Nope.
Spoilers Star Trek: Starfleet Academy 1x05 – “Series Acclimation Mil”
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
It's a starting point for SAM's journey.
It references his disappearance but leans more heavily into his cultural signficance to the Bajoran people and legacy as a Starfleet officer at a critical time in Federation history.
Actually, she DIDN'T write the character for herself. She wrote it for someone specific, but there wasn't the budget for that person. It's in one of her numerous interviews. (Don't ask me which one!)
Well, that's a disappointment.
Guess that means S2 is going to be more Discovery slanted instead of what we're getting now.
Curious who that was.
Wouldn't that depend on the writers brought in?
Not sure it will make that much of a difference. This season, she had a co-writing credit with Beyer. Next season, she has an episode of her own, it sounds like. So pretty much the same.
It sounds like the Season 1 writing process was they came up with the rough story ideas for all 10 episodes in a group session, and then they assigned 1-2 people to each of the episodes (giving some flexibility as to who was assigned to what). So I suppose that might mean whatever the initial story concepts for the season is, she'll have had no real input, and is just working as a gun for hire in her episode.
All the DS9 stuff was very respectfully done. Cirroc Lofton was great, definitely the best acting I've seen from him. Tawny Newsome made a good new Dax. I'm fine with seeing things from Sam's point of view with all the visual flourishes and stuff at the start.
But it's frustrating that there was also so much stuff I didin't like: the b-plot was really bad. Kelrec is played so cartoonishly that I can't care about his character at all and can't for a second imagine him giving orders to the students of the War Academy. Then the glitter puke and the stuff at the bar with the school rivalry. and the Caleb/Tarmina stuff I just hated. And to be clear I don't hate it because it's trying to be more Young Adult than other Trek or that it involves young people at all, I hate it because it's so badly done. They could go into the philosophical differences between Starfleet Academy and the War College but instead they just go "GRRRR, WE'RE RIVALS" and that's it. It's hard to watch. The Caleb/Tarmina romance is so bland. If you're going to do YA stuff, make the effort to make it good. Hire people who write that kind of stuff and know how to make it compelling. Say what you want about Riverdale, but it was never this vanilla.
But it's frustrating that there was also so much stuff I didin't like: the b-plot was really bad. Kelrec is played so cartoonishly that I can't care about his character at all and can't for a second imagine him giving orders to the students of the War Academy. Then the glitter puke and the stuff at the bar with the school rivalry. and the Caleb/Tarmina stuff I just hated. And to be clear I don't hate it because it's trying to be more Young Adult than other Trek or that it involves young people at all, I hate it because it's so badly done. They could go into the philosophical differences between Starfleet Academy and the War College but instead they just go "GRRRR, WE'RE RIVALS" and that's it. It's hard to watch. The Caleb/Tarmina romance is so bland. If you're going to do YA stuff, make the effort to make it good. Hire people who write that kind of stuff and know how to make it compelling. Say what you want about Riverdale, but it was never this vanilla.
I have a question about this episode.
First, I loved it. I'm not a huge fan of this series as a whole, but I don't hate it. It's definitely not "my" Star Trek, but the Trek of the 80s and 90s that I grew up on was itself different from my father's Trek of the 60s. I understand you have to evolve to keep up with an audience, and I can respect what it's trying to do and the love it pays to all Trek history through its easter eggs.
Anyway, one thing I keep thinking about with this episode: I thought it was odd when SAM opened Anslem and Jake appeared, greeting her as "sis." But after thinking about it, given that the name of the book is the Bajoran word for father, could the story have been written to Ben and Kasidy's unborn child to explain their father to her? Which is why the holographic Jake addresses the reader (SAM in this case) as "sis?"
Was it ever mentioned in DS9 that the unborn child was going to be a girl? Also, am I correct that "Anslem" being the Bajoran word for "father" was never mentioned in DS9--that's new to SFA, right?
btw, *loved* the Dax reveal. Did not see that coming. I had seen a spoiler the day before watching that Cirroc Loften appeared. But even the second appearance of him out of the book suprised me and was moving, I thought.
First, I loved it. I'm not a huge fan of this series as a whole, but I don't hate it. It's definitely not "my" Star Trek, but the Trek of the 80s and 90s that I grew up on was itself different from my father's Trek of the 60s. I understand you have to evolve to keep up with an audience, and I can respect what it's trying to do and the love it pays to all Trek history through its easter eggs.
Anyway, one thing I keep thinking about with this episode: I thought it was odd when SAM opened Anslem and Jake appeared, greeting her as "sis." But after thinking about it, given that the name of the book is the Bajoran word for father, could the story have been written to Ben and Kasidy's unborn child to explain their father to her? Which is why the holographic Jake addresses the reader (SAM in this case) as "sis?"
Was it ever mentioned in DS9 that the unborn child was going to be a girl? Also, am I correct that "Anslem" being the Bajoran word for "father" was never mentioned in DS9--that's new to SFA, right?
btw, *loved* the Dax reveal. Did not see that coming. I had seen a spoiler the day before watching that Cirroc Loften appeared. But even the second appearance of him out of the book suprised me and was moving, I thought.
The only real question is whether you believe in the legend of Davy Crockett or not. If you do, then there should be no doubt in your mind that he died the death of a hero. If you do not believe in the legend, then he was just a man and it does not matter how he died.
The episode made a very DS9-like point.
Some Treklit says girl, some says boy, with a variety of names.
Also from lit.
In canon yes, but it comes from a novel.
Because that wasn't Jake.
It was a holographic recreation of him based on the information SAM had gathered.
Think of it like the Holographic Leah Brahms from TNG. So it called her "sis" because SAM wanted to be called that.
The episode doesn't say what he was. SAM was just as confused as he was.
Yes it does? It shows her digitizing the information in the book and then has him appear hologram style.
hmmm. I didn't think it was SAM digitizing the book. I thought perhaps that's just what books made 400 years from now can do...pop out the author or story somehow. If it were her doing that, I don't think she would have questioned, "will you disappear when I close the book?"
But I'm not married to either explanation. I think your theory is just as possible, and also a logical explanation to being called "sis.'
But I'm not married to either explanation. I think your theory is just as possible, and also a logical explanation to being called "sis.'
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
