PDA

View Full Version : Vulcan Girls Gone Wild



Stick
20th November 06, 10:35 AM
This speaks for itself.

Jce1zlejicM

Iscariot
20th November 06, 12:41 PM
Would it betray my geekiness to point out that Romulan ale is blue, not green?

bad credit
20th November 06, 01:36 PM
What, no Klingons? Lame.

Stick
20th November 06, 04:44 PM
It does indeed show your true colors.

Iscariot
20th November 06, 06:42 PM
Dai, your puns are showing.....

Sun Wukong
20th November 06, 07:33 PM
That was entirely entertaining. I think every geek at one point or another has wanted to nail a vulcan chick.

http://mackemsteve.typepad.com/eat_carrots/Trek.jpg

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
20th November 06, 09:29 PM
I don't come to this site to see that kind of smut.

Steve
20th November 06, 10:53 PM
No doubt, I'm sure your bedroom's full of it.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
21st November 06, 06:18 AM
No, I have pirate flags instead.

Seraphim
21st November 06, 11:00 AM
I think every geek at one point or another has wanted to nail a vulcan chick.

http://mackemsteve.typepad.com/eat_carrots/Trek.jpg

Truth

Stick
21st November 06, 11:14 AM
Very truth.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a78/tenshirisu/saavik.jpg

Seraphim
21st November 06, 12:07 PM
Very truth.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a78/tenshirisu/saavik.jpg

A beauty. Much Thanks.

nihilist
22nd November 06, 01:07 AM
I would love it if there were a clip of Trimph (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93P8Zz_0RJM) at a star trek convention.

Steve
22nd November 06, 01:12 AM
I would love it if there were a clip of Trimph (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93P8Zz_0RJM) at a star trek convention.

Truth.

AAAhmed46
22nd November 06, 02:02 AM
That was entirely entertaining. I think every geek at one point or another has wanted to nail a vulcan chick.

http://mackemsteve.typepad.com/eat_carrots/Trek.jpg


She was the best charecter on that show.

Truculent Sheep
23rd November 06, 07:31 PM
What, no Klingons? Lame.

(FIXED!)

http://thegooch710.tripod.com/klingonbabes/

Iscariot
23rd November 06, 08:13 PM
Always preferred elfin Trill:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ab/Ezri_Dax.jpg/300px-Ezri_Dax.jpg
http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/3/33/Ezri_dax_tr116.jpg

Or alternately bisexual Bajoran dominatrixes:
http://memory-alpha.org/en/images/thumb/9/90/Intendant_Kira.jpg/145px-Intendant_Kira.jpg


Must. Stop. Being. Geeky......

Stick
23rd November 06, 08:18 PM
DS9 pretty much was the best show the Star Trek franchise ever produced.

Iscariot
23rd November 06, 08:25 PM
My God! Dai and I agree on something Sci-Fi related!

Sirc
23rd November 06, 08:30 PM
http://uplink.space.com/attachments/126814-tpol1.jpg

I want this Vulcan.

Sirc
23rd November 06, 08:30 PM
DS9 pretty much was the best show the Star Trek franchise ever produced.

Yeaaah.... pretty much.

nihilist
23rd November 06, 09:48 PM
http://uplink.space.com/attachments/126814-tpol1.jpg

I want this Vulcan.
Yuck.
Her navel looks like your darkstar after a scout meeting.

DAYoung
24th November 06, 01:53 AM
Is this the best thread ever?

This is a yes/no poll.

I vote 'maybe'.

nihilist
24th November 06, 08:36 AM
Sirc is wondering how I know about the scout meeting.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
24th November 06, 09:03 AM
Were you the scout master?

Stick
24th November 06, 09:18 AM
I vote "yes".

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
24th November 06, 09:19 AM
I abstain.

JimmyTheHutt
24th November 06, 09:49 AM
DS9 pretty much was the best show the Star Trek franchise ever produced.

QFT.

Veritas et Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

Stick
24th November 06, 10:02 AM
QFT?

Quit fucking talking?

Quite fucking true?

Querry forgets turtle?

Iscariot
24th November 06, 01:51 PM
QFT?

Quit fucking talking?

Quite fucking true?

Querry forgets turtle?
Quoted for truth.

Stick
24th November 06, 03:09 PM
Ah, comprendo.

nihilist
25th November 06, 03:29 AM
Were you the scout master?
You would know the answer to that if someone hadn't fucked your brains out.

DAYoung
25th November 06, 03:34 AM
You would know the answer to that if someone hadn't fucked your brains out.

Giving nuts to nuts.

AAAhmed46
25th November 06, 10:05 PM
Anyone watch that entire series?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
25th November 06, 10:07 PM
no, you're the only horny loser.

Olorin
26th November 06, 02:16 AM
DS9 pretty much was the best show the Star Trek franchise ever produced.


Yeaaah.... pretty much.


QFT.

Ok, for all you fucking “Niners” lets get this straitened out.

Best to worst…

1. Star Trek: The Next Generation
2. Star Trek: The Original Series
3. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
4. Star Trek: Voyager
5. Star Trek: Enterprise

Ya that’s fucking right, just below the Original and only a little bit better than Voyager. DS9 had one really good episode “The Visitor” and that is fucking it! So take you linear story telling and your Dominion Wars and cram em right up your Niner asses!

WarPhalange
26th November 06, 02:20 AM
You tell 'em, Super Nerd!

Olorin
26th November 06, 02:47 AM
You tell 'em, Super Nerd!

Fucking right, and if any “Niner” thinks differently they can just take it up the ass from Commander Kruge's pet “dog.”

Iscariot
26th November 06, 02:56 AM
Ok, for all you fucking “Niners” lets get this straitened out.

Best to worst…

1. Star Trek: The Next Generation
2. Star Trek: The Original Series
3. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
4. Star Trek: Voyager
5. Star Trek: Enterprise

Ya that’s fucking right, just below the Original and only a little bit better than Voyager. DS9 had one really good episode “The Visitor” and that is fucking it! So take you linear story telling and your Dominion Wars and cram em right up your Niner asses!
Quite simply this is all sorted out with Captain's interaction with God/Q.

Archer: Did nothing, not important enough for any deity to show up.
Janeway: Was going to be mother to Q's child. Frigid bitch said no.
Kirk: Fired photon torpedoes at God, but not before wasting valuable time debating theology ("What does God need with a starship?"). Fucking hell Shatner, shoot first, ponder such questions on the journey home.
Picard: Debate morality and worth with Q over seven series, gain a small level of grudging respect.
Sisko: Met Q. Got taunted by Q. Punched Q. Q never came back.

Therefore, best to worse:
1. DS9
2. TNG
3. TOS
4. VOY
5. ENT

Olorin
26th November 06, 03:34 AM
Q never returned to DS9 because he did not care “to sit…where no man has sat before.”

But using your own methodology (Q’s Involvement) TNG was the most important series. Unless you care to make the argument that since Q offered to father Janeway’s baby that Voyager was the best series…

Iscariot
26th November 06, 03:39 AM
No my argument was based on how each Captain dealt with an omnipotent enemy. Sisko wins hands down.

Sisko may have been based on a space station but he fought more wars, travelled further and had a cooler starship than any other ST Captain. Hell, he even designed the Defiant himself, no store bought off-the-rail ships for him.

DAYoung
26th November 06, 04:23 AM
Picard is not only a fine soldier, but also a scientist, ambassador, cultivated appreciator of literature and art, and lovemaker extraordinaire (you know it's true). He has faced death and torture, humiliation and defeat, and still retains his dignity, and the breadth of his knowledge and experience. He is a Renaissance man of the highest calibre - he makes the other captains look like fumbling adolescents.

Steve
26th November 06, 04:26 AM
Don't make me post the video.

Iscariot
26th November 06, 05:16 AM
Picard was captured by the enemy and assisted in the massacre of the Earth Defence Fleet, costing 39 starships and 11,000 lives. Sisko was captured by the enemy and blew up the wormhole.

Picard was at Wolf 359. Sisko was at Wolf 359.......on the right side!

Picard tip-toes around Dr. Crusher for seven series and three films. Sisko has married twice.

Picard drinks Earl Grey, Hot. Sisko drinks ice cold Klingon coffee.

Picard had Wesley. Sisko didn't.

Picard has Whoopie Goldberg serving drinks. Sisko has his own Ferengi bartender.

Picard couldn't get rid of Riker. Sisko got rid of his copy in an episode.

Picard is an emissary of The Federation. Sisko is Emissary to advanced alien lifeforms that have transcended linear time.

Picard has a ship that splits in two. Sisko designed and built a gunship escort with armour, quantum torpedoes, a detachable kamikaze warhead and a cloaking device.

Picard held Kirk as he died. Sisko went back in time and saved Kirk's life.

ICY
26th November 06, 05:37 AM
DS9 pretty much was the best show the Star Trek franchise ever produced.

Motherfucking blasphemy.


Anyone watch that entire series?

Yes...sadly.


1. Star Trek: The Next Generation
2. Star Trek: The Original Series
3. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
4. Star Trek: Voyager
5. Star Trek: Enterprise


I'd put Enterprise ahead of Voyager, but this is essentially true.


Q never returned to DS9 because he did not care “to sit…where no man has sat before.”

So true.


No my argument was based on how each Captain dealt with an omnipotent enemy. Sisko wins hands down.


Bullshit.


Picard is not only a fine soldier, but also a scientist, ambassador, cultivated appreciator of literature and art, and lovemaker extraordinaire (you know it's true). He has faced death and torture, humiliation and defeat, and still retains his dignity, and the breadth of his knowledge and experience. He is a Renaissance man of the highest calibre - he makes the other captains look like fumbling adolescents.

DAYoung is God.


Picard was, Sisko was...(verbose bunch of bullshit that proves nothing)

Picard saved the entire quadrant from the Borg over and over. Sisko had an insignificant conflict with a cobbled together excuse for an Empire.

Picard for the motherfucking win.

Iscariot
26th November 06, 05:42 AM
Picard saved the entire quadrant from the Borg over and over. Sisko had an insignificant conflict with a cobbled together excuse for an Empire.

Picard for the motherfucking win.
Picard put the entire human race in danger from the Borg by not being able to deal with Q's bullshit. Sisko dealt with it, by punching him in the head.

DAYoung
26th November 06, 06:02 AM
Picard was captured by the enemy and assisted in the massacre of the Earth Defence Fleet, costing 39 starships and 11,000 lives. Sisko was captured by the enemy and blew up the wormhole.

Picard was at Wolf 359. Sisko was at Wolf 359.......on the right side!

Picard tip-toes around Dr. Crusher for seven series and three films. Sisko has married twice.

Picard drinks Earl Grey, Hot. Sisko drinks ice cold Klingon coffee.

Picard had Wesley. Sisko didn't.

Picard has Whoopie Goldberg serving drinks. Sisko has his own Ferengi bartender.

Picard couldn't get rid of Riker. Sisko got rid of his copy in an episode.

Picard is an emissary of The Federation. Sisko is Emissary to advanced alien lifeforms that have transcended linear time.

Picard has a ship that splits in two. Sisko designed and built a gunship escort with armour, quantum torpedoes, a detachable kamikaze warhead and a cloaking device.

Picard held Kirk as he died. Sisko went back in time and saved Kirk's life.

You can list as many dubious victories as you like, but when you put Sisco and Picard in the room together, Sisco looks like a bumbling amateur schoolkid with his emotion chip removed. He's so cumbersome and insipid, they had to make him a messiah to give him some character.

Meanwhile, Picard maintains dignity and sublime leadership as a humble human being, bravely facing the pain and privation of the cosmos.

In short, Sisco is a badly-drawn cartoon, Picard is a man.

ICY
26th November 06, 06:35 AM
Picard put the entire human race in danger from the Borg by not being able to deal with Q's bullshit.

What?

AAAhmed46
26th November 06, 05:39 PM
Kirk beats them all.

He fucked different colored woman.


He freaking liked to brawl.



His klingons had normal heads.

Steve
26th November 06, 05:53 PM
He liked to brawl.

Please prove the rest of your point with video.

AAAhmed46
26th November 06, 08:22 PM
Search: "Kirk vs spock" on YouTube.

Iscariot
26th November 06, 10:46 PM
You can list as many dubious victories as you like, but when you put Sisco and Picard in the room together, Sisco looks like a bumbling amateur schoolkid with his emotion chip removed. He's so cumbersome and insipid, they had to make him a messiah to give him some character.

Meanwhile, Picard maintains dignity and sublime leadership as a humble human being, bravely facing the pain and privation of the cosmos.

In short, Sisco is a badly-drawn cartoon, Picard is a man.
Picard is a collection of ideals formed into a character, without someone of Patrick Stewart's ability to play him the character would have failed miserably. Sisko had some depth, and like Kirk before him, had the ability to still be incorrect in his views and actions without losing the respect of the viewer or turn into a characture.



Picard put the entire human race in danger from the Borg by not being able to deal with Q's bullshit.
What?
OK, Federation History 101:
Q put the Enterprise into contact with the Borg.
He did this be throwing the Enterprise into the Delta quadrant.
This was not the first time Picard had encountered Q.
If he'd had dealt with him effectively at Farpoint none of the above would have happened.
Sisko met Q......once. Punched him in the head. Seven series later, Q never showed his face again. Sisko, round 1, TKO by punch.


His klingons had normal heads.
http://www.thewellers.com/startrek/images/court.jpg
Your point?

DAYoung
27th November 06, 01:37 AM
Picard is a collection of ideals formed into a character, without someone of Patrick Stewart's ability to play him the character would have failed miserably. Sisko had some depth, and like Kirk before him, had the ability to still be incorrect in his views and actions without losing the respect of the viewer or turn into a characture.

No. There is more to Picard than ideals. You mistake restraint and dignity for bloodless idealism. What makes Picard so much more of a man that the others is the very human tension that lies beneath the surface; the hot blood behind the sangfroid. [/quote]



Sisko met Q......once. Punched him in the head. Seven series later, Q never showed his face again. Sisko, round 1, TKO by punch.


It's very simple. The writers didn't bring him back because talking to Sisco was boring - he hadn't the character depth to provoke hilarity or drama. Picard was a match for Q precisely because of his own failings, and his capacity to rise above them.

bob
27th November 06, 03:30 AM
Sisko started with some potential but earns severe demerits for being the focus of an ill fated attempt by ST writers to marry religion and science with the wormhole aliens/prophets theme. Politically motivated tosh.

ICY
27th November 06, 03:38 AM
If Q hadn't taken an interest in Picard and WARNED him about the Borg...

Steve
27th November 06, 03:41 AM
You'd have no point.

Geek.

Diggler McFeely
27th November 06, 03:43 AM
Fuckin' nerds.

DAYoung
27th November 06, 06:41 AM
Yep. Everybody's doin' it.

ICY
27th November 06, 07:51 AM
Except me :(

DAYoung
27th November 06, 10:48 PM
Except me :(

I'm sure you've fucked a few nerds in your time.

C'mon, there's no need to name names, but...don't be bashful about it.

Sirc
27th November 06, 11:49 PM
It's very simple. The writers didn't bring him back because talking to Sisco was boring - he hadn't the character depth to provoke hilarity or drama. Picard was a match for Q precisely because of his own failings, and his capacity to rise above them.

BULL-FUCKING-SHIT. Sisko had a dead wife, a son who was a liability and he didn't know how to deal with, the fate of an ENTIRE race on his hands, not to mention a race of super aliens that were on par with Q, a wormhole that connected two massive quandrants, an alternate dimension that would not leave him the fuck alone, and on top of that he had Worf. That's right bitches, who did Worf want to chill with? NOT PICARD!

What did Picard have to deal with? OMG, I'm old and I have a heart that doesn't work because I was a bitch when I was a little kid.

Sisko was a man's man. He knew that he didn't want to deal with Q's bullshit so he made him suck one down and told one of the most powerful beings in the universe to go choke on a dick. And he SCARED him off. Picard was being a whiny little bitch and always let Q walk all over him like a spoiled teenage girlfriend.

Sisko > Picard. DS9 > TNG.

DAYoung
28th November 06, 03:28 AM
BULL-FUCKING-SHIT. Sisko had a dead wife, a son who was a liability and he didn't know how to deal with, the fate of an ENTIRE race on his hands, not to mention a race of super aliens that were on par with Q, a wormhole that connected two massive quandrants, an alternate dimension that would not leave him the fuck alone, and on top of that he had Worf. That's right bitches, who did Worf want to chill with? NOT PICARD!

As I said, 'cartoon'.


What did Picard have to deal with? OMG, I'm old and I have a heart that doesn't work because I was a bitch when I was a little kid.


'Encounter at Farpoint' -> 'All Good Things...'


Sisko was a man's man. He knew that he didn't want to deal with Q's bullshit so he made him suck one down and told one of the most powerful beings in the universe to go choke on a dick. And he SCARED him off. Picard was being a whiny little bitch and always let Q walk all over him like a spoiled teenage girlfriend.

Yes, he scared an omnipotent being. That makes a great deal of sense.

No, Sirc. The reason Q never came back is because Sisco was the existential equivalent of watching grass grow. Picard enlivens boredom. Sisco causes it.

Iscariot
28th November 06, 03:46 AM
I do love the fact that DAYoung's argument presupposes an omnipotent state with the audience.

Olorin
28th November 06, 03:48 AM
If Q hadn't taken an interest in Picard and WARNED him about the Borg...

Exactly, Q did not recklessly expose the Alpha Quadrant to the Borg, the Borg already knew and had assimilated federation citizens/solders. If you watch season 1 episode 25 “The Neutral Zone” it is clear that the Borg were responsible for the missing outposts that almost brought the Federation and the Romulan Empire to war.

Now comes the shocker, Q was a good guy! After Encounter at Farpoint 1&2, Q consistently helped the crew of the Enterprise and worked to protect humanity from the Q Continuum. The reason he appears to be such an asshole/bad guy is that he is endowed with so much power and knowledge.

ICY
28th November 06, 03:55 AM
When Olorin and DAYoung agree on something, it must be true.

Iscariot
28th November 06, 03:57 AM
Exactly, Q did not recklessly expose the Alpha Quadrant to the Borg, the Borg already knew and had assimilated federation citizens/solders. If you watch season 1 episode 25 “The Neutral Zone” it is clear that the Borg were responsible for the missing outposts that almost brought the Federation and the Romulan Empire to war.
Quite simply.....wrong!

The Borg angle was a retcon, which if you'll notice has never been continued.

The incidences in this episode were orginally designed to further the arc started by Conspiracy (S1 Ep25).


Now comes the shocker, Q was a good guy! After Encounter at Farpoint 1&2, Q consistently helped the crew of the Enterprise and worked to protect humanity from the Q Continuum. The reason he appears to be such an asshole/bad guy is that he is endowed with so much power and knowledge.
Q is not good, nor really bad. Q is bored.What he did is no different to me allowing the computer to keep certain structures in a game of C+C, I don't do it for any moral reason, I do it because the continued existence might amuse me. Or it might not.

Olorin
28th November 06, 04:02 AM
What did Picard have to deal with?

He had to justify the existence of humanity to the Q Continuum, defeat the Borg, and then he had to justify humanities existence in light of how he has behaved from the first episode to the last. The whole series was an exploration of what it means to be human and what it means to be just.

DSN was just a war between the Dominion and the Federation. Outside of a few episodes, DSN was incapable of exploring larger issues. But the explosions were perdy…

Olorin
28th November 06, 04:12 AM
The incidences in this episode were originally designed to further the arc started by Conspiracy (S1 Ep25).

“Conspiracy” was S1 Episode 24.

However, when the Borg returned they scooped out settlements in exactly the same way the colonies were destroyed in “The Neutral Zone.”


Q is not good, nor really bad. Q is bored. What he did is no different to me allowing the computer to keep certain structures in a game of C+C, I don't do it for any moral reason, I do it because the continued existence might amuse me. Or it might not.

Try re-watching the episodes with the idea that Q is actually helping humanity. Yes, he is bored but that is because to an omnipotent being. To a god we must be boring. However after “Encounter at Farpoint” Q takes an interest inhumanity, and I believe become its protector.


The Borg angle was a retcon,

It might not have been initially intended but it certainly fits now that we have the whole series to consider. It is not improbable for an author to think “hey we have that lose end, lets tie that to this new angle we are developing.”

DAYoung
28th November 06, 04:23 AM
He had to justify the existence of humanity to the Q Continuum, defeat the Borg, and then he had to justify humanities existence in light of how he has behaved from the first episode to the last. The whole series was an exploration of what it means to be human and what it means to be just.

DSN was just a war between the Dominion and the Federation. Outside of a few episodes, DSN was incapable of exploring larger issues. But the explosions were perdy…

You don't need a PhD, Olorin. You know everything you'll ever need to know.

DAYoung
28th November 06, 04:24 AM
When Olorin and DAYoung agree on something, it must be true.

There's something compelling in this idea. It's like a kind of scholarly triangulation.

DAYoung
28th November 06, 04:25 AM
I do love the fact that DAYoung's argument presupposes an omnipotent state with the audience.

No, no, I'm far too humble for that.

I only presuppose my own onmipotence.

Iscariot
28th November 06, 04:39 AM
“Conspiracy” was S1 Episode 24.
Episode 25, Encounter at Farpoint is a two-parter hence Eps 1 and 2.


Try re-watching the episodes with the idea that Q is actually helping humanity. Yes, he is bored but that is because to an omnipotent being. To a god we must be boring. However after “Encounter at Farpoint” Q takes an interest inhumanity, and I believe become its protector.
I don't want to head towards a 'self created audience intention' argument.

You can't take a small portion of the canon to substantiate your claims, although I do think that your idea is partly right but is proven so in Voyager.


It might not have been initially intended but it certainly fits now that we have the whole series to consider. It is not improbable for an author to think “hey we have that lose end, lets tie that to this new angle we are developing.”
I'm not disputing a writer's right to add or change his own continuity before its release, it was just a simple staement of fact. Star Trek in general though has a plethora of unresolved plotlines, B5 it isn't.

I do think we need to look at the genesis of these factors though in order to clarify the issue. The Ferengi were intended to be the major villains of TNG, I think everyone can agree that marauding space trolls don't work well. At this point TNG needed a new antagonist. A writer's strike in Hollywood damaged this, hence why it took time for TNG to evolve (look at Tasha's death). The Borg were one of the results from this, however they were never the major antagonists in TNG, appearing in only six episodes. TNG suffered as they went through a mojor strike a failed antagonist and the death of Roddenberry, who at this point was more a hinderance than a help. DS9 learnt from these mistakes and although it introduced the wormhole in Ep1, it waited until its characters and fan base were established before working the antagonists to them. Voyager ignored this approach and spent three years arsing around with the Kazon......

ICY
28th November 06, 04:40 AM
All in favour of DAY's omnipotence, say "Aye".


The Ferengi were intended to be the major villains of TNG

[email protected]

bob
28th November 06, 04:43 AM
I think it would be more appropriate and time saving if our headers read (for example):

Religion: Narcissism
Politics: Right Hook
ST Captain: Kirk

DAYoung
28th November 06, 04:44 AM
The Borg were one of the results from this, however they were never the major antagonists in TNG, appearing in only six episodes.

The Borg are the White Whale of Star Trek. They're now essential to the existence and identity of Starfleet in general, and Picard in particular. I'd include Sisco, but he doesn't have an identity.

I should add that I very much enjoyed DS9. It had some excellent story arcs, as well as some fantastic political and psychological tension. But it just lacks the nobility and profundity of TNG.

DAYoung
28th November 06, 04:45 AM
I think it would be more appropriate and time saving if our headers read (for example):

Religion: Narcissism
Politics: Right Hook
ST Captain: Kirk

Make it so.

Iscariot
28th November 06, 04:54 AM
I think it would be more appropriate and time saving if our headers read (for example):

Religion: Narcissism
Politics: Right Hook
ST Captain: Kirk
Best idea this morning! Phrost!


The Borg are the White Whale of Star Trek.
I'd make an argument that the Klingons would fit this description a whole lot better.


I should add that I very much enjoyed DS9. It had some excellent story arcs, as well as some fantastic political and psychological tension. But it just lacks the nobility and profundity of TNG.
Let's not misunderstand, I like TNG, and grew up watching it but it is effectively 'Social Workers in Space' especially the first couple of seasons. It particularly reminds me of the policy of the current US administration, patronising and deluded 'You should do things this way because we do'. DS9 on the other hand was muc more and at the same time less tolerent and showed the consequences of this, especially Sisko's involment in assasination to save lives, Picard never faced such a personal decision, his moral problems were always abstracted to another planet or civilisation and were therefore a theoretical problem to him.

bob
28th November 06, 04:55 AM
The Borg were created to be the philosophical antithesis of the Federation, though they share many of the same qualities.

They both agressively seek out new species for the knowledge they can gain from them and to in some way change and grow from the experience. The Borg's actions in completely assimilating the species they encountered were always shown in deliberate juxtaposition to the Prime Directive.

The message: "This is the danger if you show no restraint - everything you touch will either be destroyed or become like you."

DAYoung
28th November 06, 05:01 AM
I'd make an argument that the Klingons would fit this description a whole lot better.

TOS? Yes. TNG. No.

We were talking about TNG.


Picard never faced such a personal decision, his moral problems were always abstracted to another planet or civilisation and were therefore a theoretical problem to him.

Not at all. Good captaincy was essential to his identity. Failure was a taint on his character, and a bloody prick in his conscience. His decisions were never theoretical or abstract, except insofar as they required thought and emotional restraint.

DAYoung
28th November 06, 05:02 AM
The Borg were created to be the philosophical antithesis of the Federation, though they share many of the same qualities.

They both agressively seek out new species for the knowledge they can gain from them and to in some way change and grow from the experience. The Borg's actions in completely assimilating the species they encountered were always shown in deliberate juxtaposition to the Prime Directive.

The message: "This is the danger if you show no restraint - everything you touch will either be destroyed or become like you."

Absolutely. And don't forget the role of technology: this is what happens when it uses you, instead of the other way around.

Iscariot
28th November 06, 05:17 AM
TOS? Yes. TNG. No.

We were talking about TNG.
You said of Star Trek itself, without specifically mentioning TNG.


Not at all. Good captaincy was essential to his identity. Failure was a taint on his character, and a bloody prick in his conscience. His decisions were never theoretical or abstract, except insofar as they required thought and emotional restraint.
Most of that I believe was added during the series after it became apparent Picard was just the moral barometer for the show. Sisko's character allowed the later iterations of Picard to be wrong. You'd have never gotten the ready room scene from First Contact without Sisko showing that modern captains could be fallable, such things were implied in TNG to have gone out with Kirk.

Incidentally I think the best episode of TNG is a Picard episode, Series 5's An Inner Light.

Iscariot
28th November 06, 05:18 AM
Absolutely. And don't forget the role of technology: this is what happens when it uses you, instead of the other way around.
I think you're heading more towards ascribed meaning rather than implied meaning.

ICY
28th November 06, 05:32 AM
Iscariot...you are wrong. DAYoung pwned you so badly, I'm surprised you ever posted on the internet again, then Olorin shit in your mouth. This thread is not going well for you. Give up while you're behind.

DAYoung
28th November 06, 05:33 AM
You said of Star Trek itself, without specifically mentioning TNG.

It was implied by the context (hence my assumption that it was superfluous to mention explicitly).


Most of that I believe was added during the series after it became apparent Picard was just the moral barometer for the show. Sisko's character allowed the later iterations of Picard to be wrong. You'd have never gotten the ready room scene from First Contact without Sisko showing that modern captains could be fallable, such things were implied in TNG to have gone out with Kirk.


Sisko is irrelevant. Persistence is futile.


Incidentally I think the best episode of TNG is a Picard episode, Series 5's An Inner Light.


It is an excellent episode.

DAYoung
28th November 06, 05:35 AM
I think you're heading more towards ascribed meaning rather than implied meaning.

The distinction's correct, but not exactly apposite. Man's relation to technology is so richly explored in TNG that it would be odd if the writers hadn't given it some serious thought. In fact, technology is one of the central themes of the series (including Voyager).

Iscariot
28th November 06, 06:00 AM
Sisko is irrelevant. Persistence is futile.
LOLocaust.


The distinction's correct, but not exactly apposite. Man's relation to technology is so richly explored in TNG that it would be odd if the writers hadn't given it some serious thought. In fact, technology is one of the central themes of the series (including Voyager).
I'd still put it more towards ascribed meaning, especially given the fact that the writers had opportunities to explore these themes with Data and Lore. Picard was supposed to gain a bionic arm after his assimilation but this was vetoed by the creative team.

These themes were tackled in DS9 with Dr. Bashir's engineering angle, but less so IMO in Voyager with Seven.


Iscariot...WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! etc etc.
Head. Toilet. Now.

(I'd like to thank Olorin for the invention of this excellent phrase)

ICY
28th November 06, 06:11 AM
You wouldn't say that to my face.

DAYoung
28th November 06, 06:13 AM
Star Trek gives us a vision of ever more efficient and effective technology. The starships in the acclaimed Star Trek: The Next Generation are like whole worlds, seamlessly wedded to computers that obey every crewmember without question. The crew of the starship Enterprise do not need to grapple with door handles – they all slide open automatically. The lights, taps and showers respond to their every word, and a steaming cup appears at Captain Picard’s words: ‘Tea, Earl Grey, hot.’ At the command ‘computer’, the ship responds with a perky chirp, and awaits instructions. The ease with which the computerised ship eagerly obeys crewmembers leads one visitor to think the Star Trek crew are gods, and we can see why. It is, in the words of one crewmember, ‘the most sophisticated piece of machinery ever built’. At all hours of the day, the ship is ready to provide them with heat, light, food, water and entertainment, and to transport them to planets or across the galaxy. It is always available, as are the billions of stars that glide past its gleaming observation decks.

Yet there is a nightmarish downside to this technological dream. When the technology malfunctions, it is the Starfleet recruits who have to obey the ship, and not the other way around. When the ship’s computer breaks down, the Enterprise crew find themselves sitting in the dark, walking into closed doors and watching as the ship gives the Captain potted flowers instead of Earl Grey tea. In various episodes, the ship’s computer is taken over by aliens or enemies, forcing the crew to face asphyxiation, starvation and disintegration, or simply to abandon ship.

In Star Trek: The Next Generation, a more sinister version of this technological dystopia is given by the Borg: a race of cold-blooded machine-men, ruthlessly assimilating civilisations for their technologies, seeking ‘to perfect themselves’. They are pale, bloodless beings, covered in shiny black synthetic suits. Black robotic monocles cover their eyes, and their hands are often replaced by menacing pincers or drills. In the interests of efficiency, the Borg are permanently networked: plugged into a ‘hive mind’, listening to one another’s thoughts day and night. When they assimilate a new victim, their bodies are invaded by tiny machines, rewiring them into selfless Borg ‘drones’. Without free will or conscience, these drones are obediently at the service of the Borg collective. When they die, their parts are recycled, and they are simply replaced. They do not stop to laugh, to, weep, or to sigh. Like all machines, they are relentless – as their chilling catchcry reflects, ‘resistance is futile’.

Obviously, mobile phones and wireless laptops do not make us the Borg. Indeed, not even black plastic outfits, pale skin and dreams of world domination make us the Borg – witness Madonna’s ‘Girly Show’ tour. Nonetheless, if we can learn anything from Star Trek, it is that technology can be a poisoned chalice. It allows all things to be ready-to-hand, efficiently and obediently at our disposal, and sometimes this can lead to wonderful innovations. It can keep broken hearts beating, apples crispy, and distant loved-ones talking. However, the danger is that we ourselves become ready-to-hand, efficient and obedient – ‘assimilated’, like Borg drones. In other words, the very technology that makes the world available to us, also makes us available to the world. It can leave us somehow wedded to the ever-increasing speed, reach and repetition of the machine. As a result, our minds are often worlds away from where they should be: on the good life, and how to best enjoy it.

Iscariot
28th November 06, 07:03 AM
A very nice analysis DA, however none of it specific to TNG. Star Trek clearly falls into the category of utopian Sci-Fi, but all the examples you've mentioned are common plot devices used in all series of ST and indeed Sci-Fi (DS9 Starship Down, VOY Year of Hell Pt 1, SG 1 Frozen etc). These are no more than devices of the genre rather than the epitome of one particular series.

The notion of cyborgs as mirror adversaries is not new either, see the Daleks or Cybermen for two different takes on this from Doctor Who.

The nature of duality and symbiosis of man and technology has been done before and since, I personally think best in The Matrix saga.

None of this serves to exhalt TNG over any other series, even DS9. Though it is amazing how we went from Vulcan psuedo-porn, through geekish crushes to the rating of commanding officers and ultimately the quality of the series when put in comparison. Sociocide thread drift at its best.


You wouldn't say that to my face.
Yes I would.

ICY
28th November 06, 07:05 AM
Yes I would.

You wouldn't say that to my face either.

Iscariot
28th November 06, 07:11 AM
You wouldn't say that to my face either.
Well......not until you'd washed it, toilets can be filthy places.......

ICY
28th November 06, 07:57 AM
That's what I tho-HEY!

Olorin
28th November 06, 10:19 PM
Though it is amazing how we went from Vulcan psuedo-porn, through geekish crushes, to the rating of commanding officers, and ultimately the quality of the series when put in comparison. Sociocide thread drift at its best.

We can go back to discussing Vulcan Psuedo-porn if you like.

However, I think that this is the normal discussion arc when someone brings up Star Trek.

Steve
28th November 06, 11:19 PM
Altho I find the discussion very interesting, I consider the debate a moot point.

On one hand we have the captain of a star ship, exploring the galaxy. On the other, we have a captain of a space station, a stationary facility.

Both present very different viewpoints, creating very different shows. Essentially it's comparing apples to oranges, IMO.

So if you like one show (or captain) more than the other that's great. But I don't think that comparing them is going to prove anything, at least it hasn't to me.

I didn't watch DS9 nearly as much as I watched TNG. So I'm biased. But I also just like Patrick Stewart more than Avery Brooks.

At least Stewart can laugh at himself...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGf9Hc-KpAA
Would have embedded the video, but the owner doesn't allow it.

AAAhmed46
29th November 06, 12:28 AM
Hey speaking of which...why DID they have normal heads in the series, and when did they become ugly?

Steve
29th November 06, 12:35 AM
What in the wide wide world of sports are you talking about?

frumpleswift
29th November 06, 12:36 AM
Okay:

Spock was better as Paris
Sisco was better as Hawk
Picard was better as Henry Grey
and DS9 was better as Babylon 5

AAAhmed46
29th November 06, 01:05 AM
The rigdes.

bob
29th November 06, 02:36 AM
Arguing who was the best ST captain is completely missing the point.

The real issue is who was the best female character?

Jadzia Dax hands down. Smart, funny, sexy and could kick arse. Not to mention cute arrangement of spots.

Anyone who says Seven of Nine has not emotionally progressed beyond the age of 13.

Anyone who says Janeway, Troi or Beverly Crusher is officially middle aged.

AAAhmed46
29th November 06, 02:52 AM
You know, i also like Kes when her hair was long.

Steve
29th November 06, 03:02 AM
Arguing who was the best ST captain is completely missing the point.

The real issue is who was the best female character?

Jadzia Dax hands down. Smart, funny, sexy and could kick arse. Not to mention cute arrangement of spots.

Anyone who says Seven of Nine has not emotionally progressed beyond the age of 13.

Anyone who says Janeway, Troi or Beverly Crusher is officially middle aged.

I'll stick to my middle agedness and go with the empath, that would be some hot sex. Oh, and there is the whole 'Dax used to be a dude' thing.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't kick 'her' out of bed.

DAYoung
29th November 06, 03:06 AM
Dax and Seven of Nine at once (the aesthetic contrasts and comparisons alone are astonishing), followed by a tryst with B'Ellana Torres in a good mood.

bob
29th November 06, 03:07 AM
I'll stick to my middle agedness and go with the empath, that would be some hot sex. Oh, and there is the whole 'Dax used to be a dude' thing.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't kick 'her' out of bed.

She has the memories of a man, that means she knows how to pleez. But alright, I'll grant you the empath.

Wesley Crusher would also have been an acceptable answer. He has such a cute arse.

bob
29th November 06, 03:09 AM
Dax and Seven of Nine at once (the aesthetic contrasts and comparisons alone are astonishing), followed by a tryst with B'Ellana Torres in a good mood.

You sir, are a bon vivant. But one with a short life expectancy I suspect.

DAYoung
29th November 06, 03:09 AM
A very nice analysis DA, however none of it specific to TNG. Star Trek clearly falls into the category of utopian Sci-Fi, but all the examples you've mentioned are common plot devices used in all series of ST and indeed Sci-Fi (DS9 Starship Down, VOY Year of Hell Pt 1, SG 1 Frozen etc). These are no more than devices of the genre rather than the epitome of one particular series.

The notion of cyborgs as mirror adversaries is not new either, see the Daleks or Cybermen for two different takes on this from Doctor Who.

Of course the themes are in many science-fiction series - they're enduring human concerns.

But this misses the point.

The point was that these themes aren't 'ascribed' - they're essential to the series (and to the genre).


The nature of duality and symbiosis of man and technology has been done before and since, I personally think best in The Matrix saga.


The Matrix is philosophical drivel. Only the the first movie had any depth, and then they got overawed with their own undergraduate cleverness. It was worse than New Age spiritualism. The only saving grace was Monica Belluci.

Steve
29th November 06, 03:10 AM
She has the memories of a man, that means she knows how to pleez. But alright, I'll grant you the empath.

Wesley Crusher would also have been an acceptable answer. He has such a cute arse.

LOLZ!

Point.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to bornsceptic again.

DAYoung
29th November 06, 03:11 AM
You sir, are a bon vivant. But one with a short life expectancy I suspect.

True. But why do you limit my mortal span?

nihilist
29th November 06, 03:15 AM
Jadiza Jax has a creepy Melissa Sue Anderson look.

Steve
29th November 06, 03:15 AM
I suspect Torres wouldn't like playing 3rd fiddle.

DAYoung
29th November 06, 03:23 AM
I suspect Torres wouldn't like playing 3rd fiddle.

She'd be the coup de grace; the violent and bittersweet climax.

Trivia: Roxann Dawson (who play B'Elanna) was born in 1958.

Steve
29th November 06, 03:29 AM
In her sexual prime AND violent... You've almost convinced me.

Sirc
29th November 06, 03:34 AM
How long did it take Picard to convince Q that humanity was worthwhile? The entire run of TNG. How long did it take Sisko to convince Q that humanity was worthwhile? 3 seconds.

End. Of. Story.

Steve
29th November 06, 03:40 AM
Your logic is horrendous.

If Q thought humanity was worthwhile he would have stuck around.

So he did for TNG.

Stick
29th November 06, 03:42 AM
Ezri Dax was the cuter version

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a78/tenshirisu/ezri5.jpg

She makes me happy.

DAYoung
29th November 06, 03:44 AM
Exri Dax always reminded me of an ex-girlfriend of mine.

Sirc
29th November 06, 03:44 AM
In the end, the Defiant would pwninate the Enterprise anyway so whatever.

DAYoung
29th November 06, 03:44 AM
Your logic is horrendous.

If Q thought humanity was worthwhile he would have stuck around.

So he did for TNG.

With a few well-chosen, simple words, Steve wins the thread.

Sirc
29th November 06, 03:45 AM
Ezri Dax was the cuter version

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a78/tenshirisu/ezri5.jpg

She makes me happy.

And she puts out too.

DAYoung
29th November 06, 03:45 AM
In the end, the Defiant would pwninate the Enterprise anyway so whatever.

Romulan.

Sirc
29th November 06, 03:46 AM
Romulan.

*GASP*

I throw down the glove, sir.

Sirc
29th November 06, 03:51 AM
Your logic is horrendous.

If Q thought humanity was worthwhile he would have stuck around.

So he did for TNG.

Some logic. Q just needed satisfaction for his curiosity. It took Picard so long to do it, and only seconds for Sisko. Picard was in Q's friend zone and would go to him to cry on and do all that other crap that you do in the "friend zone". And really who wants to be in the friend zone? Gay.

Stick
29th November 06, 03:52 AM
You have an adorable ex-girlfriend?

You fiend!

.....

That actually made no sense, what I just did there... that is.... yeah.

la-dee-da

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a78/tenshirisu/ezri2.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a78/tenshirisu/ezri13.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a78/tenshirisu/ezri14.jpg

Also, why the hell did it take Bashir so long to finally get some? Julian Bashir didn't get any untill like the very last episode of the series out of seven entire seasons.... he's almost as bad as me!

Sirc
29th November 06, 03:56 AM
You have an adorable ex-girlfriend?

You fiend!

.....

That actually made no sense, what I just did there... that is.... yeah.

la-dee-da

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a78/tenshirisu/ezri2.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a78/tenshirisu/ezri13.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a78/tenshirisu/ezri14.jpg

Also, why the hell did it take Bashir so long to finally get some? Julian Bashir didn't get any untill like the very last episode of the series out of seven entire seasons.... he's almost as bad as me!

At least he got it with the hot/cute one instead of the oddly long faced one.

Iscariot
29th November 06, 04:01 AM
So many things to address this morning.......

Right. On the fit bird front, I've said many pages ago that Ezri and Mirror Kira are my picks......it also helps that in the mirror universe a threesome would definitely be on the cards........

Even though he's arguing for my side, Sirc's logic is flawed, the Ent D was a long range explorer designed to be a mobile research university, complete with annoying smart arse children. The Defiant was a specifically designed gunship, compact, powerful and heavily armed. A comparison would be like comparing a caravan to a tank; daft. The obvious was pointed out in the series when the Defiant took on Jem'Hadar fighters in droves whereas it took 3 to take down the Odyssey.

DAYoung:
What I'm trying to get at, is although such things are staples of the genre, their meaning is not always in place. Certainly the Trek franchises will touch on the issues, Babylon 5 would explore through metaphor and something like Andromeda would just use it as a dramatic device.

On the Matrix front, I'm intrigued; that film causes more passionate and polarised responses from academics than any other film I know. I have Film lecturers that hate it, others that write books on it, Philosophy teachers that used it as a teaching aid..... I've never met anyone who studies in one of the fields it touches on who is just plain apathetic about it.

Steve
29th November 06, 04:08 AM
Some logic. Q just needed satisfaction for his curiosity. It took Picard so long to do it, and only seconds for Sisko. Picard was in Q's friend zone and would go to him to cry on and do all that other crap that you do in the "friend zone". And really who wants to be in the friend zone? Gay.

So you're saying you wish that Q was a girl.

Tough luck, my friend.

Steve
29th November 06, 04:12 AM
So many things to address this morning.......

Right. On the fit bird front, I've said many pages ago that Ezri and Mirror Kira are my picks......it also helps that in the mirror universe a threesome would definitely be on the cards........

Even though he's arguing for my side, Sirc's logic is flawed, the Ent D was a long range explorer designed to be a mobile research university, complete with annoying smart arse children. The Defiant was a specifically designed gunship, compact, powerful and heavily armed. A comparison would be like comparing a caravan to a tank; daft. The obvious was pointed out in the series when the Defiant took on Jem'Hadar fighters in droves whereas it took 3 to take down the Odyssey.

DAYoung:
What I'm trying to get at, is although such things are staples of the genre, their meaning is not always in place. Certainly the Trek franchises will touch on the issues, Babylon 5 would explore through metaphor and something like Andromeda would just use it as a dramatic device.

On the Matrix front, I'm intrigued; that film causes more passionate and polarised responses from academics than any other film I know. I have Film lecturers that hate it, others that write books on it, Philosophy teachers that used it as a teaching aid..... I've never met anyone who studies in one of the fields it touches on who is just plain apathetic about it.

I study on the 'every man field', and I'm apathetic about it.

Iscariot
29th November 06, 04:14 AM
Also, why the hell did it take Bashir so long to finally get some? Julian Bashir didn't get any untill like the very last episode of the series out of seven entire seasons.... he's almost as bad as me!
Bashir was getting some off Leeta for a bit. She then got married to a Ferengi......might say something about him.......


Oh, and Dai Tenshi has a talent for finding the cutest pictures of Ezri......

Sirc
29th November 06, 04:21 AM
The whole Defiant and Enterprise thing was a joke, for clarification.

DAYoung
29th November 06, 04:26 AM
DAYoung: What I'm trying to get at, is although such things are staples of the genre, their meaning is not always in place. Certainly the Trek franchises will touch on the issues, Babylon 5 would explore through metaphor and something like Andromeda would just use it as a dramatic device.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'in place'. My feeling is that, like all good literature, they're an invitation to a rich ensemble of sensations, emotions and thoughts. The better the art, the more they offer. One of the themes that is offered in abundance is the relationship between man and technology.


On the Matrix front, I'm intrigued; that film causes more passionate and polarised responses from academics than any other film I know. I have Film lecturers that hate it, others that write books on it, Philosophy teachers that used it as a teaching aid..... I've never met anyone who studies in one of the fields it touches on who is just plain apathetic about it.

I used the first film as a teaching aid. I'd use the others as an aid to keeping cafe tables stable.

Iscariot
29th November 06, 04:47 AM
I'm not sure what you mean by 'in place'. My feeling is that, like all good literature, they're an invitation to a rich ensemble of sensations, emotions and thoughts. The better the art, the more they offer. One of the themes that is offered in abundance is the relationship between man and technology.
I think I'm getting where we see things differently. Something I have to look at alot, usually in auteur studies is the difference between meaning put in specifically by the creator for the audience to discover, appreciate and think from and meaning that the audience project onto something. This is a distinction I have to make a lot, because it's all well and good dissecting a film narrative, but if all you're doing is projecting what you think you see, and what you want to see, the analysis is pointless.

In this regard I'm saying that the Trek franchises don't use it as a device to provoke thought and reaction in the audience, they use it merely as a narrative device to force their characters into jeopardy.


I used the first film as a teaching aid. I'd use the others as an aid to keeping cafe tables stable.
I'm a fan of the saga, though I really can't see the point of the second one (I tend to skip to Lambert Wilson's bits because he's just so entertaining). The box set however does have some commentaries I found interesting, one from a group of critics who hated the films, and another by a set of philosophers. From my layman's POV I found them quite interesting.

Sirc
29th November 06, 04:49 AM
While we're here, you guys think there will be any future Star Trek tv shows?

DAYoung
29th November 06, 04:52 AM
I think I'm getting where we see things differently. Something I have to look at alot, usually in auteur studies is the difference between meaning put in specifically by the creator for the audience to discover, appreciate and think from and meaning that the audience project onto something. This is a distinction I have to make a lot, because it's all well and good dissecting a film narrative, but if all you're doing is projecting what you think you see, and what you want to see, the analysis is pointless.

Let me be clear, then. I think the scriptwriters explicitly and deliberaely deal with many of these issues. However, I would also suggest that the nature of the genre and Star Trek leads to themes and issues that are clearly 'in the text', without being deliberately worked-out by the creators.


In this regard I'm saying that the Trek franchises don't use it as a device to provoke thought and reaction in the audience, they use it merely as a narrative device to force their characters into jeopardy.

I don't agree. I see 'Measure of a Man' as a classical example of these issues being explicitly dealt with. The discussions of 'perfection' and 'efficiency' in relation to the Borg also deal with issues of essential importance to the relationship between technology and man.

Iscariot
29th November 06, 05:19 AM
Let me be clear, then. I think the scriptwriters explicitly and deliberaely deal with many of these issues. However, I would also suggest that the nature of the genre and Star Trek leads to themes and issues that are clearly 'in the text', without being deliberately worked-out by the creators.
Are you saying that generic conventions imply an approach to the narrative and therefore a suggested audience meaning?


I don't agree. I see 'Measure of a Man' as a classical example of these issues being explicitly dealt with. The discussions of 'perfection' and 'efficiency' in relation to the Borg also deal with issues of essential importance to the relationship between technology and man.
I'm a big fan of Measure of A Man. However I'd counter with the fact that episodes like this are the exception rather than the rule. To go back to your earlier point, the ship breaking down/turbolift not working is not a commentary on mankind's dependence on technology, nor should it be taken as this. Although this device may have been used to raised this point in the past, now (and during the run of programmes such as TNG) they're not. They are a convienient way to give the characters a challenge to be overcome. Staples of the genre, such as shuttlecraft/puddlejumpers etc are known to be a simple means to create difficulty for an episode.

Iscariot
29th November 06, 05:20 AM
While we're here, you guys think there will be any future Star Trek tv shows?
Yes, although I think they should wait at least 10 or 20 years.

For the record I strongly resent the current plan to make another film about Kirk's academy days, and the rumour about 'rebooting' the original series like BSG.

bob
29th November 06, 05:25 AM
^^^^DA has set phaser to 'correct'

TNG, more than any other series in ST placed philosophical imperatives over dramatic imperatives. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't but the end result was a series that made you think long after you'd watched it. Even if DS9 sometimes dealt with more superficially 'adult' themes, TNG was more consistently thought provoking.

Picard was everyman and ubermensch simultaneously; the best that humanity can offer yet still possessing all our inherent flaws. Data represented the struggle to combine science and spirituality. Worf was the Enkidu to Worf's Gilgamesh, the wild man tamed (barely).

And Ezri was cute. But I'd be thinking of Jadzia.

DAYoung
29th November 06, 05:27 AM
Are you saying that generic conventions imply an approach to the narrative and therefore a suggested audience meaning?

Sometimes, yes. I suspect you're guilty of what we might call 'genre reductionism'. You treat the themes as if they're only devices common to a genre, rather than seeing the genre itself as bound up in central human questions.


I'm a big fan of Measure of A Man. However I'd counter with the fact that episodes like this are the exception rather than the rule. To go back to your earlier point, the ship breaking down/turbolift not working is not a commentary on mankind's dependence on technology, nor should it be taken as this. Although this device may have been used to raised this point in the past, now (and during the run of programmes such as TNG) they're not. They are a convienient way to give the characters a challenge to be overcome. Staples of the genre, such as shuttlecraft/puddlejumpers etc are known to be a simple means to create difficulty for an episode.

My word for the day is: 'overdetermination' (in the Freudian (http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=802) sense).

DAYoung
29th November 06, 05:30 AM
Picard was everyman and ubermensch simultaneously; the best that humanity can offer yet still possessing all our inherent flaws. Data represented the struggle to combine science and spirituality. Worf was the Enkidu to Worf's Gilgamesh, the wild man tamed (barely).

And Ezri was cute. But I'd be thinking of Jadzia.

This might just be the perfect post.

Iscariot
29th November 06, 06:00 AM
Stop using big words, it's not fair to......Sirc......


Sometimes, yes. I suspect you're guilty of what we might call 'genre reductionism'. You treat the themes as if they're only devices common to a genre, rather than seeing the genre itself as bound up in central human questions.
I'm guilty of a great many things, none of which I'll go into here.

Generic Reductionism? Interesting idea, and I think valid to come to a defintive answer outside of the field of studying audience response. To consider audience reaction and prejudice as part of the definition of genre makes the matter far too complex and ultimately unneccessary. Generic conventions are often easy and obvious to define, the fact that certain products utilise them in a way to provoke the same thought that caused them to be become convention, while others use them to create discussion on new topic while still others use them only as a small plotpoint renders spectator reaction ultimately irrelevent.


My word for the day is: 'overdetermination' (in the Freudian (http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=802) sense).
Argh, big words...... if I'm reading this right (and I'm probably not, so feel free to correct me) you are saying that I'm dismissing these devices as purely narrative devices when I should be looking at them again and garnering more meaning from it? Is that right?

My response would be that while such ideas might work in literature, with no-one but the author contributing, Film and therefore TV are such massive collaborative efforts that such analysis would be futile because thje end product can be changed by any number of people for small reasons. My stance would be to look at the end product and determine from their the significance of such analysis. Now while the 'broken shuttlecraft' might be caused by man's reliance on technology, if the episode is meant to resolve an arc between two characters who then take the time to speak when they'd been avoiding each other, then I'd say that the analysis that man is dependent on technolgy need not be made because that point was never supposed to be implied. The broken shuttlecraft has changed from a thematic piece of thought provokation to being a device there only to allow the actual narrative and though provoking themes to take place.

It serves the writer as an easy way to move the audience to a point from which he can tell his story. Nothing more.

DAYoung
29th November 06, 06:18 AM
Generic Reductionism? Interesting idea, and I think valid to come to a defintive answer outside of the field of studying audience response. To consider audience reaction and prejudice as part of the definition of genre makes the matter far too complex and ultimately unneccessary. Generic conventions are often easy and obvious to define, the fact that certain products utilise them in a way to provoke the same thought that caused them to be become convention, while others use them to create discussion on new topic while still others use them only as a small plotpoint renders spectator reaction ultimately irrelevent.

Is this like the drunk who drops his keys down a dark grate, but looks for them on the doorstep 'cause the light's better there?


Argh, big words...... if I'm reading this right (and I'm probably not, so feel free to correct me) you are saying that I'm dismissing these devices as purely narrative devices when I should be looking at them again and garnering more meaning from it? Is that right?

The idea is that a story can have many bona fide motivations, only some of them known to the authors.


My response would be that while such ideas might work in literature, with no-one but the author contributing, Film and therefore TV are such massive collaborative efforts that such analysis would be futile because thje end product can be changed by any number of people for small reasons. My stance would be to look at the end product and determine from their the significance of such analysis. Now while the 'broken shuttlecraft' might be caused by man's reliance on technology, if the episode is meant to resolve an arc between two characters who then take the time to speak when they'd been avoiding each other, then I'd say that the analysis that man is dependent on technolgy need not be made because that point was never supposed to be implied. The broken shuttlecraft has changed from a thematic piece of thought provokation to being a device there only to allow the actual narrative and though provoking themes to take place.

It serves the writer as an easy way to move the audience to a point from which he can tell his story. Nothing more.

You're attributing too much to the writers' intent. Writers have a host of psychological and social motivations, many of them bubbling away under the surface. The options available to them, and the significances of these options, aren't as straightforward as you're making out. It's like saying Achilles' dragging Hector behind a chariot was just a narrative device to heighten the impact of Hector's funeral - but it was also an expression of desecration and defilement; of the desanctification of home; of the madness of rage; of the inversion of the rites of hospitality and guest. The mix of dirt and blood weren't just handy props - they were essential to the expression of the Homeric character (and Greece itself). But Homer wasn't necessarily thinking about all this. When he wrote, he was expressing the unconscious concerns of a people (and himself).

Iscariot
29th November 06, 06:45 AM
Is this like the drunk who drops his keys down a dark grate, but looks for them on the doorstep 'cause the light's better there?
No of course not, spectator study is a field in Film, but seperate from distinct from Genre Studies. In fact if Spectator opinions are taken then it can cause problems with Genre studies due to the perceptive errors of a mainstream audience. The mainstream would call Alien a Sci-Fi film, it's not......

Regardless of audience reception certain generic conventions remain constant. A revolver pistol is a generic convention of the Western, regardless of whether that Western is viewed by a member of the NRA or someone who's lobbying for gun control. Their reactions and opinions on the gun are not important to that device's status as a convention with the genre.




The idea is that a story can have many bona fide motivations, only some of them known to the authors.
Author being unaware of their own reasonings? Yep fair enough.




You're attributing too much to the writers' intent. Writers have a host of psychological and social motivations, many of them bubbling away under the surface. The options available to them, and the significances of these options, aren't as straightforward as you're making out.
Actually I'm arguing against a writer's intent. Or at least that's what I'm trying to. Whereas that might be the way to go in an Auteur study, in a Genre study I'm arguing that one must look purely on the final product, the film itself, regardless of the makers' intent or audience reaction.


It's like saying Achilles' dragging Hector behind a chariot was just a narrative device to heighten the impact of Hector's funeral - but it was also an expression of desecration and defilement; of the desanctification of home; of the madness of rage; of the inversion of the rites of hospitality and guest. The mix of dirt and blood weren't just handy props - they were essential to the expression of the Homeric character (and Greece itself). But Homer wasn't necessarily thinking about all this. When he wrote, he was expressing the unconscious concerns of a people (and himself).
Actually in this case I'd say that the act of desecration is the dramatic device in used as a shortcut into Achilles' character.

ICY
29th November 06, 07:09 AM
Also, why the hell did it take Bashir so long to finally get some?

Worf.


I used the first film as a teaching aid.

*Loses all respect*


I'm a fan of the saga

*Loses all respect*


While we're here, you guys think there will be any future Star Trek tv shows?

Are people greedy?


I don't agree. I see 'Measure of a Man' as a classical example of these issues being explicitly dealt with. The discussions of 'perfection' and 'efficiency' in relation to the Borg also deal with issues of essential importance to the relationship between technology and man.

Fucking WIN.


Yes, although I think they should wait at least 10 or 20 years.

For the record I strongly resent the current plan to make another film about Kirk's academy days, and the rumour about 'rebooting' the original series like BSG.

FAAAAAAAAG!

DAYoung
29th November 06, 04:07 PM
No of course not, spectator study is a field in Film, but seperate from distinct from Genre Studies. In fact if Spectator opinions are taken then it can cause problems with Genre studies due to the perceptive errors of a mainstream audience. The mainstream would call Alien a Sci-Fi film, it's not......

Regardless of audience reception certain generic conventions remain constant. A revolver pistol is a generic convention of the Western, regardless of whether that Western is viewed by a member of the NRA or someone who's lobbying for gun control. Their reactions and opinions on the gun are not important to that device's status as a convention with the genre.

I agree with all of this. I just think you're putting all your analytical eggs in one basket.


Actually I'm arguing against a writer's intent. Or at least that's what I'm trying to. Whereas that might be the way to go in an Auteur study, in a Genre study I'm arguing that one must look purely on the final product, the film itself, regardless of the makers' intent or audience reaction.

I can see the theme in your argument, but you introduced the idea that writers were just selecting a device for narrative purposes. It gave the impression that their selection of the device was sovereign.

As for looking at the work itself, I agree, though it's an incredibly complex notion. There is a whole swag of tacit knowledge that allows us to look at 'the film itself', none of which is in the film itself.

In any case, I'm interested in the way in which the work affords experiences for me. I can then try to share those with others. Trying to locate a select few timeless qualities in the work (and nowhere else) doesn't appeal to me very much. It seems like a structural analysis that leads nowhere.


Actually in this case I'd say that the act of desecration is the dramatic device in used as a shortcut into Achilles' character.

My point is that the dramatic device is overladen with a series of simultaneous and genuine meanings. We can't point to the device and assume we've found The Work.

Olorin
30th November 06, 12:38 AM
Dax and Seven of Nine at once (the aesthetic contrasts and comparisons alone are astonishing), followed by a tryst with B'Ellana Torres in a good mood.

Είστε βρώμικο άτομο.

DAYoung
30th November 06, 01:04 AM
Είστε βρώμικο άτομο.

I love that you've translated 'individual' as άτομο, i.e. indivisible. I feel so primordial.

But yes, το αυτό είναι αληθιnός.

Olorin
30th November 06, 01:19 AM
You lost me…

My last post was the first time I have tired to use Greek.

By the way, I am reading your articles. (be afraid, be very afraid)

.

DAYoung
30th November 06, 01:35 AM
You lost me…

My last post was the first time I have tired to use Greek.

I just said 'this is true'. I used 'this' (αυτό) with its definite article (το), which might have been a mistake.


By the way, I am reading your articles. (be afraid, be very afraid).

Good grief. Which ones?

Olorin
30th November 06, 08:01 PM
Good grief. Which ones?


The ones listed on your school profile.

Or I should say I plan to look at them when the semester is over.

Judah Maccabee
30th November 06, 09:29 PM
My av and sig have never been more appropriate.

=-=-

To be fair, I've watched all of DS9, but haven't yet of TNG. I'm mustering up the courage to once again watch an entire series in several straight months and essentially put my NetFlix queue on hold again.

Stick
30th November 06, 10:35 PM
X6oUz1v17Uo

Steve
30th November 06, 10:39 PM
Hmmm, I've seen that^^ video posted somewhere else before...

I think that it might have spawned Samurai Steve's avatar...

Stick
30th November 06, 10:40 PM
Gee, you think?

Steve
30th November 06, 10:48 PM
Yeah, cause I posted it.

And got no thanks for it then, either.

Edit: Currently watching TNG.

nihilist
30th November 06, 11:59 PM
Star trek is a soap opera for nerds.

As long as you realize that then you will have one less misconception about yourself.

Judah Maccabee
30th November 06, 11:59 PM
Look at my sig for the full video.

AAAhmed46
1st December 06, 01:16 AM
It's wierd how Gul Dukat changes throughout Ds9, by the end he isn't sympathetic at all.

DAYoung
1st December 06, 01:38 AM
The ones listed on your school profile.

Or I should say I plan to look at them when the semester is over.

OK. There's also one on martial arts in the 'Philosophy and Martial Arts' section (very un-Bullshido).

Let me know what you think - no doubt some of the earlier ones will seem like fashionable waffle. Still, they've got some virtues mixed in with the vices...

AAAhmed46
1st December 06, 01:57 AM
Why did they make him look in the beginning(dukat) as a villian of circumstance to the prince of evil by the end? I kind of didn't like that.

Steve
1st December 06, 01:57 AM
OK. There's also one on martial arts in the 'Philosophy and Martial Arts' section (very un-Bullshido).

Recommended.