Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 3x05 - "Through the Lens of Time"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Well, at least there was a red shirt death! Still trying to digest this one, but overall I came away mildly satisfied. It's maybe one of those episodes that need to be watched again to get all the details, and also a setup for a future reckoning with whatever malevolent entity is now in the computer, but I applaud the storytelling overall, since it really was essentially a bottle show in two places. Too bad about Gamble, but you almost knew at the outset if so much focus was being placed on him, he had to ultimately go. May a bit of a MacGuffin with the three planes of existence aside, since it meant nothing in the end except for a requisite solution to get the hell out of there. There was too little time spent developing an intriguing concept--immortality thanks to technology--just to focus on finding a way out of the prison. Some nice character development work, I suppose, and at least Pelia wasn't as annoying as I usually find her. Not the classic that it could have been, but a middling 8.
10 episodes per season = 1.2 months average(!) between episodes in-universe (excluding real life delays like the writers strike).
Exclude two-parters & closely connected episodes (where character reveals/stuff is directly followed up on) - logistically it makes sense to have a few episodes with larger time-jumps in-between.
(Contrasted to old Trek with 26 episodes per season = 1 episode every 2 weeks in-universe - no need for larger time-jumps)
Went back and looked at the script. When they refer to the plural of Vezda, they are looking at something written. We don't actually find out what the plural of Vezda is. The line seems to just imply the word doesn't originally mean evil, but referred to a race originally.
Plus, Batel also knew it - or, more properly, the Gorn did. Which implies either the Gorn learned it from the current natives, or it's the proper name the Vezda-pah gave themselves.
It still might be a red herring, but if so, it's intentional on the part of the writers.
Like TOS, where people died and they all had a laugh at the end? It's tradition!
I think it hits harder if characters we've come to like die. I approve of this technique.
I know they told us different but I was starting to think maybe there was a bait and switch and Gamble was actually M'Benga's son and would turn out to be the more junior version in 2267. That idea aged like milk.
The new Edosian bartender should be concerned.
Not completely on top of my DS9 lore anymore - shouldn't the Pah-wraiths be in a cave or something?
Otherwise quite intriguing theory - I didn't make that connection at all on my own, but I wouldn't mind it either - in fact I really like the ambiguity/implication of it - could be/could not be.
Should a 10 year old watch this programme?
Depends on the temperament of the 10 year old.
If they are highly sensitive and have neurotic tendencies probbly not.
If they are insensitive and play violent video games, sure why not.
Has this child ever had unsupervised access to youtube?
Does this child even want to watch Star Trek?
You can tell by how often they voluntarily watch it.
Wait! I'm forming an opinion, no it's gone. I'll just use someone elses; a nicely unnuanced one.
No. This isn't a children's programme, it never has been, not even in the 1960s.
Depends on the temperament of the 10 year old.
If they are highly sensitive and have neurotic tendencies probbly not.
If they are insensitive and play violent video games, sure why not.
Has this child ever had unsupervised access to youtube?
Does this child even want to watch Star Trek?
You can tell by how often they voluntarily watch it.
Wait! I'm forming an opinion, no it's gone. I'll just use someone elses; a nicely unnuanced one.
No. This isn't a children's programme, it never has been, not even in the 1960s.
The Pah-Wraiths were trapped in crystals in the fire caves by the ancient Bajorans, but they supposedly came out of the Celestial Temple - just like the Prophets.
That doesn't mean they were originally from the wormhole, though. I think that's open to interpretation.
It was, however, a show that kids could watch. I suspect many on this board have Star Trek characters as their childhood heroes.
I think this is a new monster and that's a good thing.
Makes me think of a visiting sports team.
This one was a 9, bordering on a 10. Solid on all fronts.
Is this the first time we nurses with the black pants and undershirt?
Kidneys are much simpler than eyes and their connections, but I think we don't know what exactly was missing in Geordi's eyes.
That is a good point!
For what it's worth, I survived the Salt Vampire, the neural parasites, the faceless woman on "Charlie X," and the Horta burning people to death when I was just a little kid -- and that was pretty scary stuff back then. Not to mention the scarier episodes of The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits, as well as classic horror movies on "Nightmare Theater" and at the drive-in with my dad. Heck, by the time I was ten I was shuddering deliciously at the likes of "Count Yorga, Vampire" (the cat-eating scene!) and "Island of Terror" (bones being sucked from bodies by tentacled monsters, Peter Cushing getting his arm chopped off!).
Point being, it all depends on the kid. Some kids love monsters and scary stuff; other kids may find them too disturbing for their age. That's up to their parents to determine.
But being kid-friendly doesn't necessarily mean no scary monsters or mayhem. Heaven forbid!
(Says the sixty-five-old Monster Kid who grew up watching "Dark Shadows" as well as "Star Trek" -- and who is always kinda bemused to see the exploding alien in "Conspiracy" described as shocking and controversial.)
Last edited:
As did I, not denying that. (On the other hand, Space: 1999’s “Dragon’s Domain” drove me out of the room and freaked young me out for the rest of the day — as did [and does] a certain scene from Godzilla vs the Smog Monster, for some reason.)
Heck, the opening spiel of The Outer Limits used to drive me out of the room. "We have taken control of your television set," etc.
But then I would creep back in to watch that week's new episode!
And, doing the math, it strikes on me that I was only eleven when the first Night Stalker tv-movie aired. Trust me, I was glued to the screen . . . and have been a Kolchak fan ever since.
(I confess I have horror on the brain at the moment, since I'm in the processing of revising a massive horror novel I've been slaving over, on and off, since the pandemic. And which is very much a homage to the classic monster movies I devoured growing up back in the sixties and seventies.)
Yes, exactly. And we often forget that children's stories (I'm talking classic ones) often are pretty scary and children that age and below/above have actie imaginations and god only knows what they're creating in their heads. Technically, we don't have any real control. I grew up halfway in India and I read quite a few scary stories (watched scary movies as well) without my parents knowing. Nowadays, we tend to try to control things more, but any gamer will know that you can't really shelter a ten-year old completely from fearsome things.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
