The "Oh, Come On, It Wasn't THAT Bad," Superhero Film Pick:

"Superman Returns" by...whoever made it.

We all know there's simply no way anyone could have or will ever replace Christopher Reeve as Superman. He simply WAS Superman, someone who actually did make you believe that a Man Could Fly. Then came Superman II- and it was great. Then came III- and it was silly, but at least could work as sort of a family film. Then came Superman IV- and...well, when the cast and crew call it terrible, fanboys and fangirls, you're justified in your conclusions, so yes, Superman IV was a God-awful flick that killed the film franchise for a good couple decades. Then, about twenty years later, we got this film. And a lot of people like to blast it, and the first thing they'll mention is the casting. And I have to defend that- Brandon Routh is no Christipher Reeve...but as far as casting-for-looks go, the casting director nailed it here, Routh DOES look a lot like a young Christopher Reeve. That's a good thing and a bad thing; it looks like Superman...but it looks like a Superman who just graduated high school. But do I fault Routh for this? No...I can't fault a guy for looking too young, especially when plenty of us would like to look "too young" ourselves a bit. ;) I fault the writing team here for not doing what's the trend now with franchises, and with good reason, rebooting the story. There was nowhere to take it after Superman IV, the film was so terrible, and the audience was long-gone, again, about twenty years pass between IV and "Returns." So, since Routh looks like a young Reeve and the Reeve-franchise (and, very sadly, Reeve himself) was dead, why didn't the writing team make this a straight reboot, and then we'd have a good reason for the uber-young looking Man of Steel. The rest of the casting (except for Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor, THAT was a great choice and performance) follows a similar line. But the story, the most important part? I think it works...but would have worked better if this were titled "Superman Begins" (remind you of another, very successful superhero franchise that went this route at that time?) rather than "Returns." It's a fun movie, and if you just ignore all their talk about Superman being "gone all that time" (it doesn't really affect anything, anyway) then you can still enjoy this and imagine it's an early outing for the great hero. A fun movie, and doesn't deserve the guff it gets...I just wish it'd followed the example of reboots like "Batman Begins" and "Casino Royale" (for "Royale," anyway, "QOS" was a bottom-10 Bond film) and just gave us a fresh, new Superman that would have worked and not cheated Reeve's great legacy, rather than trying to shoe-horn in a new way to move along a story that was dead 20 years ago.

The "Oh, Come On, It Wasn't THAT Bad," Sci-Fi Pick:

A two-fer with "Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith" and "Star Trek XI/2009."

I'll start with Star Wars III, so if you don't care for a defense of that film (and JUST that film, trust me, I'm not dfending I or II here) then skip on down to the Trek section. Ahem...

So "Star Wars" came out in 1977, and was one of the greatest films ever made, and still is a Top 50 film easy; where you place it in that 50 depends largely on what sort of film you like and if you want to view the film as a film or as a piece of a mythology, but you can generally range this one in a Top 50 all the way to, say, about the Top 20, anything higher, like Top 10, and you're really likely either missing out on some classic masterpieces or else you're just practicing that disease, fanboy/girlism.

So a sequel was made, "The Empire Strikes Back" and in 1980 that came out- and was even better than that original; most will still put the original on that Top 20 because it IS the original, but if you take the route of taking the movies together like a huge story or mythology, this is the part most critics and fans will call the strongest.

So a sequel was made, "Return of the Jedi" and it came out in 1983, and while most viewed it as being the weakest of the three, it was still a good movie, still a pretty satisfying end to the series, tied everything up nicely, gave us some great final moments and resolutions, and really was a great ending for the series.

And then George Lucas, or FOX, or both, lost their collective minds.

So a prequel, "The Phantom Menace" was made- and it was so bad it nearly destroyed a franchise that to that point had produced three A-list films and was considered one of if not the most critically acclaimed and potentially meaningful (again, if you want to play the "mythology-Shakespeare-literary influences and messages" game) francise in movie history.

But we're all allowed a mistake in life, and hey, even Shakespeare (I don't care if I seem to praise him too much, he's not the Literary God some folks make him out to be, but he's one of the great "deities" of that Literary Pantheon of Olympians, so to speak) made a "bad" play or two...granted a "bad" play for Shakespeare is something like maybe "Titus" (which I've already defended) or "Taming of the Shrew" (which is itself an acclaimed piece and the great ciricism, one of masogynistic tones by Shakespeare, is debatable, and if you read/play the show one way you can see the problem, but another way, the way some scholars, and myself, see the ending and it suddenly becomes a great cry for the strength of women and Kate becomes the strongest feministic female this side of Hedda Gabler or Nora) and this film...had Jar Jar Binks and a 9-year old who couldn't act and a plot with a million holes and no great drmatic tension, but, again, everyone makes and gets a mistake in life.

So a sequel to that prequel was made, "Attack of the Clones"- and if the title makes it sound like something a B-movie would troll out, you're wrong, because an Ed Wood movie is WAY better than this film or I; at least with a Wood film you know the poor director was working in the 1950s' Stone Age of Special Effects and with a time limit and budget approximating zero, whereas Lucas and FOX between them must have had a couple billions or so and all the time and resources they needed, so there's no excuse for a film that continues to give us plotholes the size of Ohio, wooden acting, kiddie moments for kiddie moments that insult the older, original fans and new, kiddie fans alike in believing neither party has any intelligence, and giving us terrible, TERRIBLE effects and CGI that lmost make Ed Wood's work look like an FX masterpiece.

But the movie made money, and there was still oen more film to be made, because if Lucas stopped now...well, you'd have a hole, movies I, II, IV, V, and VI, but no III; granted that's not as big of a hole as the vacuous pieces of trash I and II are, but still...

So "Revenge of the Sith" was made.

And...it was alright.

The CGI was still bad and so overused it was ridiculous, but that had become a Lucas convention by this point, so if you saw "Sithb" you knew that was coming, and you chose to go anyway. The acting was better than the first two prequel films, but that IS like saying losing one arm is better than losing all your limbs.

But what makes this a "Oh, Come On, It Wasn't THAT Bad," film is the fact that this time, the polt, though riddled with holes, still, is somewhat coherent and somewhat enjoyable. The holes are do in large part to the previous films (if you build a third film on the foundation of two horrid films with a million polt holes, chances are your film's going to ahve some issues with logic) so then can be excused somewhat in sight of the fact that this film actually has some real CONFLICT. We have Anakin/Darth Vader as he finally goes over to the Dark Side, and see him committing horrible deeds, and while this isn't exactly something new for him, we get the sense he's now doing this with a certain intent; when he'd been murderous before, he did it a LOT out of emotion, and hot anger, whereas here it's cold anger and sustained and deliberate and not a snap-second reaction, so while this isn't someone going from good to bad, it IS at least someone going from bad to worse, and THAT is something, at least. The strength in this film lies in its last 45 minutes; the hour and a half before hand is so-so. The redeeming factors come as he's killing with this sustained intent, as all these Jedi that, albeit are either nameless or mostly extras and so we hardly loved them, are massacred, adn really any massacre is going to engender some emotion, and it's at least something of a development. We get that great Anakan/Obi-Wan duel (after some good acting by one of the few good ones in the film, Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan) taking place on the fire/lava planet with the choir going, and even though we know what's going to happen and what's going to lose, this is likely the first (and really the only) time in these prequel films the atmosphere and moment really grasps you...and it IS partially because we know what's about to happen. We're on this fire world. Most the Jedi, with exceptions like Obi-Wan and Yoda, are dead and gone. The Empire, that was so controlling and fearsome in the original films, has finally come to be and has begun to act like early versions of that Evil Empire, and so for the first time in these prequels we get real antagonists. The fire and lava and choir instantly make you think of hell, and it reflects the struggle- these two...well, the didn't get along that great in the films, but they were supposed to, and we know that they now have a genuine passion and anger against each other, Anakin boiling with rage and Obi-Wan looking at the monster that was once his (albeit a bit dopy) 9-year old apprentice, now a 25-year old murderer and not just homocidal but genocidal maniac. It ends with his getting dismembered, his burning alive, and, finally, we get Darth Vader, back in the suit and back in form. We see Luke and Leia get born and we see the Death Star being built, and even the administrator (Tarkin for the nerdy) who was played by Peter Cushing in IV and was so icy. We see "Star Wars" the film franchise (we're not counting that animated debacle here, that was...well, it almost made "Menace" look like a msterpiece in comparison) end on a familiar note, with the Obi-Wan walking off into the shadopws to wait another day and the Skywalker family looking out into the sunset, the baby Luke in arms, looked at as if he were the Baby Moses or so, and there Star WArs ends, as if, appropriately, telling the audience, "The ugliness has passed...now the good times and films are ahead."

So III ties into original stories, and if you wanted to put it in literary terms, that 45 minutes at the end, if not the whole movie, DOES work as a sort of prologue to the great 3-part movie/novel/epic to follow, and so really, "Oh, Come On, It Wasn't THAT Bad."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, "Star Wars" tried a prequel thing and...2/3 to 3/4 of it utterly failed. Meanwhile, "Star Trek: Enterprise" tried to give us a prequel series to the Treks to come and...with the exception of a few episodes, yes, it failed. It wasn't the worst series in my opinion (that would be "Voyager," but it's close...and DS9 is sort of an entity by itself, so none of those three can compare witht eh phenomenons that were TOS with Captain Kirk and Crew and TNG with Captain Picard and Crew) but it was bad.

And so Trek died for a bit. And, like Spock, it was ressurected...and felt a little different.


To ruin the ending of the best Trek film (and really a great film over all, so if you haven't seen it and want to skip this part, SPOILER WARNING), in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Spock dies. He comes back in III...but isn't the same. He's returning to his former self in IV, and by the end of that film we have our old Spock back.

So we look at "Star Trek 2009" and what do we see? "It's Trek, Jim, but not as we know it."

Not quite, anyway...but still bears a good resemblence.

Now, the great weakness whether you loved or hated this film (and I fall into the love category, I'm a Trekker, I loved the Shatner Crew, and I loved this movie) is the plot. Aristotle (ha! Did you think you were escaping this without SOME KIND of philosophy?) places plot above just about all in evaluating works of art, and I have to (on the whole, but with exceptions) agree with him, so this already puts the film at a disadvantage, and it's where you either get off the ride or stay on and hope it turns out to be good, so to speak.

Before we get to the plot, we need to talk about the best part of the film, however, because it's directly related, and that's the casting and the acting of these familiar roles as youngsters coming together and not quite how we know them yet. Case-by-case:

Chris Pine as Kirk gives us the rawest character in the film, and since he's CAPTAIN KIRK and following SHATNER, something of an icon, this is a bit of an issue. Love or hate the film, Pine's Kirk si FAR more obnoxious, louder, rougher around the edges, and just not that "Shatner-smooth" guy we remember from the show. However...this is BEFORE the show happened, he's not Captain Kirk yet but just Cadet Kirk, and so this is understandable. From an acting point of view, it's also easy to see where Pine might have had a hard time, filling the huge boots of Shatner. Overall Kirk is passable here, but, again, "passable" for the KIRK of all people isn't a great start, and the film's already hurting itself and making it have to make up ground...

Which Zachary Quinto as Spock does, giving us a Spock that's young, looks uncannily like a young Nimoy, and operates logically and has all the facial expressions we loved about the old Spock, all that sublte humor, and just has some more emotion, but this is fine and even welcome as he's young, a good portion of the film focuses on his struggling between his Human and Vulcan halves, and if you want to play Trekker Nerd Spock in the original pilot with Captain Pike was somewhat emotional, so it somewhat fits.

Kar Urban practically CHANNELS Deforest Kelley from beyond the grave his performance is so dead-on.

Simon Pegg plays a fun, albeit one-liner-heavy Scotty, and really captures the fun essence of the character, he's a tad looser than the Doohan Scotty, but, again, youth breeds that sort of thing, and so really it's alright.

Zoe Saldana plays a very strong Uhura; the romantic overtures towards Spock come somewhat out of the blue, but it's clear they wanted something new for the character to do besides merely read status reports, so they gave her a love interest and a triangle with Kirk, and as this is a young crew, essentially the age of around college/grad students, tha sort of thing, as long as it's not overplayed (and it's not) is permissable and understandable from a character point of view.

John Cho as Sulu...doesn't get to talk much, but he looks and acts the part well enough.

Anton Yelchin as Chekov- the part I was most nervous about going in, as Chevov's my favorite from the old show and movies (so much so I wonder if I shouldn't be called Esn Chekov here) but Yelchin not only does a great job, he actually makes this character an active one, you really see the life and excitement and youth in Chekov's eyes and face, and you really love that he actually gets to do things here (saving Kirk and Sulu and even taking command on the bridge) and crack jokes...all while not going over the top- except for his accent (and hey, Koenig's accent was silly as well, Yelchin just went with it, and I'm glad they kept that part of the character, "wessels" and all.)

So that's our lineup, our new Crew of the Starship Enterprise.

And it's GREAT. The LOOK the part. They SOUND the part. They (mostly) FEEL the part.

And the whole film is, yes, an excuse to get these characters to meet. So it IS, essentially a pilot for more films and maybe TV shows (hopefully...) This had to be done; recasting Superman or Batman or James Bond is one thing, a big one thing, as those are iconic characters, but at least it's only one iconic character. This was a recasting of SEVEN iconic characters, eight if you want to play nerd and count the new Enterprise (a gorgeous ship that sort of meshes the original, Refit, and E Enterprises altoether) as a "character" and it's certainly iconic too. It's more mainstream in it's feel and more action haevy than any other Trek because, frankly, when you think Trek, chances are you think, at least to an extent, of white guys, possibly in costume, who know the shows by heart- the Trekkers. This was a film that tried to have some things to hold the Trekkers over while attracting a new audience to make Trek financially viable so that they could make more, so that they could make Treks more like the old kind, and keeping some of the new things that worked.

The plot is an excuse for all this, and suffers. It has a hole in it, and holes coming forth from that hole, but if you look at this as a pilot for more movies and as the "plot" really being these seven coming together and not so much all the stuff with Nero (though it WAS great to see Nimoy again and have him pass the Spock/Trek-torch) then you're really looking at the intent of the film.

And on that basis the film's very good, I'd give it a 7.5-8.5 out of 10, and rank it behind the Evens (II, IV, VI, and VIII, not counting X) of the Trek films. It was good, and now with the assurances people will come to see the new Trek film in 2012, they can make it a Trek film, while still keeping the new aspects (like Chekov and Uhura's expanded roles, all the great designs for the ship and gear of the crew, work off the idea that Vulcan's destroyed and now Spock and the survivors are victims of a genocide and see character development from that) that were marvelous.

And so, Trekkers and film-goers, on that basis, I say of "Star Trek XI/2009"-

"Oh, Come On, It Wasn't THAT Bad,"

I actually read the above, and it wasn't that bad...

You did miss out on King Lear for being the only Shakespeare play in which mutilation takes place on stage. Lavinia's trials are all out of sight. Out vile jelly!

obiwan needs to find a more constructive use for his writing. Not meant as an insult, just seriously, if you can write that much about a webDip thread, you could probably find something more useful to put your talents to.

I do lol I'm writing a book right now as well (or rather, when I'm done typing this I'll be back to writing the book lol.)

I wish I could find a living with this...or even a living...I still want to know how I'm qualified to write UC-level papers on Shakespeare or get a perfect score in Phil. of Ethics and write all the other stuff I do-

And I'm not qualified to say "Welcome to Best Buy!" or "Would you like fries with that?"

...? :P

I'm actually sort of glad Lavinia's trials are out of sight, btw...I mean, that makes it a bit more powerfult that she goes offstage un-raped and un-mutilated and comes back on utterly destroyed.

Plus if he (Shakespeare) had it happen onstage not only would it have not have likely flied with the Queen (I'm not an Englishman, so maybe I don't know the royal line that well, but somehow I can't see Elizabeth, Shakespeare's big patron, saying, "Yeah, go ahead and rape and mutilate her right there on the stage, that's what I want my subjects and I to see!") but it really would have nailed down the idea Shakespeare was doing it for spectacle and not for any real substance, and that's the big charge against "Titus Andronicus"...

Hamlet 2

It wasn't THAT bad.

The new Star Trek movie doesn't even need an "it wasn't that bad," most people liked it and it got great reviews.

Now Rocky IV, THAT wasn't that bad. It was so cheesy it was awesome. DRAGOOOOO!!!

Yes, but most hard core star trekkers were opposed to Star Trek XI.

And Obi, you are SO wrong about Voyager.

Best is DS9. By miles. Then Voyager, TNG, TOS, in that order. And miles behind that is Enterprise.

I didn't even LIKE Enterprise, and I am a hard core trekkie. (By hard core, I mean last year I watched the entire franchise start to finish.) It was so unbelievably bad. How you can possibly say that Voyager, which had plot arcs and character development unsurpassed except by DS9, is astonishing to me.

rlumley...

You're a hard-core Trekker, and YOU PUT VOYAGER AHEAD OF TNG AND TOS???

You're actually saying you'll take Janeway and that messed-up show over KirkSpockBonesScottyUhuraSuluChekov or PicardRikerDataGeordiWorfCrusherTroi?

????????

You're going to need to explain that one to me...WOW...I've disagreed with you before, but that almost seems to defy logic- a Trekker not only taking Voyager as the #1 show but saying TOS is the worst one (excluding Enterprise, of course.)

Does not compute, does not compute... :)

And whoever said Rocky IV wasn't THAT bad- too right! The Rocky Films are one of the best film series of all time; IV is cheesy, but it's a good cheesy...

I agree with you about the casting on STXI though. Casting was incredible, and they needed it to be.

As for the plot, I thought it was decent. I thought it suffered primarily because they had to invent a way to create a new universe, so they were bottlenecked into a pretty basic plot.

And I'll just say, this is probably my fourth favorite movie. It ranks above Genesis and all of the TOS movies except The Voyage Home. Below TVH, Insurrection (My personal favorite), First Contact, and Nemesis.

I know I'm unorthodox on my movies - I don't buy into the even/odd at all. But I was just never a fan of TOS very much, which is why my movie preferences are the way they are. That's not to say I don't like it, but just to say that when you take a show from the 60's and put it in the 21st century, it seems out of place. Add on top of that that I'm incredibly opposed to its collectivist message, and you get something of which I am not a fan.

Voyager wasn't my number one at all. (It used to be) DS9 is. I'll explain it like this:

Plot: DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, TNG, TOS.
Acting: TNG, TOS, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise
Characters: TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise
Premise: DS9, Voyager, TOS, TNG, Enterprise

If you think of more categories, I'll rank them, but my number one thing is plot. That's why I loved DS9 (As do most hard core trekkies) - it had overarching stories that were confusing as hell if you missed a single episode, but awesome if you saw every single one.

And that should be fifth favorite movie above. I forgot TVH when I wrote that.

Re: Philosophy

One of the reasons I was turned off to TOS and TNG is that the "logical" character in both series was ridiculed and made fun of for being stoic; the tacit implication being that emotion is superior to logic. Humanity should be trying to be like Data, not the other way around. As a philosopher, I'm surprised this didn't bother you.

They steered away from that in DS9 and Voyager both. Ironically, however, Tuvok was my least favorite Voy character. Well... no. Maybe it was Chakotay. Or maybe Kes. Damn. There are so many bad characters in Voy to choose from...

And for my reasoning on the VOY bad thing...watch sfdebris' videos on Youtube, he hits it on the HEAD.

Janeway is at best a ruthless captain and at worst a terrible, close-minded bitch who holds the Prime Directive aloft like it was the Ten Commandments and is semi-sadistic.

Chakotay is a pretty weak first officer; really, you'd take HIM over SPOCK?

The Doctor kicks ass, no knocking him, he's GREAT...

Harry Kim is...sad, sort of like a redshirt who just won't die, and not in the good, Sulu/Chekov way, either, he just makes me feel kind of sorry for him.

Tom's...OK, not bad...

Neelix could drive men to homicide he's so irritating, the Trek equivalent of Jar Jar...

Torres...she's either really good or just a plain moron...

Kes was a waste and just as bland as could be...

Seven of Nine was amazingly hot (let's be honest here) and basically the staff's second try at getting a hot blonde girl on the show after Kes failed, as a character she has some good episodes but also some where she's way too obvious...

Aaaaaannnnddddd Tuvok is logica most of the time, interesting some of the time, and he changes his vocal expressions none of the time (even Spock raised or losered his voice some...)

Again, compare that with:

Kirk is an icon, was somewhat of a sex symbol in his time, and exudes awesome from every pore, overacting now and again but also having his great moments, caring about his crew like the leader of a great family or friendship, and doesn't consider the Prime Directive or anything the be-all and end-all, he'll use whatever he has to to get the job done, be it diplomacy, phasers, his fists...his...umm...lovito...

Spock is stone-cold awesome, end of discussion.

Bones is a great foil for Spock's logic and the two of them are like the angel and devil that sit on Kirk's shoulder, logiv vs. emotion with Kirk being the moderator, and that Power Trio is so incredible and so famous it's part of our cultural fabric.

Scotty gets the job done WITHOUT all that Technobable and whining of Torres and Tucker, all he needs is a shot of Scotch and he's givin' 'er all she's got, Cap'n!

Uhura was one of the first strong black characters on TV and one of the first strong female characters on TV, so that's a double-whammy of Civil Rights win there, and she's often soft-spoken, but piss her off and she can get nasty and stand up for herself, even slapping Mirror Sulu around, holding a knife on him, and then pulling a gun on someone else.

Sulu is a Japanese gay fencer- what more do you want?

Chekov is my favorite character in Trek (followed closely by Spock, Bones, Data, and Picard) and when he's there he'll crack a joke, be sarcastic, get into the action, and yeah, he'll get his ass handed to him a lot, but someone has to make Kirk look good, and he's incredibly loyal to all his shipmates while trying to logic things out and always finding time to be sarcastic or talk about how awesome it is to be Russian- THAT'S MY KIND OF GUY! Insert "Jewish" for "Russian" and that's a lot of me right there... :p


Now, which crew sounds better?

:O

And you like Inssurection...but not WRATH OF KHAN????

Now I REALLY want an explanation! WOK is one of those "perfect" movies in sci-fi, and just period- allusions to Moby Dick, Dante's Inferno, Paradise Lsot, King Lear, Spock dies a hero's death, the villain's not entirely villainous but rather a vengeful superman that foils Kirk and...and just so much MORE...

How can you possibly have Insurrection and Nemesis above THAT?

I'm just going to assume you were spending time typing that instead of reading what I just wrote. Voyagers characters kind of suck. I know.(Although I did like Janeway alright, but she had nothing on Kirk, Sisko, or Picard) Harry and Tom pairing up could make for some decent banter, Seven of Nine was good, I thought, and The Doctor was a riot. But everyone else was pretty bad.

Oh yeah. Duh. Wrath of Kahn. Nevermind. :-)

I still like Insurrection better than WOK though. I'm a sucker for the whole rebellion thing.

And I'll just quote you:

"Uhura was one of the first strong black characters on TV and one of the first strong female characters on TV, so that's a double-whammy of Civil Rights win there, and she's often soft-spoken, but piss her off and she can get nasty and stand up for herself, even slapping Mirror Sulu around, holding a knife on him, and then pulling a gun on someone else."

"but it's clear they wanted something new for the character to do besides merely read status reports"

I'll also point out that they gave Uhura the most feasibly easily automated jobs possible. Seriously. They didn't think they could develop a computer that would route phone calls?

And the lesson of Spock/Data isn't that they should be more human at all.

With Spock, he's half human and half vulcan, so the lesson is that he's torn, and it's a balancing act, even he says, "Logic is only the first step to wisdom."

Again, Kirk/Spock/McCoy became famous and is so powerful because it's constantly Spock's logic vs. McCoy's logic, and about half the time Kirk goes one way and half the time the other, but the answer's always something in between.

As a philosopher (or would-be, I am no philosopher yet lol) I have to say that whether you want to be logical or even achieve the sort of Ubermensch-state Nietzsche mentions, or the flip and be logical and a great agent of personal morality like Kant says, either way you need to balance logic and emotion.

Pure emotion and you get something like...well, like children, yet to grow.
Pure logic and you get the the Borg, who can never deviate from logic and so are limited in their thinking.

For Data, he wants to become more human because for HIM that's an ultimate threshold, like the Ubermensch for androids, to have all his android logic and power and knowledge and still be human, it's powerful. On the other side of that, the human characters learn what it means to be human and how frail the condition is through Data's trials.

And yeah, OK, Uhura didn't have the best job, but she had SOMETHING, and she got to pull a knife or a gun out and showed she could defend herself, and for the 1960s, for a BLACK and FEMALE character, that's leaps and bounds from where we were...

Re philosophy:

I don't really care to debate this with you, because you don't understand my philosophy at all, because you haven't read Ayn Rand. Not your fault, because there are so many philosophers to chose from, but you really should if you want to understand me. You should note, however, that I'm not a Randian, and believe a very permuted form of Objectivism.

And anyone who tries is a philosopher. End of story.

You can assert, however, that you need to balance emotion and logic all you want, but I'm not going to agree with you. I believe that proper emotions are derived from logic.

"An emotion that clashes with your reason, an emotion that you cannot explain or control, is only the carcass of that stale thinking which you forbade your mind to revise." - Ayn Rand

And you saying that pure logic = borg is such a logical fallacy it's not even funny. You've provided no support for this, and it's nothing but an ad hominem attack.

"for a BLACK and FEMALE character, that's leaps and bounds from where we were..."

Fair enough. But the point stands. She did nothing.

Out of curiousity, with which portions of this do you disagree, if any?

Plot: DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, TNG, TOS.
Acting: TNG, TOS, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise
Characters: TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise
Premise: DS9, Voyager, TOS, TNG, Enterprise

"For Data, he wants to become more human because for HIM that's an ultimate threshold, like the Ubermensch for androids, to have all his android logic and power and knowledge and still be human, it's powerful. On the other side of that, the human characters learn what it means to be human and how frail the condition is through Data's trials."

Let us assume for a moment we are coming at this from my perspective. We will assume that logic is therefore good, and emotion that acts in contradiction to logic, is bad.

Your argument is essentially analogous to this:

A perfect man exists. He was designed with no flaws whatsoever, and as a result, the only thing he can achieve is non-perfection. Thus non-perfection is the holy grail of his philosophical search.

Do you not see why I would object to that?

The other thing is this:

Spock is nothing. Data is nothing. They are just characters created by writers for the show. And the writers for the show had a clear message they were trying to send with those characters - that emotion is superior to logic. That is what I find insulting.

OK...to catch up...

First of all, I see Rand's books every time I go to pick up a new one- and I pass. And for the exact reason of that quote you gave me. If that is what I can expect from Rand and from what I know of Objectivism it seems likely, then I'm glad I pass because that line of thinking is beyond my disliking it and reading it to gain knowledge of a philosophy I dislike, I do that with Descartes, that idea is ABSURD. It can't even get off the ground- to say a good emotion is one that proceeds from logic is akin to saying a bad action is one that proceeds from a good one- it does not make sense, good and bad, logic and emotion are incompatible, they are halves of a greater whole, and the moment you make the claim one proceeds from the other or, worse, that one has and should have dominance over another, at that point you lose your footing, at least your argument does. An emotion is "good" or "bad" for a variety of reasons, subjective feeling and response to external reactions adn even possibly objective critique, but logic cannot be said to be necessary for a good emotion, because our emotional faculties are different constructs than our logical ones insofar as logic is a tower adn emotion is an art piece. To explain that, imagine Logic and all that makes it up as a tower- you learn more concepts and experience more, you are able to reason more, and you build it upwards, loosely like a tower. A dog, for example, can be said to have a certain amount of the same logical faculties as you insofar as that dog will be able to make the same logical assertions on pleasure vs. pain if presented with the two, once he knows going outside gains him praise or a treat and going on the carpet earns him a smack or a scolding, he can weigh the pleasure against the pain and make the logical deduction, the connection between the two, and make the logical choice in favor of pleasure, to go outside. This is true in most animals with higher brain function, and we can say that human beings merely have the "highest" tower insofar as they are able to reason the most. Contrast that with emotions. This is NOT to be confused with instinct, which animals so surely have, but rather emotion, a reaction, say, to a musical piece or a painting. THIS will not attract or resound with hardly any animals, as they cannot appreciate art, they have not the faculties to understand it as they do not understand the world and thus the underpinnings of the work; a dog, even if he could speak and watch and understand the language of a performance of "Hamlet," would not react the same as you or I, for that piece is a work focused on the HUMAN EMOTION, the HUMAN EXPERIENCE, and so the dog has no knowledge of that, just as we cannot know the World and Life of a Dog, no more so can he understand Hamlet's being upset that his mother's with his uncle- this sort of loose sexual nature is natural for dogs, no big deal. Emotions are responses, then, of a different kind than those that make up Logic, and cannot proceed from Logic; pure logic is akin to 2+2=4, and that does not allow for the grey area of Hamlet's dilemma, and his responses. We have emotions because of previous underpinnings in life, we react toi music as a trigger device for emotional underpinnings, and as such these canno proceed from logic, for logic may AID art, but stands opposed to emotion. Logic is asking for the answer; Emotion is "To be or not to be," and attempting to derive meaning.

---------------------

Well, Uhura still gave some emotional support and DID, again, help the times she was allowed to get up from her desk...

---------------

"Plot: DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, TNG, TOS.
Acting: TNG, TOS, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise
Characters: TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise
Premise: DS9, Voyager, TOS, TNG, Enterprise "

I still place TOS and TNG at the head of Plot as their plots were, I believe, better; more tightly-written, less plot-holes, more allowance for us to see different sides of characters, and they could be both self-contained or, as was the case on TNG, work in a greater arc. I do not consider whether or not a show had long-running arcs the factor in deciding whether or not the plots were good, as that's merely an artistic choice and the plots THEMSELVES must be good, which is where VOY and ENT fail so often. You can say that there are long, big and even progressing story arcs in VOY, but such arcs are comprised of stories that, which the grand idea driving the arc may be good, the episodes are not, and so the PLOT cannot be considered to be a success, as plot must refer to the individual building towards the whole and not the other way around, elementary story technique, you cannot tell me that you start with the top of the pyramid and work your way down, the base must be secure, and the base for any series and any story arc are the actual stories within that arc driving the point and messages and intent of that arc, and on this basis VOY and, to a greater extent, ENT fails. DS9 I place by itself unranked, aside from the "good plot" TOS/TNG and "bad plot" VOY/ENT for the reason that while the stories might have been good, the go against the material to such an extent at times DS9 seems not even Trek but an entirely seperate entity and franchise, and so it is unfair for me to rank it against the other Treks, as that'd be akin to ranking the plots of the Star Wars films against the James Bond films- different intentions and methods of storytelling, too divergent and different to be ranked.

Acting I'll agree with, I'd maybe tie TOS and TNG; TOS had some cheesier performances for sure, but that WAS part of the style of tV acting back then...

Characters I agree with 100%.

Premise...no, I have to go with TOS being best here, as that really is a simple but perfect premise- where no man has gone before, and yet the conflicts mirror the human condition and where whe HAVE been before, emotionally and politically and elsely, and where we are now, that is a better premise that DS9's city idea or it's war; the war was and gave good commentary on war, but just war, whereas TOS and TNG both gave good commentary on war in numerous episodes and talked about a LOT else, DS9 really ended up boiling down to war and the religious aspect, which was...well, really hit and miss, I put TOS first for Premise, and then tie TNG and DS9 as TNG kept the good Premise of TOS with great characters but it was still boldly going where no one but one crew had gone before, whereas for better or worse DS9 DID add some new premeses and talking points...the Premise for VOY was good but so badly executed you almost forget how interesting a premise that was, one ship by itself, and ENT also had an interesting one, the very beginnings of the program, but was botched even worse than VOY.

-----------

And...as I don't at all acccept your premise, with all due respect, as being correct at all on the topic, stating logic=good and emotion=bad, then I obviously can't accept your conclusion, I see why you object to it under that logic, but find that logic and that line of thinking so flawed and so limiting that frankly it sounds almost counter-intuitive to the show. And I don't see that the writers say that emotion is greater than logic, that's not the message, the message is again one of balance, it's, again Kirk/Spock/McCoy, and every week some combination of that is right; there are a LOT of times Bones will say to Kirk they have to do something because it's "just right" and he's getting very emotional, but Kirk sides with Spock as he agrees in X circumstance logic must prevail. Logic and Emotion compliment each other perfectly, to an extent where without logic you cannot have pattern and design necessary for higher living, but without emotion you can't respond in such a way as to attribute anything but a numerical or such sum of meaning to something, and as such without emotion life is still not higher living, as one cannot ask questions properly, and cannot be, to a great extent, creative. Creativity requires emotion, as it not only needs the structure of logic to give the idea form, but the emotion to give the idea substance and fill in the color between those lines, and to give it meaning and substance other than 1s and 0s.

Which is why Data wants to become more human- because just as pure emotion leaves you child-like and incapable, pure logic leaves you with just 1s and 0s and, if you take that as such and are sentient, there is an aspect of thought that suggests that 1s and 0s are not all there is, that value must be attributed, be it artifical or subjective or othereise, without it existence is skeletal and bare, and so Data has the logic down so firmly, the 1s and 0s so perfectly, that he wants to improve the other aspect of his being, the emotion to give those 1s and 0s meaning. If you want a counterpoint to that, logic instructing emotion, Riker, who starts as a very emotional commander, must learn from a very logical Picard and even more logical Data the need for structuring thoughts and priorities logically before hes is ready to command, so while Data is logical and needs emotion taught to him, Riker is emotional and needs logic taught to him in order to take command.

He also needs to grow that beard- but that's besides the point. ;)

And I'm not a philosopher just for thinking; you don't get points for trying, and you don't get to use that title just for thinking or trying to be a philosopher.

Someone gave the quote once "Be ashamed to die until you have won some sort of victory for mankind."

Until you win some sort of victory for man and his being in the field of thought, you are not yet a philosopher, merely a student of the game.