStupid
Sun, Nov 18, 2018, 3:50am (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S3: Fascination

Peldar cringe
Set Bookmark
MidshipmanNorris
Mon, Nov 12, 2018, 3:18pm (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: General Discussion

I don't have time to read all of the comments here, but I'll give you my current perspective on Trek and Sci Fi in general, coursing through the neurons in my thinkin' noodle.

I recently read something called "The Songs of Distant Earth" by Arthur C. Clarke, and have refamiliarized myself with 2001: A Space Odyssey and 2010 as well. Both are fine movies, and the general feeling it gave me was that things like Star Wars and Star Trek are sort of capitalizing on the harder sci-fi that was being put out there in the 50's and 60's. It's a cultural thread that began with the "Space Race" between the USA and the Soviet Union, and here we are, nearly 70 years out from that whole situation, and while there hasn't been any contact from alien species and we still have yet to find a way to transport ourselves from here to another inhabitable planet, there is *just so much cool stuff to buy.*

I feel like these two series, Star Trek and Star Wars, are really kind of emotionally manipulative, hyper-expensive and incredibly long action figure commercials, compared to what I'm experiencing as I dig into the harder elements of science fiction. I know that's a "Bombastically Exaggerated Internet Opinion [tm]" but they really kind of are, and almost always have been. The extra thought going into TNG's scripts starting with Season 3 was largely due to the influence of Michael Piller, who took over as the showrunner at that time, when Gene Roddenberry's health started to falter. He opened up the show to scripts from outside writers, and we ended up getting a first episode ("Evolution") that resembled harder Sci-Fi in many ways, and had a thread of intellectualism going through it that the 60's Trek (relative to the times in which it was produced) had a bit of, too.

But as TNG became successful, and the TOS Movies came to their logical (sorry I couldn't resist) conclusion, something about the Trek culture changed (Looking at you Rick Berman and Brannon Braga), and it sort of slumped back into the "Glorified Action Figure Commercial" territory that I mentioned. DS9 kept producing strong episodes from time to time, but it was typically more about drama than actual Science Fiction, per se (The most prominent example being risks to a main character's life or freedom that you know aren't going to be substantiated by the end of the episode, since they are a regular and are contracted to return to act in the next ep).

Long story short, I think that Star Trek has always sort of tried to skirt the edge between being basically a Merch Machine like the Star Wars franchise and trying to open people up to digging into harder Sci-Fi, but it has never gone straight up, "Total Hard Sci Fi" and it's going to take someone coming along with a vision for the show that has some real "grahmbahr" (as a Naussican would say) for that to ever be something that might happen.
Set Bookmark
Mads Leonard Holvik
Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 4:59am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S6: Tapestry

I agree with Snitch. The use of violence to make a point is perhaps the real weakness of this episode. I do agree that Picard is passive in a way that is very unlike him, but isn't that the whole point? He wants to change things he did in his youth, and the tapestry of his life would unravel. The very act of trying to change makes him a different person.
I think the real strength of this episode is not seeing Picard going back to change his youth, but the introspection each viewer does into his own past while watching.
Set Bookmark
MadStupid
Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 10:44pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S5: The Perfect Mate

What was up with the goofy groups of thugs in Ten Forward? All the sudden it looks like the Star Wars Cantina... I don't remember big groups of rowdy aliens hanging around before.
Set Bookmark
Mads Leonard Holvik
Fri, Oct 5, 2018, 4:52pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S3: Yesterday's Enterprise

Someone called Yar a bad actress that couldn't handle a love story. I totally disagree. She is a human being like millions other she is an individual, she reacts and show feeling the way SHE can! I think she does a very good job!
Others complain about trivial details like why did the enterprise only fire 3 torpedoes or how come the Enterprise happened to be just at those coordinates? All besides the point. This episode has a much broader perspective.
Set Bookmark
Mads Leonard Holvik
Fri, Oct 5, 2018, 4:43pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S3: Yesterday's Enterprise

One of the very best epidodes of TNG. I don't see any faults with it. It's got everything. Picards makes the right decision to listen to Guinan. It's got nothing to do with new age. Patrick Stewart is amazing here. Tasha's legacy is forever secure in Star Trek lore.
Set Bookmark
PicardsMightyBaldHead
Thu, Sep 27, 2018, 9:15pm (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S2: Rules of Acquisition

You seem brainwashed by the alt-right social-mediosphere, DLPB. Oxford University did a study showing that a third of political websites about Sweden were publishing deliberately misleading information, most with a right-wing focus on immigration and Islam. Studies also show (http://lamastex.org/preprints/2017HateIn2016USAElection.pdf, ) far shorter degrees of separation between right wing politicians and far-right hate groups, right wing supporters and hateful ideology, and the University of Oxford’s Internet Institute's recent analysis shows that conservatives are overwhelmingly more likely to disseminate false information from extreme websites ((https://www.ft.com/content/611d5c90-0a87-11e8-8eb7-42f857ea9f09) and create "ecosystems of misinformation" and "gateways to the far right" (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/18/report-youtubes-alternative-influence-network-breeds-rightwing-radicalisation). Also “Misinformation is predominantly a pathology of the right,” concluded a team of scholars from the Harvard Kennedy School and Northeastern University at a February 2017 conference, one of many studies which point out the ways in which conservatives shore up around "faith" and "personal interpretation", "intuition" or "personal experience", rather than facts.
Set Bookmark
PicardsMightyBaldHead
Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 9:36pm (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S2: Rules of Acquisition

You need to come to Sweden, DLPB. We are very liberal and our progressive and labor movements managed to fight for about half a year paternity leave for men, and the labor movements won this in the 1970s before this was even an issue on the radars of most other nations (I think Clinton won this for you in America, after decades of the Republicans shooting it down). We also have the most generous parental leave packages (currently 480 tax-funded days to share between a couple) and heavily subsidized day care in the world.

Sweden is very dark, especially in winter, and this leads to lots of suicide, so we do lots of studies on it (we are now lower than the European average though). One science report (the abstract quoted here) on this I found fascinating: "Women are twice as likely as men to experience major depression, yet women are one fourth as likely as men to take their own lives. Men have been socialized to value independence and decisiveness, and they regard acknowledging a need for help as weakness and avoid it. Women, in contrast, value interdependence, and they consult friends and readily accept help. Women consider decisions in a relationship context, taking many things into consideration, and they feel freer to change their minds. It has been found that women derive strength and protection from suicide by virtue of specific differences from men. Factors that protect women from suicide are opposite to vulnerability factors in men."

In other words, the very gendered notions of rugged individualism and stoic masculinity inculcated in males is leading to higher susceptibility to suicide. Some studies showed that simply talking about feelings had a bigger effect on countering male suicide than implementing lots and lots of sun lamps (because of the darkness in winter months).
Next ►Page 1 of 15
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2019 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.