I'll try, but I still fear the moment where Trip is beating the alien, but the alien laughs at him with that really pathetic laugh. Why?! WHY?!!!! As for A Night in Sickbay... I liked it the first time I saw it, it was a surreal episode about nothing. I saw it again a year or so later and yeah, it didn't hold up. I fear that if I watch it again and like it that I might have to face an angry mob. But the Klingons in TOS weren't stupid, they were conniving and treacherous because they were supposed to represent an authoritarian regime similar to the USSR. The Klingons in Enterprise... I wouldn't put it past them to start randomly running into walls for no reason. I agree that there's not much to the complaint, and those people who do complain about that sort of thing would have found something else to complain about had the Klingon situation not existed. They might have complained about cloaking devices, or something. Carbon Creek (*½) There's one very simple reason why this episode doesn't work for me; my grandfather created velcro, not a bloody Vulcan! Okay, that's a lie, the real reason is that I was born in 1986. I have absolutely no nostalgia about 1950s rural America, that society is more alien to me than Vulcan is. This episode reminds me of 11:59 from Voyager, an episode I really enjoyed even though it was just a story about one of Janeway's ancestors in the past, but that episode worked for me because it was set in a time and a place that I could relate to and care about. And don't let the Voyager fans hear this, but I find Kate Mulgrew much more watchable than Joleene Blalock. Blalock is fine working with the rest of the cast, but removing everyone else makes me realise that she can't hold my interest like Mulgrew can. I feel queezy for complimenting Voyager. I think I need a drink. Anyway, Carbon Creek; you might like it if you're interested in watching 1950s America or Joleene Blalock, otherwise give it a miss.
Opinions and assholes ... No, just kidding, I don't hate A Night in Sickbay like a lot of people seem to do. Do I think it's good? No, definitely not! But it's nowhere near the worst Trek episode ever commited to film either. Exactly. Look for the Cardassians if you're trying to emulate TOS Klingons.
Wow, only 1,5 stars for Cabon Creek? I loved it, and would've given at least 4 stars. And I was born in 1991, so that's no excuse.
Carbon Creek? Best. Episode. Ever. OK, I'll downgrade that to best episode so far, but this was the first episode of Enterprise that I really, really liked. Why did I like it? It was fun and different and I got a kick out of Vulcans doing unexpected things. Mestral going on a date with the woman who owned the bar is probably my favourite moment in Enterprise.
I thought Carbon Creek was a good episode. Not a big fan of American 50s nostalgia, but the acting was excellent, and the problem of one of the Vulcans going native was a nice setup to their isolation in the Vulcan compound during the 22nd Century. And A Night In Sickbay was good stuff. Very very TOS-like, funny moments, showed that UESPA Starfleet and Archer had a long way to go towards Kirk's time in attitude and procedure, and was a gentle reminder that Star Trek is not supposed to be serious business. Great episode? No. But not awful if you watch it with a sense of humor.
(scratches head) They don't come off as stupid to me, just aggressive and brutal -- what do you mean? Your memories are a lot fresher than mine.
Much the same here. I grew up on Trek, staying up into the obscene hours of the night to watch even reruns, and I stuck it out through Season 2, but by the halfway point of the season, I wasn't really paying attention to what was going on on the screen, finding other things to occupy my time with the show becoming background noise. By Season 3, I was finding other things to watch. I caught a handful of episodes of Season 3, and one episode of Season 4 on the night they first aired.
Actually, your phrasing does give the impression that "A Night in Sickbay's" alleged awfulness is objective fact, because you do not clarify your statement with "In my opinion," or "The way I see it," or "IMHO," or other such language. When one expresses a strong opinion about something regarding Enterprise -- especially when differing opinions exist (and that covers just about everything here) -- it's helpful to acknowledge that one is expressing one's own personal, subjective opinion. Forceful language and hyperbole may convey the appearance of fact, but subjective opinion remains subjective opinion, not the "gods damned truth." Such statements might inadvertently give the impression that you are dissing anyone else who thinks differently than you do. Not exactly a plus for friendly discussion. Stating your opinion over and over, smiley or no, without any explanation to support your view, doesn't help. No opinion is "more right" than any other. For the purpose of useful discussion, it's a good idea to be respectful of all opinions, no matter how strongly you might disagree with some of them.
For what it's worth, I don't think that you really need to say things like "in my opinion" when talking about an episode's quality. If I show up and say something like "Masks is a load of garbage" or "Second Skin is the greatest thing ever", it should be obvious that I'm stating an opinion, since it's just a value judgement, not a matter of facts.
Oh, please. That's clearly a joke. Which is what the smiley's for. I really hope it hasn't come to the point where I have to put massive disclaimers on a bit of self-deprecating humour. The actual argument is in the preceeding paragraph. The guy I was quoting wasn't even claiming ANiS was not bad. He was asserting that in the subjective consensus other episodes have a better claim to be generally considered worse. I was counter-aserting that ANiS has an excellent claim nonetheless in the subjective consensus to be considered pretty awful also. That's fairly obvious in the context which he and I wrote. Come off it. Is The Final Frontier the most beloved Star Trek movie, or The Wrath of Khan? Don't seriously tell me I need to conduct a survey to prove which is which (and the proof of any such survey is debateable, disputable, and gradually mutating on the basis of the perpetually shifting population of what is and is not a 'Star Trek fan'.) There are some things about Trek fandom one comes to know from being in it as I have for well over a decade, and one of those things is what are the sacred cows and the despised shames. I knew ANiS was a disaster the moment I saw it, and the long years have enshrined its reputation as a pretty piss-poor outing for ENT. Now, since our entire perceptions are subjective, we cannot determine to absolute certainty that there even is an objective truth, or exactly how far our truth is from this objective truth. We base our claims, then, on whatever seems reasonable to us, by use of what other people have observed and applying Occam's Razor but in the end of the day maybe we're Hilarie Putnam's Brains in a Vat, or in the Matrix, so we're believing in the veracity of our scientific doctrines rather than without question knowing. It is a more reasonable and grounded belief than any alternative, but ne'ertheless it is a belief. Which means if you want to be really picky about it you should preface every single statement you make with 'I think I know' instead of 'I know.' But that's linguistically cumbersome and it's quite clear that our knowledge, as we use the word, does not mean this sort of excessive absolute knowledge - context is vital in understanding language. Now, I'm not trying to say scientific consensus and fan opinion consensus are even remotely the same thing - the former has a sort of rational application that is as close as what we get to an objective worldview. Opinion about any variety of culture is not about what it is (all agree that ANiS is an episode of Enterprise), but an entirely opinionated view as to whether or not it's worthwhile. However, as a society and a culture, certain opinions have been built up around certain works, and the accruement of such opinions are notable. When looking at Citizen Kane all that ballyhoo about it being the greatest film of all time is almost inseperable from the act of viewing the film; Plan 9 from Outer Space has the same but in reverse. So there is a case for the existence of a subjective consensus about things, though this in itself is not an argument for the respective quality of something - if challenged as to why I think, say, Citizen Kane is good, I'm not going to say 'lots of critics say it is, so HAH!' but attempt to offer some sort of defence. However if someone is to say 'look, it's overrated, The Godfather and Taxi Driver are better movies', it'd be reasonable for me to respond 'Maybe, but Citizen Kane is still amazing' and decline to elaborate. Basically, Pemmer Harge is bang on the money here. So, don't nitpick nits that do not exist. Much thanks.
The first time is in Unexpected when the Klingon commander immediately orders the execution of the Xyrillian crew without even bothering to try and understand the situation. Yes, Klingons are aggressive, but normally they'd trying and figure out what is happening before resorting to murdering innocents for fun. Their apparent idiocy wasn't helped by having the Klingon commander appear in a holodeck a minute later saying "I can see my house from here!" It's like he's six years old. Secondly was Sleeping Dogs when the Klingon woman who escaped to Enterprise refused to listen to Archer when he was offering to help save her crewmates. When Archer eventually does save the Klingons their immediate reaction is to attack Enterprise even though their hull is on the brink of collapse and has no torpedoes remaining. That's like a man with terminal lung cancer and no arms or legs picking a fight with a nun; yes, the nun isn't particularly strong but the man has terminal lung cancer and no arms or legs! Aggressive is fine, but aggressive without motivation combined with a lot of pointless shouting is dumb.
This would probably be the first GodBen review I wholly disagree with. Carbon Creek is one of Season 2's highlights for me, mainly because it was refreshing to have likable Vulcans.
C'mon, "I can see my house from here" was hilarious. That was meant to be a funny episode, good old-school lighthearted Trek. That said, since the Xyrllians were seriously screwing with the Klingon systems, executing them all is a brutal but understandable thing to do. I think the ENT Klingons were modelled pretty heavily on the Empire of Japan during WW2. Hell, in World War II the Japanese had a habit of mass executions of CIVILIANS in various villages when saboteurs were caught, and we know that the Japanese were very NOT stupid. Savage, disproportionate brutality in the face of even minor resistance and slights does not imply stupidity, it implies ruthlessness. It's an effective way to keep an Empire together, one that's been practiced by basically every big empire in our history. Weren't the Klingons extremely angry that, instead of dying with honor (or at least just going missing forever and presumed dead), they now get to limp back home with a broken ship and explain to their superiors how they stupidly nearly got themselves killed and had to get rescued by a bunch of wussy aliens? Death would be preferable. Think of a Japanese Imperial Navy officer just fresh from massacring a village or two of insufficiently-bowing natives and getting into a similar situation. Fortunately T'Pol saves the day by giving them a reasonably face-saving excuse to go home with, so everybody wins.
I totally agree. I don't think it's about rural America or Jolene Blalock but about contact with difference and understanding. And Mestral was one of the most likable Vulcans out there.
Not really. I was late for college this morning because I was held up in traffic at a roundabout. I shouldn't have been held up because there's a box junction on the roundabout designed to make sure that people heading towards the city centre don't block the passage of people turning right, like me. But every bloody day 75% of the assholes who use that roundabout refuse to obey the rule so that they can get 3m closer to their destination and block me in the process. This pisses me off and is a major inconvenience, but I've never had the desire to kill any of them because my brain is bigger than a peanut. (It's the size of a walnut.) No, they threatened to attack Enterprise because Archer and co "violated" their vessel, and they backed down as soon as Archer threatened them. Minefield (***½) Firstly, kudos to this episode for blowing a hole in the side of the ship, and kudos to the next episode for not forgetting that. This is the sort of thing missing from Voyager. I must admit, I like Reed a lot, he and Phlox are currently in joint place as my favourite characters. I enjoy the snippets into his character which this episode provides, such as learning that he's aquaphobic, and I like how pessimistic he is about his chances, some of the characters on past Trek could be so optimistic they caused tooth decay. He may not be the traditional sort of hero, but if his decision to vent his oxygen supply in order to save the crew isn't heroic then I don't think much else is. Which is one of the reasons why Archer annoys me in this episode. Reed is happy being who he is, and some of the scenes in this episode make it feel like as if Archer is trying to change him into something else. It reminds me a bit of how Neelix used to try and change Tuvok, all that accomplished is making me want to stab Neelix in the eye with a fork. Archer isn't quite that bad, but I wish the episode didn't feel like it was trying to make the other characters conform to Archer's ideal of what a person should be like. Then there's the Romulans. The cloak thing does annoy me, especially since the Romulans seem to have enough cloaks to hide thousands of mines, but what is even more annoying is that fact that Enterprise has a way of detecting them using Daniels' super triangles. However, one of the universal constants of the universe is that everything is better with Romulans, and it is great to see some new Romulan ships, so I have to give this episode a positive score. Captain Redshirt: 13
This phrasing, using the word "subjective," is far more effective for making your point, IMHO. I don't consider basic courtesy toward your fellow members to be a nitpick. But that's just my opinion. No, you don't need to acknowledge in every single post that you are offering your personal take, though I see many posters who appear to be handling that onerous burdern quite well. But it would be a courtesy. Clearly there are some folks to whom the distinction between fact and opinion is relevant. Perhaps this is because we have all come across a few posters who seem to believe that their point of view is The Only One That Matters, And To Blazes With All The Rest Of You. Of course, it should be obvious that "That episode blows!" is one's personal opinion. But I'm talking about the impression created over time by folks who never seem to acknowledge that other opinions have equal merit, or even exist at all. A simple "I believe" or "I think" goes a long way toward keeping the atmosphere of the discussion more friendly and inviting, especially for those of us unfortunate souls who may hold a less prevalent viewpoint on this or that issue. I found "Carbon Creek" quite charming. Not just the flashback story and how each of the Vulcans finds their own way of fitting in, but the idea of T'Pol as a storyteller. Plus, it was filmed in Crestline, a little hamlet in the San Bernardino mountains that I have visited many times. It was cool to see the town used for the ENT location shoot. Interesting. I don't think I ever thought of Reed as the "happy" sort.
No, decidedly not "happy": he struck me as a one with quite a number of psychological problems. He has never been my favourite character of the show, but still I think he was an EXCELLENT character - very coherent and human.
It's cumbersomely spelling out what is an obvious implication of my sentence. It's completely unnecessary since the only context one talks about the value of art/entertainment is a subjective one. Now, had I said something that would equal: However, I never said anything that would imply this. Indeed the post that bluedana objected to suggested the reverse, where I was assigning ANiS a value statement and then voicing a recognisably minority opinion on "Justice."
How does that prevent him from being happy? I identify with Reed, I see a lot of myself in him; reserved, grumpy, sarcastic, cynical, disagreeable... but that doesn't mean I'm not happy. I am these things because I am happy, because I can look at those aspects of my personality which others might try to exorcise and actually like them about myself. What you might consider a "psychological problem" I consider to be an admirable or humorous trait. And if somebody tried to convince me otherwise, if somebody tried to remake me in their image, then I would see that as a desperate move by someone who is so unhappy in who they are that they're desperate to justify their life by making others like them. But that's because I'm cynical.