I think this may be one of the very few he's given a "0" rating. Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
"Threshold"... is this the one where Paris and Janeway have lizard babies?
(I could look it up, but saying it like that is just funnier. )
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I believe so. Additionally, I've heard that the powers that be have (unofficially) declared the episode non-canon because it's so bad.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Hey...maybe this is why the screenwriters are having the time-traveling Big Bad of Star Trek 11 create a brand new alternate universe. No evolvo-newts in the new one. Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Also, I love how in the genuine commentary for the episode by writer Brannon Braga, he defends his usage of evolution as an active force: "Well, how do we know evolution isn't taking us back towards a more primordial state? Huh? How do we KNOW?!?"
(I may be paraphrasing.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This guy sounds pretty NERD RAGE
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
He does these with tongue firmly in cheek. As the episode in question truly is awful, he was a bit harder on it than normal. Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
There are worse Voyager episodes, the "Demon", and "Return of the Demon Planet Strikes Back".
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
As far as recaps for that particular episode go, I'm also quite partial to this one.
It took a true genius (of a sort) to beat 'Spock's Brain' for worst ever Star Trek episode.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
"The Trouble With Tribbles" (original Trek) was a pretty silly episode too, utterly irrational, but fans love it.
Personally, I disliked the whole Voyager series.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Star Trek fans would quite frankly have to discard a whopping 95% of the franchise, if mere silliness and irrationality were what they objected to. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Personally, I disliked the whole Voyager series.
I really liked...
*tries to think of what he liked in Voyager*
...
Never mind.
eta: Actually, I liked Tuvok. I really liked Picardo, but they did too many stupid things that made no sense with the Doctor. I also liked a lot of the things they did with 7, but the blatant T&A detracted from that as well.
[ January 06, 2009, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I really loved Tuvok and Doc. They could have done so much more with Doc though. Voyager was rife with charictures, though.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The only thing dumber than the episode is the commentator. He didn't come off sounding funny. He just sounded like a total rude jerk. As someone else said "Nerd Rage!" The show really deserved a good natured MSTK evaluation. Interesting that the guy who is trying to explain why the episode is so horrible makes a commentary more horrible than the subject he is bashing.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Thanks for posting my opinion, Occasional. Except I would disagree inregard to nerd rage. The reviewer is only a nerd-wannabe. eg What's the point of going on and on and on about exchanges of meaningless jargon when it happens every Trek episode? Besides, folks of 70years ago listening to talk about CPUs and gigaflops would find it just as meaningless. Since the posited time difference between now and Treknology is even greater, our lack of understanding adds to the verisimilitude.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No, it doesn't. The commentator's whole point was that if they wanted to create an effective verisimilitude, they would deal in aspects of physics, or even science jargon that are not familiar to many many people- the problem with Trek jargon (especially, *especially* Voyager) is that the jargon is repetitive and, more than being meaningless (which you could do with made up words) is actually far too simplified and general to be believable as a subject of actual study by the characters. He's right to point out that it's lazy writing for the definition of a Trek invention or solution is something that is "inverted" "depolorized" or "in a state of flux." Creative writers don't pad their dialogue with that crap because it is nonsensical, but also completely unnecessary in telling a story.
The dozens of hangnails of plot threads that Voyager left unattended tells a generation of viewers who watched that show, like me, not to believe in the art that these writers didn't practice. I still loved it- the visuals, the escapism, but that doesn't change the flaws or make them less insidious. And you can't very well argue that we aren't effected by what we are attracted to as kids, or that we shouldn't be concerned that such things be done well. That is why criticism exists.
Ultimately his point with this review is that there is no story. When you look at it, the episode says nothing of value, and actually says quite a few things that are at best wrongheaded. I think he's pissed not only that it's a bad episode, but that it's an insultingly, insipidly bad episode that degrades the quality of television, and takes advantage of Trek's position in our culture to present a truly mystifying and jarring entry. You can argue that there is little ground for complaining that something provided for free is not up to your expectations... but you'd be wrong. Those at the reins of such a project have a responsibility to their viewers, and ultimately to posterity, to not do this kind of thing if it can be avoided. It has a negative effect.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"When you look at it, the episode says nothing of value, and actually says quite a few things that are at best wrongheaded. I think he's pissed not only that it's a bad episode, but that it's an insultingly, insipidly bad episode that degrades the quality of television . . ."
Orincoro, I must admit that you make me laugh. Star Trek is entertainment. The fact you take it and television so seriously actually ends up arguing against having television as entertainment. I can't say that television has a quality to degrade unless you are talking about the History, Food, Health, or other Informational channels. At times even they are insulting and insipid. No matter how you look at it, television is not high culture.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Occasional, I must admit you make *me* laugh. Your view is narrow minded and defeatist. You can regard me as a cynic and overly critical, but I'll take thinking over your brand of intellectual sloth any day, if it keeps you from looking at the things around you and trying to get at how they effect you. An element of our common culture that is as prevalent as television *is,* at any moment, potentially of high artistic value. If you don't think so, you're the cynic, and your safe and comfortable History, Food, and Health channels can keep you feeling smart and intellectual till the end of time. See, it doesn't take much time for history to expose as laughable, the idea that any medium of entertainment is not of artistic value, or a potential part of high culture. And don't come at me with my own sword, I'm a bigger classicist than you are, most likely, and I still think television is a medium of high art.
Edit: Tell me, did you pick on geeky kids in school? If so, did you do it out of jealousy, or because you truly believed yourself to be more righteous and powerful, and felt a need to demonstrate that fact?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)