tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post4226625731683277809..comments2024-03-05T21:05:36.848-05:00Comments on CommentaramaFilms: Star Trek TNG Take Down!AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-16312092364159571902011-03-09T16:11:52.922-05:002011-03-09T16:11:52.922-05:00even in the original series, the prime directive d...even in the original series, the prime directive drove writers nuts as mentioned in David Gerrold's "The Making of Star Trek." It cut down the number of options available for good stories. But your point is well taken.<br><br>Although not germaine to the discussion at hand, I really enjoyed both the firing of the top NPR executive and the testimony of former congressman Isbrook regarding the hidden spending bomb contained in the Patient Protection & Affordable Care ActTennessee Jedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10604275115906776992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-63609597295018569702011-03-09T16:17:07.938-05:002011-03-09T16:17:07.938-05:00Jed, I can definitely see how it would limit the o...Jed, I can definitely see how it would limit the options for stories but I also think Roddenberry was trying to make several political points in the old Star Trek, so I understand why he did it and I think it made sense the way he enunciated it back then.<br><br>But by the 1990s, this "principle" really became a moving target that was used primarily to act morally superior.<br><br><br>I've been really enjoying the NPR debacle as well! :-)AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-16244641353055154272011-03-09T16:32:42.900-05:002011-03-09T16:32:42.900-05:00Oh, a Utopian society that supports regressive tax...Oh, a Utopian society that supports regressive tax policies?! Do we dare to dream????<br><br>;)<br><br>Seriously, this was always a pet peeve of mine. We pull out the old PD when it's convenient and ignore it when it's not.<br><br>And I'm with Jed - I'm very much enjoying watching the NPR implosion. Two thumbs up and another box of popcorn, please!CrispyRicehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07302075204880024936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-62895838874247611802011-03-09T16:34:57.813-05:002011-03-09T16:34:57.813-05:00Crispy, Maybe the whole staff and quit in protest?...Crispy, Maybe the whole staff and quit in protest? That would be really cool!<br><br>Yeah, the Prime Directive seems more like a plot convenience than a firm rule the way they use it.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-45468287042489712172011-03-09T17:53:33.479-05:002011-03-09T17:53:33.479-05:00Andrew,I did stay loyal to ST: TNG. Mostly because...Andrew,<br><br>I did stay loyal to ST: TNG. Mostly because of the BORG.<br><br>Overall, I like the ST: DS-9 episodes better. It's stories were mainly about the human condition.<br><br>Quark was far more interesting than Crusher ever could be. Either one.<br><br>NPR should just hang it up. They have been pwnd. NPR had the misfortune of doing it while there is a cost cutting mood in the country.Joel Farnhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15856960977033430002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-16867335047552235232011-03-09T18:01:05.474-05:002011-03-09T18:01:05.474-05:00Joel, Don't get me wrong, I like TNG and I wat...Joel, Don't get me wrong, I like TNG and I watch it all the time. I just think it's politics and "philosophy" are entirely ridiculous.<br><br>The Borg were great (at least until the movie, which completely changed their nature). I've heard a lot of people say they lived DS-9 better. I think they had better characters and their story arcs were superior, but I still prefer TNG to DS-9... but it's close. The other two never caught my interest though -- Voyager and Enterprise.<br><br><br>I'm betting NPR will eventually give up on pretending to be fair and will become more of an MSNBC. Will that help their ratings? I don't know, it might. I think MSNBC is in for some rough times now without Olbermann.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-78205469550954881892011-03-09T19:04:04.946-05:002011-03-09T19:04:04.946-05:00Hard to believe the actress who played Sarjenka tu...Hard to believe the actress who played Sarjenka turned into <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0185178/" rel="nofollow">this</a> though from looking at some more recent photos of her, I have to ask what the f--- did she do to her face?! (That link is safe for work, by the way - just IMDb.)<br><br>For some reason, I had assumed that the next episode you'd write about would've been season 1's "Justice" a.k.a. "Planet of the Scantily-Clad Badly-Permed Hedonists." I haven't seen "Pen Pals" in more than a decade, despite owning the DVD sets. I agree with Jed - this was another one of those Roddenberry things that drove the writers up the wall. Memory Alpha and Wikipedia both have excellent articles on the Prime Directive along with the crew's many violations.<br><br>In the Trek movie thread, I know I threw a lot at you but one thing we kinda glossed over was the Prime Directive and Star Trek: Insurrection. As I mentioned the other day, INS is one of the only times I disagreed with the crew's action. And they even threw in the idea that the PD didn't even apply since the hippies they were defending weren't even indigenous to the planet.<br><br>Re: Sarjenka's makeup - I do give Michael Westmore credit for creating some genuinely alien-looking characters for the first few year of TNG. By the time we got to the end of Voyager, it was as if they simply drew a few lines on the actors' foreheads with a Sharpie and that was it.ScottDShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15660889617173576835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-24441217184593737002011-03-09T19:28:16.341-05:002011-03-09T19:28:16.341-05:00Scott, There are many episodes to pick at. What b...Scott, There are many episodes to pick at. What bothered me so much about this one was the insanely stupid argument that "you can't interfere with the development of someone who will be dead in 3 hours." That's utterly ridiculous, especially for the justification they give -- "you might cause problems for their development."<br><br>I've seen all the attempts to define the Prime Directive and I think those attempts are ridiculous -- I understand it now has 43 subparts. This reminds me the million page European constitution, which is more like a grocery list than any set of usable principles.<br><br>If you believe in something as a matter of principle, you can state that principle in a sentence. Maybe you need a small corollary to clarify some minor exception, but you never need to start breaking it down into a million parts. The fact that they need to do that to try to justify it, tells me they don't really believe in the principle at all, but they are just trying to come up with some grandiose statement for a bunch of other slightly-related beliefs that they have.<br><br>The other thing I think this episode really highlights is how liberalism has changed. In the 1960s, liberals were saying "stop trying to control other cultures, let them develop naturally." But by 1990, they had changed to "let's impose 'good' ideas on them." This new Prime Directive really shows that and the tension. On the one hand, they've taken the old Prime Directive and made it more anal -- "we're not as loose with it as Kirk was, we really believe in no interference at all!" But then they ignore it routinely and they skew it and stretch it to squeeze in the exact opposite of what the directive supposedly stands for.<br><br>I think that's really interesting because it shows how liberalism has completely flipped itself around and is now trying to be self-righteous about believing both contradictory positions.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-89938763390295296052011-03-09T19:30:26.729-05:002011-03-09T19:30:26.729-05:00P.S. Scott, on the makeup, I agree entirely. In t...P.S. Scott, on the makeup, I agree entirely. In the first couple seasons, they really did try to come up with aliens. Later in the series, it seems that you became an alien if someone stuck a bump on your forehead or drew some dots on your skin.<br><br>What's your beef with Insurrection?AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-62569981645766500452011-03-09T19:30:26.728-05:002011-03-09T19:30:26.728-05:00Scott,I can explain some of the thinking with rega...Scott,<br><br>I can explain some of the thinking with regards to believable alien make-up. It takes time to apply it. It costs more than just some squiggly designs. When the series is obviously winding down, the tendency to cut costs in the make-up department is too tempting. Especially if it was done on one episode to increase the budget of another. All the bean counters see is the price of one episode dramatically dips, and the price of another goes up.<br><br>So, their argument goes, "Why do you have to have these pricey shows? See, here you came well under budget? What is wrong with you?" Roddenberry had on going arguments over budget. The least expensive shows were the shipboard ones. Where nothing happens except on-board the ship. Problem is the ship is supposed to be traveling to new worlds. Seek out new civilizations. To boldly go where no one has gone before. (I couldn't resist)Joel Farnhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15856960977033430002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-26571174316007702622011-03-09T19:39:53.220-05:002011-03-09T19:39:53.220-05:00Joel, That's true, it's all about budget r...Joel, That's true, it's all about budget rather than desire. You see that in the costuming too, where later in the series, the uniforms stop matching because they don't have the budget to make new uniforms for the extras, so they just give them the old uniforms from the first couple seasons and only give the main characters the new uniforms.<br><br><br>On the point of going to new places, that is my BIGGEST BEEF with TNG. Grrr. When did they <i>EVER</i> go to some new planet? The old Enterprise was truly a ship of exploration. It definitely patrolled a large sector of space, but within that sector, they routinely landed on unexplored planets and ran into new things.<br><br>The new Enterprise was more like a cruise ship, which went back and forth between existing Federation worlds. But they kept making such a big deal about being a "ship or exploration" (and denigrating Kirk's era) even though they never went anywhere that a million Federation tourists hadn't already gone!<br><br>One of the reasons I had a lot of hope for Voyager was that it was supposed to be a return to the exploration spirit of the show, and it never was -- it just because TNG with a smaller set. Enterprise too promised to go back to the age of recklessly beeming down onto new worlds and checking out the universe.... and it too became the same thing -- a space soap opera with the same aliens, over and over and over.<br><br>Grrr.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-31500878464465394902011-03-09T19:54:21.964-05:002011-03-09T19:54:21.964-05:00****NEWS ALERT******:The Wisconsin Legislature jus...****NEWS ALERT******:<br>The Wisconsin Legislature just voted to end collective bargaining. They took the nuclear option and stripped the financial portion out of the bill and passed the collective bargaining end. Madison has gone berserk!<br><br>The Republicans and Gov. Walker warned them then this could happen. The Dems refused to come back, so the Repubs did what they finally had to do. The 14 "Flee-bagging" Dem Senators are NOW rushing back to Madison...BevfromNYChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14953050916932306270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-51032883871877233492011-03-09T19:58:25.526-05:002011-03-09T19:58:25.526-05:00Bev, That is awesome!! I hope they get it through...Bev, That is awesome!! I hope they get it through right away and teach the Democrats a lesson for their childishness.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-6465616267675708062011-03-09T20:02:19.332-05:002011-03-09T20:02:19.332-05:00Joel - Those episodes are referred to as "bot...Joel - <br><br>Those episodes are referred to as "bottle shows." As for make-up, I agree but "end of Voyager" was just an example. All the Trek series have had both exquisite and cheap make-up effects. But there's a world of difference between <a href="http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/gallery/stmagazine/hirogen3.jpg" rel="nofollow">this</a> and <a href="http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/gallery/stmagazine/icheb-father.jpg" rel="nofollow">this</a>. :-)<br><br>And if you have time to kill, check out <a href="http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies.htm" rel="nofollow">this page</a> and scroll down the list. You'll see photo galleries full of reused make-up, costumes, props, sets, etc.ScottDShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15660889617173576835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-88886123041605831722011-03-09T20:04:38.147-05:002011-03-09T20:04:38.147-05:00Scott, 2/3 of your links don't work. Also, yo...Scott, 2/3 of your links don't work. Also, you ended up in the spam filter for some reason, which is why your comment didn't appear right away.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-73012495326171364182011-03-09T20:06:28.634-05:002011-03-09T20:06:28.634-05:00Andrew - Hmm... it's a legit Trek fan website....Andrew - <br><br>Hmm... it's a legit Trek fan website. I was attempting to illustrate the difference between good and bad make-up effects.<br><br>Re: Insurrection, it's been a while but Picard and Co. end up defending the Ba'ku planet against the So'na and the Federation, both of whom want to harness the planet's regenerative properties. The Starfleet admiral reminds Picard that they're only moving 600 people and it's for the greater good. Picard has a problem with that, even though the Ba'ku aren't even indigenous to the planet and were never meant to be immortal.ScottDShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15660889617173576835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-36803260968514466962011-03-09T20:11:38.122-05:002011-03-09T20:11:38.122-05:00Okay, let's try this - re: make-up, there'...Okay, let's try this - re: make-up, there's a world of difference between <a href="http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Icheb" rel="nofollow">this</a> and <a href="http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Hirogen" rel="nofollow">this</a>. But some episodes simply cost more than others and studios are always looking for places to trim the fat. The art department is usually one of the first to suffer.<br><br>Additionally, re: INS - I was on the side of Starfleet and the So'na on this one. And I'm pretty sure they never explain why they simply can't move the Ba'ku to another part of the planet, versus another one altogether.ScottDShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15660889617173576835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-19072658188611902812011-03-09T20:16:42.277-05:002011-03-09T20:16:42.277-05:00Scott, I don't get it either? It looks like i...Scott, I don't get it either? It looks like it's something they've done, maybe to keep their bandwidth use down.<br><br>On <i>Insurrection</i>, careful Scott, it sounds like you're dangerously close to becoming a conservative cliche! LOL!<br><br>Liberals (who moved the Indians, see, eg. President Jackson) have long argued that it's wrong to force people like the Indians off their land for the good of whitey. In fact, it's a crime against humanity to move people off their land. . .<br><br>Well, unless you're planning to build housing for the poor or a hospital or something like that, then it's find to do the same thing to individuals under eminent domain, just so long as the people whose land you take aren't disproportionately from minority races.<br><br>AND, if you disagree with either position, i.e. you think it was ok to move the Indians because whitey put the land to better use or you think we shouldn't be allowed to move people without their consent because you believe in private property rights, then you are a conservative racist hatemonger.<br><br>So be careful about criticizing Picard, you're walking a fine line there buddy!<br><br>:-)AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-57911904659199073872011-03-09T20:20:43.831-05:002011-03-09T20:20:43.831-05:00Scott, That works, and you're right -- huge di...Scott, That works, and you're right -- huge difference.<br><br><br>On <i>Insurrection</i>, I think you've crossed the line. The fact that they could use this planet to heal trillions of people and improve untold numbers of lives is irrelevant... there are 600 peaceful, luddite hippies who don't want to give up their land. It's no contest.<br><br>(BTW, in actuality, I think the whole thing is ridiculous. There is no reason they even had to move these people. They could have put a resort or hospital one valley over and there never would have been a problem.)AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-27111968138220440992011-03-09T20:40:38.012-05:002011-03-09T20:40:38.012-05:00On Insurrection, careful Scott, it sounds like you...<i>On Insurrection, careful Scott, it sounds like you're dangerously close to becoming a conservative cliche! LOL!</i><br><br>I couldn't find a good enough YouTube clip so <a href="http://bit.ly/bZ2JdM" rel="nofollow">this'll</a> have to do. :-)<br><br>Besides, considering my views on abortion and gay marriage (though I was impressed with your article on the subject), we both know I'll never be a <i>real</i> conservative. ;-)<br><br>All kidding aside, I'll have to take a look at that book I downloaded on the writing process of Insurrection. There might be some nugget of insight in there (which would be one nugget more than the film has!).ScottDShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15660889617173576835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-31265706548291246652011-03-09T20:53:53.010-05:002011-03-09T20:53:53.010-05:00Scott, If you find out anything interesting, let u...Scott, If you find out anything interesting, let us know. Right now it looks like they just took an old liberal trope about American injustice and jammed it into space without giving the story much thought. In fact, I've got to say that the whole movie feels kind of rushed and like no one really cared all that much.<br><br>Thanks for the complement on the gay marriage article. I think my position makes the most sense... but nobody listens to me. Oh no. ;-)<br><br>As for calling you a conservative cliche, I don't see you that way, I'm just warning you not to repeat what you've said here in liberal company -- they'll be calling you all kinds of names.... they'll call you and "Uncle Ronnie" (Reagan).<br><br>I actually take the position that we should respect property rights and the government should not have the power to seize land. Private companies have found ways to do this for decades. And if they can do it, then the government should be following their methods rather than forcing people off their land.<br><br>That said, I do not accept historical grievances. Those were different times in the past, and everyone was an as~hole to someone back then. We need to let that go and move on and realize that whatever your great-grandfather did to my great-grandfather is not relevant to my life or future.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-42636864104174171832011-03-09T21:10:40.002-05:002011-03-09T21:10:40.002-05:00Here was Michael Piller's original pitch:“We o...Here was Michael Piller's original pitch:<br><br>“We open at Starfleet Academy in Picard’s youth,” I told [Rick Berman], “Establishing Picard as a curly-haired, high-spirited cadet. We give him a best friend, another cadet who is as close to Picard as any man has ever been and ever<br>will be.<br>“Flash forward to the present day and find adult Picard being given a mission by Starfleet Command. His old friend is now a wanted man -- he’s been attacking ships in an unexplored region of space and no one knows why. Picard has to track him down and if necessary, kill him.<br>“The Enterprise sets off through this mysterious region and the crew begins to act in unusual ways. We don’t know why yet. After several curious incidents, they finally find the hiding place of Picard’s old friend. Picard transports down to the planet and discovers that he looks exactly the same as he did at the Academy! We ultimately learn that this is a fountain of youth and<br>somebody is trying to steal it from the people who live there. Picard’s friend has been defending the natives on the planet.”<br><br>"We started considering possible villains. The Romulans, an imperialistic, fascist race of aliens, had been long-standing enemies of the United Federation of Planets (the good guys) and had never been used in a movie before. Perhaps the story could be set against the threat of a new outbreak of war with the Romulans.<br>We also talked about the idea that someone in the Federation itself might be involved with the Romulans in a conspiracy to steal the fountain of youth.<br>"This was no small matter. As I’ve said, a fundamental part of Gene Roddenberry’s vision is that humanity has evolved as a species by the Twenty-Fourth Century. There might be a bad apple now and then but as a rule, the humans of the Federation were pure and good. Rick and I were very protective of Roddenberry’s vision. But we liked the idea of someone in Starfleet Command sending Picard on a mission without telling him the entire truth. It would provide a continuing subtext of tension and mystery. We spent days delineating a complex web of political intrigue that would support the conspiracy. Perhaps the Federation conspirators could be a cadre of old leaders (we called them the “alter kockers”) who were willing to betray their sacred trust in order to be young again."<br><br>And, oddly, there was this idea:<br>"We came up with a unique way to victory -- the arrival of an unusual cavalry that Picard<br>befriends earlier in the movie -- made up of all the little ships that populate this area of space, a rag-tag army of Federation mariners. In a Capra-esque way, it’s the people of the Federation who would save the day."<br><br>The Mariners sound almost - dare I say it - Tea Party-esque? This would've made an interesting film!<br><br>There's more and, per usual, a variety of factors contributed to the what the final film became. Ironically, after Piller handed in the first draft, the head of the studio actually admitted that the villains' argument made sense and Picard could be seen as being on the wrong side of the issue!ScottDShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15660889617173576835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-7479794193192750352011-03-09T21:18:43.180-05:002011-03-09T21:18:43.180-05:00And it seems my comment ended up in spam again. Pr...And it seems my comment ended up in spam again. Probably too long...?ScottDShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15660889617173576835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-42936421582192552922011-03-09T21:33:14.028-05:002011-03-09T21:33:14.028-05:00Sorry about that Scott. I don't know why it&#...Sorry about that Scott. I don't know why it's catching you. It was catching Joel for a week.<br><br>I've freed it now.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-12891060929612725922011-03-09T21:38:16.219-05:002011-03-09T21:38:16.219-05:00Scott, It sounds like they focused on one idea -- ...Scott, It sounds like they focused on one idea -- we want someone in the Federation to send Picard on a mission where Picard feels betrayed. And the rest was just window dressing.<br><br>That would explain why the plot is the way it is -- they just saw it as an excuse to their betrayal angle, so they just grabbed something very simplistic and melodramatic to give the rest of their story more impact.<br><br>That's a pretty weak way to write a story if you ask me, that's like writing a story around a single scene and then not really caring about anything except how that scene turns out.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.com