Gaffer Tape's YouTube Reviews of Awesome Candy-Creating Goodness! (The Facts of Life/Star Trek III Conspiracy!) — Page 15

1. Get a haircut!

2. *bitchy glare*

3. How did a group of cadets large enough to staff a starship get left with one of the most powerful ships in the fleet? I'm guessing it was a Defiant-class because that's what the sets were, but still, where's the logic in that happening?

All in all, another great review.

Yeah, apparently Ronald Moore used the excuse that field commissions stick or that it's an old tradition to defer to the commanding officer of a ship, despite real rank (earlier in the season, when Jadzia took command of the Defiant, everyone called her captain), but I still feel it's a lot of bunk.  I mean, what if it had been Worf who'd been picked up by the Valiant?  I have a hard time believing he'd put up with Ferris's bullshit and having to call her "sir."

It's interesting, though.  This review has really brought out a lot of people who are just "meh" about the series in general but totally in love with Voyager, which surprised me.  I admit I don't hang out in Trek circles much.  I guess I'm just used to sfdebris and confused matthew, who both praise DS9 and condemn Voyager to the lowest levels of hell.  To be honest, as I said in the video, I love DS9 precisely because it broke free from Roddenberry's conflict-free, homogenous utopia and shows that, no matter how evolved we get, we're always going to have some kind of dark side to us.  In that respect, it feels a lot like Star Trek VI to me, which is one of my favorite Trek films.

Thanks, as always, for the feedback.  And, really, I need a haircut? ;_;

Voyager has its good parts.

Warbler said:

Gaffer Tape said:

To be honest, as I said in the video, I love DS9 precisely because it broke free from Roddenberry's conflict-free, homogenous utopia and shows that, no matter how evolved we get, we're always going to have some kind of dark side to us. 

you do that the conflict-free, homogenous utopia was the essence of Star Trek, don't you?   Roddenberry vision was we(humanity) would evolve past our petty problems and conflicts and prejudices and whatnot.   Remember he came up with Star Trek during the Vietnam war and the Cold War and all the protests about the war a racism and the assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK.   His dream was that humanity would evolve past that sort of stuff.  I suppose you can argue it is not realistic and a pipe dream, but it was Roddenberry's original vision(and not something he pulled out of his butt 20 years later) for Star Trek and he is the creator so . . .  perhaps that is the way Star Trek should stay?

Yay, this is exactly where I hoped this conversation would go!

Indeed I do know that.  And I don't have a problem with showing an evolved humanity where we'd overcome our earthly prejudices and become a wonderful race of space travelers.  I just don't think that DS9 or STVI really do anything to negate that idea.  Just because the Federation is forced into a war, just because the characters are forced to look into their darker side and evaluate their moral choices, doesn't mean that it's not still the Federation.  It's simply the difference between accepting something as dogma and actually putting some thought into it.

To be honest, I feel that, by the time TNG had come around, Roddenberry had started to go a bit too far with "perfection."  Allow me to explain.  While Star Trek, in its earliest forms, created a world where humans, regardless of gender or race, worked together in equality, it was also a series focused primarily on a military-esque group, wearing military-esque uniforms, on a military-esque ship, equipped with military-esque weapons, and frequently using them to blow away the aliens of the week.  That military-esque group having to use those military-esque resources in a war doesn't exactly seem that far out of the realm of what they're supposed to do to me.  My problem with the "utopia" angle isn't that I think it's unrealistic, it's that it, when taken too far, doesn't lend itself well to drama.  All conflict comes from external, easily blown up or run away from, sources.  Even in a Federation where everyone works for the betterment of humanity, it's a bit silly and scary to think that everyone is going to have the exact same opinions.

But TNG, in its early seasons, was just too "perfect."  Take episodes like "The Neutral Zone," which is basically an entire episode with the crew of the Enterprise acting smug about how much better they are than 20th century humans.  But then take The Original Series episode "A Private Little War" where Kirk has to go against his principles and provide a primitive people with modern weapons in order to fight back against another faction who had been provided with weapons by Klingons, and he was left with the moral implications of his difficult (but possibly necessary) decision.

And then take Star Trek VI.  While, of course, having a wonderful parable relatable to the current state of events of the world, was also treated a little more realistic.  Sure the Federation was still great, but I believe that we're always going to find something new to hate, no matter how evolved we are.  When we eliminate all of our prejudice for different genders and races on earth, the next logical step is that we're going to be prejudiced towards the hostile alien race that's been trying to kill us for decades.  And, sure, we had our Admiral Cartrights who'd be willing to kill to keep peace, but our main characters were prejudices as well.  They just had to work and learn and grow and evolve in order to grow past that.  I can't think of a more Trek-like story than that.  And I find it much more interesting in a narrative sense to show the characters learning a lesson than just saying, "We're better than that.  We always have been, and, unswaveringly so, always will be."  And again, there were plenty of renegade admirals and smug diplomats getting their comeuppance in the original series, so the idea of imperfect Federation members dates back to the origins of Trek.

So, really, I don't see how DS9 is antithetical to Trek.  It subverts Trek because it knows how Trek works, it appreciates Trek, and it loves Trek.  And with that knowledge and love in mind, it feels free to just dig quite a bit deeper than other Treks.  The Federation in DS9 isn't bad or amoral.  It's just always going to have problems.  And I think Roddenberry knew that when he created Trek.  I just think in his old age, he softened a bit on that and couldn't bear to show his world in anything less than perfection.  If anything, DS9 felt more like the original series... just with quite a bit more depth.

Warbler said:

Gaffer Tape said: The Federation in DS9 isn't bad or amoral.

it isn't? 

what about deceiving the Romulans to get them involved in the War?

what about section 31?

what about how they dealt with the Maquis?

They wanted to get the Romulans into the war in order to bring a swifter end to the war and keep more people from dying.  And the Maquis were a terrorist cell, staging raids on their allies.  Now I'm certainly not defending those things, but I sure find those kinds of dilemmas much more interesting than only putting the Federation in easily-solved situations where they can always find a magic solution that makes everyone happy and never brings their morals and principles into question.

Warbler said:

Gaffer Tape said:  All conflict comes from external, easily blown up or run away from, sources. 

all conflicts in Next Gen were like that?   What about "Measure of a Man", "DrumHead" and other episodes.  I think you are selling Next Gen a little short. 

Not at all.  There are many awesome, awesome TNG episodes, but most of them came in the latter part of the series.  Let me break down how I feel.  The original Star Trek got much, much worse when Roddenberry was pushed aside.  However, the movies got much, much better when Roddenberry was pushed aside.  And TNG got better, unfortunately, when Roddenberry's declining health kept him from having such direct control over it.  Like I said before, I think Roddenberry eventually got so obsessed with showing these paragons of humanity that he started to forget how to tell a good story.

Warbler said:

Gaffer Tape said:

Even in a Federation where everyone works for the betterment of humanity, it's a bit silly and scary to think that everyone is going to have the exact same opinions.

I never got the idea that every single person in Next Gen had the same exact opinions all the time

True, but it was one of Roddenberry's edicts that the main characters don't get into conflict with one another... even though Spock and McCoy sniped at each other all the time, and the show was better for it.

Warbler said:

You bring up great points, I guess I just don't like DS9.   I prefer the ship going to the aliens and what not to the aliens and what not coming to the base.    I also preferred the episodic style of TOS and Next Gen, to the multiple episode story arc style of DS9.   I'm sure why, but DS9 just didn't feel like Star Trek to me.   .

I can understand that, but I admit that's also the reason I do like DS9.  It was the only show to do something different.  This is not a statement on the quality of any of these shows, but TNG, Voyager, and Enterprise, when you get right down to it, are pretty much the exact same formula that the original series created:  people in a Starship going on episodic adventures in space to random alien worlds.  With TNG, that's right in the title.  It's the same thing only further in the future.  Enterprise is the same thing but further in the past.  And Voyager is the same thing except that they're lost.  Don't get me wrong, though.  If that wasn't a formula I enjoyed, I wouldn't love the original series as much as I do.  But after all that, it was nice to see a series that did something different in that world.  That instead of episodic space exploration, I really got to see how the Federation worked, I really got to know a couple of those alien races in much better detail, and I got to see a main cast that was mostly made up of non-Starfleet personnel.  And I liked focusing the story more on characters than on events.  Really that's what the TOS movies did as well:  focused more heavily on developing the characters in interesting ways (or at least three of them).

And I also do prefer story arcs over episodic television and was always annoyed that that was another thing that Roddenberry forbade (and you'll notice there were a lot more two-parters in TNG after Roddenberry died).  Obviously that's just personal preference for me, and I can certainly understand why you'd feel that it isn't your kind of Trek.

Warbler said:

well, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Dawh... That just went down way too easy.  ;_;

A man comes to a Star Wars message board and can't engage in lengthy Star Trek debates?  Where's the logic in that?! =P

That was a joke, Warb.  I certainly didn't intend to get a sigh out of you on that one...  To be honest, though, it's been about, ohhhh, two years since I've had anyone in my life to share Star Trek with.  I have one other Trekkie friend, but she's in the middle of watching TNG and doesn't want any future events spoiled for her (and especially given Worf's eventual role in this particular series), so I can only share my new DS9 experience with her in a very marginal capacity.  So, yeah, it was nice to have a good, nerdy debate about future, interstellar politics for a little while.

The most embarrassing part is that I actually never saw this coming...

Bingowings said:

Here are two of them :

Well, since someone brought it up, this is something that's bothered me for quite some time.  Was... there... ever any in-universe explanation as to why the Voyager crew forced Seven to dress like a shiny piece of molestation fodder?  Because... I have to admit I just don't get it.

Bingowings said:

It also stopped her organic components from sploshing onto the floor in a way unbecoming to a Starfleet crew member.

So who wants to listen to three guys talk about The Green Hornet for nearly 45 minutes?  You do!  Why?  Because I said so!

Green Hornet Review (WRTR entry)

Technically this isn't my video.  It's MrCorellian's.  But, you know, piracy is all the rage!  Forgive some of the poor sound quality, especially on my end.

Gaffer Tape said:

So who wants to listen to three guys talk about The Green Hornet for nearly 45 minutes?  You do!  Why?  Because I said so!

Green Hornet Review (WRTR entry)

Technically this isn't my video.  It's MrCorellian's.  But, you know, piracy is all the rage!  Forgive some of the poor sound quality, especially on my end.

I do!  As long as one of them is you, one of them is [CE](3?)[PR](3?)(i?)[CSX]/i and the other is me.

I'm mad at you now.