Gaffer Tape

Wow.  It must have really hurt when the Jenolen crashed into Orko's eye!

Actually, have them all encircle the Ewok village, getting closer, looming, preparing to feed on all the happy emotions until everything is sucked dry into an emotionless shell.

THE END!

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:

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.

Ah, okay, I see.  As I said, the issue I have starts with broken Batman being tossed into the street.  Therefore, I assumed the fight took place there too.  But it seems as if The Boost's account of pretzels and things must really have happened.

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? ;_;

Um... zoinks...

I really don't think there's anything else to say about that.

ChainsawAsh said:

In the "Knightfall" arc, he lets all the Arkham inmates loose to wear Batman down.  After Batman finally rounds up everyone else, Bane - having discovered that Bruce Wayne is Batman - is waiting for him when he returns to Wayne Manor.  The two fight in the Batcave, ending in Bane breaking Batman's back. 

In the Batcave? I haven't read most of Knightfall, but I do have the issue right after Bane breaks Batman's back, and I could have sworn it was in public. There were reporters there, and Alfred pretended to be a paramedic and rushed Batman back to the cave rather than a hospital. I remember this because there was a very memorable moment where Tim questions Alfred's decision, saying it's more important to make sure Bruce gets proper treatment, to which Alfred responds that, to Bruce, making sure that his identity of Batman is not revealed is ALL that matters, and that he'd rather die than be found out.

Wait. Holy crap. I knew the name sounded familiar, but it took Confused Matthew to remind me that Tom Hardy was Shinzon in Star Trek Nemesis?! He... certainly looks different in that picture you posted, see you auntie, because I could never picture beanpole Shinzon as Bane!

I'm not really sure what my thoughts are.  I did see a video by one internet reviewer who brought up the point that, with Rachel dead, there are literally no female characters left in this franchise, so bringing in Catwoman is a good idea from that standpoint.  That said, I have to say I was on the bandwagon of people who thought that they'd completely try to avoid Catwoman due to the atrocious Halle Berry movie.  As for Tom Hardy, I don't really know anything about him (I got Inception for Christmas but haven't watched it yet), but from the Wikipedia image I pulled up... he doesn't exactly look like he has the, for lack of a better term, extreme physique I associate with Bane.  But surely anything they do will be better than his role in Batman & Robin.

I know it's already been said by a few people, but... Savage Oppress?!  What the hell kind of name is that?  I thought sky was referring to the name of an episode or a new video game, which would still be a stupid name, but not as bad as a name for a character!  This makes "General Grievous" sound like a frickin sonnet!

So some people might have noticed in the "Last web/tv series seen" thread that I've been getting into Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.  You might also have noticed that I particularly disliked the episode "Valiant."  Or I might just have an overinflated opinion of myself that anyone would notice anything I say.  But, anyway, it pissed me off so much that I just had to let out my rage in the most therapeutic way possible:  by making a video out of it.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine "Valiant" Rant!

TheBoost said:

"Yeah, but I'm hoping to cheat on him soon." Good

From what I've seen, if she'll "trade up" for you, chances are she'll eventually "trade up" for anyone else too.

Nice hats.

Of course he can.  And don't call me Shirley.  You're Shirley.  You should know this by now.

doubleofive said:

George Takei messaged me on Twitter:

@georgetakei said:

Oh, Myyyy!!! Thank you for following me on "The Twitter." I'm new to all this so be sure to "retweet" me, and hard!

I'm sure he's doing this for all of his followers, but still, George Takei copy and pasted his trademark "Oh My!" to me!

That's awesome!  It almost makes me wish I used Twitter!  Almost...

I hold my both hands in higher regard than any other hands I have.

Yet he already has a higher post count than me.  It's blasphemy!

In fact, he has one of the highest post counts of anybody ever in the history of this forum.  He long since made Jedi Spirit, the highest posting rank (back in the old days, of course).

I believe it must be cleaned, yes.  The effects recomposited, no.

RE: avoidz

I disagree.  The only minor, almost insignificant good thing about the SE is that it keeps them from fucking around with the original versions.  Unfortunately, as we all know, that also keeps us from getting them in good quality the way they were meant to be.  But I know I'd be pissed as shit if they did any rotoscoping, removal of garbage mattes, etc.  But, for example, there's only one version of Raiders of the Lost Ark now, and it doesn't have that snake reflection in it, and it annoys me every time.  Let the SE be a magnet for that kind of crap, and that at least validates its existence. 

This thread is about my ever-increasing feelings of loss of self-worth due to Frink's constant rejections?

Alexrd said:

No Digital Copy on SW Blu-ray.

Hmm, I find that a bit surprising.  I thought Lucas was a big supporter of buying movies digitally.

Okay, so after "Valiant," I was a bit weary going on in DS9, because I'd always heard that "Profit and Lace" was by far the absolute worst episode of the entire series, and I just didn't know if I can handle an episode worse than "Valiant," especially not directly after it.  So I watched "Profit and Lace," and I just don't get what the hate for it is.  This episode is ten times better than "Valiant."

How the hell could you have possibly remembered that, Frink?

It's amazing that this thread has been going for nearly a full year now.

This thread is about nostalgia.