Lynch's Spoiler Review: "Galaxy's Child"
Timothy W. Lynch
week's TNG episode, "Galaxy's Child." All personnel not cleared for access to
this information should remain well clear.
In one line: lots of good, but lots of not so good too.
Man, this is gonna be a tough call...
I mean, there were a lot of things to like about the show, but there were also
a lot of things NOT to like about it. I haven't the foggiest idea what I'm
going to come up with at the end. But, I suppose we'll all find out in a
couple hundred lines. :-) Anyway, here's the synop:
The Enterprise stops at Starbase 313 to pick up some scientific equipment, and
Geordi has the pleasure of welcoming on board Dr. Leah Brahms, whose image he
fell in love with on the holodeck, and who is coming on board specifically to
talk to him. He's ecstatic about finally meeting "his dream", but the ecstasy
sours when Leah greets him as "the one who's fouled up my engine designs."
As the Enterprise diverts to investigate some interesting radiation readings,
Geordi and Leah's relationship goes further downhill. His justifications of
his many modifications (that theory doesn't equal reality, mainly) are met with
a cold shoulder, and Geordi's repeated slips about things he assumes Leah knows
and things he does know about her make her rather uneasy. This comes to a head
when Geordi sets the stage for a textbook seduction in his quarters, but Leah
is still mostly business and doesn't stay long.
Meanwhile, the Enterprise encounters the source of the strange radiation--a
space-born lifeform. Unfortunately, it attacks them, and the only way they
save themselves is with a minimal phaser burst which kills the creature.
Picard is thunderstruck at what he's been forced to do, and very depressed,
but before he leaves the bridge, Data picks up some new readings from the
creature...indications of a separate, smaller entity inside. "No wonder it
attacked us..." says Picard. "It was about to give birth!"
As the bridge crew, on Bev's advice and over Worf's objections, prepare to
help the child's birth by using the phasers to give a Caesarean section, Leah
finally asks Geordi about his odd attitude towards her. He tells her that
he's admired her (though not about the holodeck), and that he hopes they can
become good friends--and she's flattered, but surprised that Geordi doesn't
already know that she's *married*. A rather bitter Geordi rails about how
wrong the computer was to Guinan, until she brusquely points out that all
Leah's done is failed to live up to his false expectations.
The Caesarean, in the meantime, is successful, and the baby is born. The
Enterprise prepares to leave, but before it can do so, the baby follows and
attaches itself to the ship. Apparently, it's imprinted--on the ENTERPRISE,
and it begins to drain the ship's energy. After a brief conference where it's
decided to head for wherever the mother was probably heading and then blow the
baby off (by depressurizing the shuttle bay it's right over), Leah asks Geordi
if she can take a look at a file of all the modifications he's made. He
rushes off to the bridge, but she looks at the file--and THEN heads,
unknowing, for the very holodeck simulation Geordi fell in love with Leah in.
Geordi hears about this too late, and enters just in time to greet a very
angry Leah who feels invaded and used. Geordi eventually calms her down (or
at least quiets her down) and angrily claims that the only thing he's guilty
of is offering her friendship.
The ship reaches the mother's destination--an asteroid belt made up of those
elements the creature needs to survive. Unfortunately, blowing off the
creature fails, succeeding only in draining power much further and in making
the baby call its relatives for help. Eventually, Leah and Geordi, by working
together, reason that by changing the auxiliary power away from the frequency
the creature is used to, they might "sour the milk." It works in the nick of
time, and Geordi and Leah each realize that the "real" people aren't so bad.
Well, that was nice and short (mostly). Now, onwards:
As I said, this is going to be a REALLY tough call. I don't even know where
to begin.
The plot, I would say, was basically sound (aside from a few minor technical
glitches, which I'll get to in a bit). Given the apparent intelligence level
of the creature, its imprinting on the Enterprise made perfect sense.
Further, it certainly makes sense that at some point Dr. Brahms might want to
talk to Geordi (and that she might not be too happy with his modifications to
her designs, being a theorist and all ;-) ), and that he'd have a lot of
problems dealing with the real her when she did. So the basic ideas were
fine.
The execution, however, was not so fine. I guess most of it can be chalked up
to Winrich Kolbe's direction--this is, after all, the director of such other
masterpieces of execution as "Up the Long Ladder", "Allegiance" and "The
Bonding." But a lot of it just felt very, very stiff--particularly much of
the early part of the "creature" plot. I don't usually find myself checking
my watch during a new episode (except occasionally to say "how the HELL are
they going to resolve all this in five minutes?"), but I did it a few times
here. It just dragged--horribly.
This is not to say that the direction was completely worthless. A few moments
stood out nicely. For instance, I rather enjoyed the second conference, when
Leah and Geordi propose blowing off the creature via the shuttle bay. We have
a quick idea from Leah, and a lickety-split pan to Geordi with his idea, then
another lightning-pan to Picard's "make it so". While I wouldn't want to see
that shot all the time, I rather thought it worked here. So it had its
moments, but nothing terrific.
Characterization was also a little on the erratic side. Some of it was
excellent--I liked Geordi's scenes a lot, for the most part (but I'll get to
that after the rest of them), and Picard's look of pleasure to be encountering
something never before seen by humans was a splendid touch. (I also thought
that right after Deanna said that the baby had imprinted, Riker's smirk was
entirely justified...not to mention hilarious. :-) ) But other bits of it
weren't so good. I thought Riker was being far too brusque with all of his
orders, particularly an early one when they first saw the creature, for
example. I also thought that Picard was actually being a little TOO guilty
and depressed for the accidental killing of the mother. I'm all for the
careful adherence to protecting new lives espoused in TNG, but this seemed a
little overboard, even for Picard. Whoops--almost forgot: Guinan, as is
becoming the norm ("Clues" notwithstanding), is really getting nasty. I like
it--her second scene with Geordi was phenomenal. That helps.
But Geordi and Leah's stuff helped a great deal more. I've complained more
than once that Geordi's being woefully underused, and it was nice to see him
handled for once, and handled WELL. (This also, I hope, might answer some
complaints about the characters having no human flaws--Geordi's problems with
Leah had shades of most people I know in them.) I was cringing during a lot
of his seduction prepping, yes; but it was a cringe of "no, no, you
idiot--I've TRIED that and it just doesn't WORK!", not of disgust. (It was a
cringe of empathy, not boredom, in other words.) I think this did more for
Geordi's character than any episode this season (not difficult, since he's the
only major character who hasn't been focused on this season), and probably
since "Booby Trap" itself. And Susan Gibney did well returning to Leah Brahms.
I remember the holo-Leah fairly well, and she did a good job being both like
and unlike the fake one. Well done.
Technically, it's mostly good stuff. Certainly, the graphics of the
creatures were just phenomenal, especially during the birth sequence. The
science--well, it wasn't exactly perfect (they made the same mistake about
timing to lethal radiation levels as in "Booby Trap", but at least they didn't
dwell on it), but it wasn't too awful. The 21-centimeter bit was the right
idea if the wrong specifics: while I didn't see any reason why this creature
had to be absorbing radiation in the 21-cm line (contrary to what Geordi said,
not ALL matter in interstellar space radiates at that frequency, just most of
it), the idea worked in that if you wean the energy away from the frequency
it's used to, the milk might sour. So I'm willing to let them get away with
it. (I'm sure they're all sighing with relief even now...:-) :-) )
Hmm. Well, I guess that's mostly it. I was glad to see the focus on Geordi,
particularly on his continuing social problems, and to see the return of Dr.
Brahms. I just wish it had been executed a bit better, that's all.
The numbers, then:
Plot: 7. Would've been a 6 (solid, but nothing phenomenal), but I was happy
enough to see the real Leah finally come in that it goes up a point.
Plot Handling/Direction: 4. Not without merit, but pretty weak.
Characterization: 7. Terrific Geordi and Leah, but the others were at best
passable. (That probably would be a 5, but Picard was a bit above
the rest, as usual, and I almost forgot Guinan!)
Technical: 9. Minor scientific quibbles, but spectacular graphics.
TOTAL: 27/4 ---> 7. Stiff, but hardly a waste of time.
NEXT WEEK:
Nightmares, nightmares, who's got the nightmares? Everybody, it seems--I just
hope said dreams are interesting.
S'long for now...
Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET: tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
"Captain, I'd like to announce the birth of a large baby..._something_."
--B. Crusher, MD
--
Copyright 1991, Timothy W. Lynch. All rights reserved, but feel free to ask...
Cindy Tittle Moore
>I was cringing during a lot of his seduction prepping, yes; but it
>was a cringe of "no, no, you idiot--I've TRIED that and it just
>doesn't WORK!", not of disgust. (It was a cringe of empathy, not
>boredom, in other words.) I think this did more for Geordi's
>character than any episode this season (not difficult, since he's the
>only major character who hasn't been focused on this season),
Hm, maybe it depends on your perspective (trying this approach or
having it tried on you). I would have simply walked back out about
two minutes after having walked in.
For me, it WAS a cringe of disgust. Particularly since Geordi was
presumably old enough to have already tried this approach and found it
wanting. For those of you who would argue that he's perhaps more
socially immature because of his vision, I would argue that it still
doesn't feel right. A person who is socially immature like that will
demonstrate awkwardness in other situations as well, and Geordi hasn't
demonstrated that at all. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about
in this area as I'm deaf and have dealt with many others who because
of various handicaps have been more isolated socially (and hence not
as adept). It just doesn't feel right.
I also didn't think the scene was handled well at all in the holodeck.
Dr. Brahms had every right to feel invaded over the simulation of her,
and Geordi's defense did not at all address over those feelings. I
mean the basic message was "You shouldn't feel invaded because all I
was trying to do was to be friendly." Uh uh. Nope. No way. It was
still entirely inappropriate and he never apologized for the
similcraum. In fact SHE apologized later in the 10-forward. ARGH!
-- the trek witch
Timothy W. Lynch
>In <1991Mar14....@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
"Galaxy's Child" spoilers...
>>I was cringing during a lot of his seduction prepping, yes; but it
>>was a cringe of "no, no, you idiot--I've TRIED that and it just
>>doesn't WORK!", not of disgust. (It was a cringe of empathy, not
>>boredom, in other words.) I think this did more for Geordi's
>>character than any episode this season (not difficult, since he's the
>>only major character who hasn't been focused on this season),
>Hm, maybe it depends on your perspective (trying this approach or
>having it tried on you). I would have simply walked back out about
>two minutes after having walked in.
That's about what Leah did, no? :-)
>For me, it WAS a cringe of disgust. Particularly since Geordi was
>presumably old enough to have already tried this approach and found it
>wanting. For those of you who would argue that he's perhaps more
>socially immature because of his vision, I would argue that it still
>doesn't feel right. A person who is socially immature like that will
>demonstrate awkwardness in other situations as well, and Geordi hasn't
>demonstrated that at all. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about
>in this area as I'm deaf and have dealt with many others who because
>of various handicaps have been more isolated socially (and hence not
>as adept). It just doesn't feel right.
Well, I wouldn't necessarily say he's socially immature _because of his
vision_, no. But he's shown before that where romance is concerned, he really
DOESN'T have much of a clue (look at the opening of "Booby Trap"). And I've
known quite a few people who are terrific at what they do, and even get along
with everybody they work with, but still don't have a clue about romance.
There are enough of them that it felt okay to me.
>I also didn't think the scene was handled well at all in the holodeck.
>Dr. Brahms had every right to feel invaded over the simulation of her,
>and Geordi's defense did not at all address over those feelings. I
>mean the basic message was "You shouldn't feel invaded because all I
>was trying to do was to be friendly." Uh uh. Nope. No way. It was
>still entirely inappropriate and he never apologized for the
>similcraum. In fact SHE apologized later in the 10-forward. ARGH!
This I'll certainly grant, though. I'd forgotten about the apology by the
time I got around to finishing the review. I'll stand by my middle ground for
it, but I'm wiling to bet that this is one of those shows that will NOT age
well.
Tim Lynch
Michael Rawdon
>week's TNG episode, "Galaxy's Child." All personnel not cleared for access to
>this information should remain well clear.
>glitches, which I'll get to in a bit). Given the apparent intelligence level
>of the creature, its imprinting on the Enterprise made perfect sense.
It made sense, but it was corny. A sound idea, but a poor idea at the same
time. I can't imagine they could have run with this ball to even mid-field.
>Further, it certainly makes sense that at some point Dr. Brahms might want to
>talk to Geordi (and that she might not be too happy with his modifications to
>her designs, being a theorist and all ;-) ), and that he'd have a lot of
>problems dealing with the real her when she did. So the basic ideas were
>fine.
This was a decent idea, though Leah's personality in "Booby Trap" wasn't
nearly interesting enough for me to want to see her come back in different
circumstances...
>Characterization was also a little on the erratic side. Some of it was
>excellent--I liked Geordi's scenes a lot, for the most part (but I'll get to
>that after the rest of them),
I think his scenes in this episode pretty much epitomize the sorts of
Geordi scenes I *don't* want to see. I don't think TNG needs the recurring
episodes of the lovestruck young lieutenant (who seems to be acting more
like a high school boy than a Starfleet officer). I don't think this
episode dealt with the situation on a level higher than this. It's corny,
we've seen it all before (in sitcoms, time after time after time after time
after time... ad nauseum), and it doesn't add a thing to the series. If
they're going to deal with LaForge's love life, I'd like to see it
handled in a more creative and intelligent manner.
> and Picard's look of pleasure to be encountering
>something never before seen by humans was a splendid touch. (I also thought
>that right after Deanna said that the baby had imprinted, Riker's smirk was
>entirely justified...not to mention hilarious. :-) )
Both were fine, but really just fluff as far as characterization in the
episode goes. The deep, deep flaws in handling Picard completely
overwhelmed the nice touch, IMHO.
> But other bits of it
>weren't so good. I thought Riker was being far too brusque with all of his
>orders, particularly an early one when they first saw the creature, for
>example.
This didn't bother me. Riker is usually a lot brusquer than Picard when
giving orders.
> I also thought that Picard was actually being a little TOO guilty
>and depressed for the accidental killing of the mother. I'm all for the
>careful adherence to protecting new lives espoused in TNG, but this seemed a
>little overboard, even for Picard.
A little overboard? It was the first big tip-of that the episode was going
to go down the tubes, to me.
> Whoops--almost forgot: Guinan, as is
>becoming the norm ("Clues" notwithstanding), is really getting nasty. I like
>it--her second scene with Geordi was phenomenal. That helps.
I wasn't impressed. It seems to me like the writers are running out of
clever ideas for what to do with her.
>But Geordi and Leah's stuff helped a great deal more. I've complained more
>than once that Geordi's being woefully underused, and it was nice to see him
>handled for once, and handled WELL.
I disagree totally. Very poor handling here.
> (This also, I hope, might answer some
>complaints about the characters having no human flaws--Geordi's problems with
>Leah had shades of most people I know in them.)
I'd like to see some more interesting flaws.
> I was cringing during a lot
>of his seduction prepping, yes; but it was a cringe of "no, no, you
>idiot--I've TRIED that and it just doesn't WORK!", not of disgust. (It was a
>cringe of empathy, not boredom, in other words.)
It was a cringe of disgust for me. I've seen it all before, again and again
and again... ad nauseum. (Wow... deja vu!) It doesn't work on real life,
and as a dramatic or comedic device, or just one for emotional effect,
it doesn't work. Geordi could have been played by John Ritter in that scene.
> I think this did more for
>Geordi's character than any episode this season (not difficult, since he's the
>only major character who hasn't been focused on this season), and probably
>since "Booby Trap" itself.
I don't think it did ANYthing for Geordi's character that hadn't been
done already in "Booby Trap", and once was enough for me.
> And Susan Gibney did well returning to Leah Brahms.
>I remember the holo-Leah fairly well, and she did a good job being both like
>and unlike the fake one. Well done.
That's not very difficult, since both of her characters were mostly cardboard.
>Technically, it's mostly good stuff. Certainly, the graphics of the
>creatures were just phenomenal, especially during the birth sequence.
The SFX didn't look real, to me. As with many TNG SFX, the animation
actually LOOKS animated.
>Hmm. Well, I guess that's mostly it. I was glad to see the focus on Geordi,
>particularly on his continuing social problems, and to see the return of Dr.
>Brahms. I just wish it had been executed a bit better, that's all.
I wish it had been executed a LOT better. I'd like his social problems
to be approached in less of a storybook manner. It would have been more
interesting, IMHO, if Geordi had actually hunkered down BEFORE Leah
arrived and accepted that she wouldn't meet his preconceptions (heck, *I*
can do this, and Geordi is surely more socially experienced than I am. Look
at the job he's in! He's a leader!) If they'd tackled the holo-Leah
point much earlier on and had Leah not have such a totally predictable
reaction to it. If they'd dispensed with the 'love' aspect of the story
MUCH earlier and actually concentrated on the friendship potential between
the two characters. Maybe they could have written that paper together after
all - before our eyes. That would have had a lot more potential than this
mishmash of cliche characters and events.
(Can you tell I didn't like it? :-)
>NEXT WEEK:
>Nightmares, nightmares, who's got the nightmares? Everybody, it seems--I just
>hope said dreams are interesting.
The damned station in N'Awlins cut the promos... oh, well.
>"Captain, I'd like to announce the birth of a large baby..._something_."
> --B. Crusher, MD
Space slug, wasn't it? :-)
--
Michael Rawdon raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Internet)
Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana CS6FECU@TCSVM (Bitnet)
"Communication is hard to establish
when things like a state of mind get in the way.
People don't eat, they just think what you feed them now;
The horse with the blinders eating the hay."
- Men Without Hats, "The Great Ones Remember"
Uncle Mikey
that... SPOILER HO (sorry, no CTRL_L on this system, so 20 lines of blank
space instead...
==
==
In article <27DFCF7...@ics.uci.edu>, tit...@glacier.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes:
[In <1991Mar14....@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
[
[>I was cringing during a lot of his seduction prepping, yes; but it
[>was a cringe of "no, no, you idiot--I've TRIED that and it just
[>doesn't WORK!", not of disgust. (It was a cringe of empathy, not
[>boredom, in other words.)
Tim: I have to agree here, although Cindy's point had some validity for me
as well (more in a mo'). My main problem was that I really couldn't believe
that this hackneyed old scene was being dragged into Star Trek. But then,
I probably shouldn't be surprised :-)
[>I think this did more for Geordi's
[>character than any episode this season (not difficult, since he's the
[>only major character who hasn't been focused on this season),
Again, agreed, but I'm not at all sure it's good.
[Hm, maybe it depends on your perspective (trying this approach or
[having it tried on you). I would have simply walked back out about
[two minutes after having walked in.
Here's where I agree with Cindy... Leah should have recognized what was going
on immediately (and later indicates that she did), in which case I consider
it inconsistent for her character to have put up with it for that long. It
smells too much of harrassment, quite honestly.
[For me, it WAS a cringe of disgust. Particularly since Geordi was
[presumably old enough to have already tried this approach and found it
[wanting.
Here, too, I must agree partly with Cindy--it still wasn't disgust for me
(at least, not for those reasons), but I got the distinct feeling that Geordi's
tried this approach before. However, I DO think he's bright enough not to
repeat a failed experiment too many times--I think this approach actually
HAS worked for him.
What I want to know is what happened to the woman he finally managed to hook
up with a while ago?
[I also didn't think the scene was handled well at all in the holodeck.
[Dr. Brahms had every right to feel invaded over the simulation of her,
[and Geordi's defense did not at all address over those feelings. I
[mean the basic message was "You shouldn't feel invaded because all I
[was trying to do was to be friendly." Uh uh. Nope. No way. It was
[still entirely inappropriate and he never apologized for the
[similcraum. In fact SHE apologized later in the 10-forward. ARGH!
Here I must agree wholeheartedly with Cindy. I was never entirely thrilled (at
least, I don't THINK I was...Tim, any comments?) with the Brahms-simulacrum
scenario. It made sense at the time, but there was something about it that
bothered me. Now I know what it was.
Mayhap I'm looking at this with a far-too- 20th-century eye, but everything
about it--even the simulacrum itself--smelled of a sexism that the writers
ought to know better than to include. Think about it--the gallant male engineer
essentially seduces a simulacrum of a brilliant female other engineer and
then expects to be able to do the same thing to the real thing. Don't give me
any of this "friendship" BS, Mr. LaForge. I didn't buy it on this side of the
screen, and I find it hard to believe that Dr. Brahms would believe it on the
other.
Cindy is right--the whole issue of Geordi's simulacrum was IGNORED beyond the
fact and Mz. Brahms initial anger. Why was it bad for Barclay to simulate the
bridge crew and good for Geordi to siumlate someone he's never even MET? USE
THE SAME STANDARD.
I've long since stopped doing my Spoiler Review due to lack of time, but a
brief review-and-rating would seem to be in order since I'm saying anything at
all.
Superficially, I actually found much of this story entertaining. It does not
stand up well under scrutiny, and as Tim says in another entry, I do not
believe it will age very well.
Much of the Geordi plot was predictable, hackneyed, and, IMHO, sexist to a
degree that Star Trek should be above.
But then, by that token, "Lilith" the Malkorian shouldn't have seduced Riker in
"First Contact" either. Of course, in that case, they were trying to make a
point about OUR 20th Century almost-ready-for-contact culture, and also trying
to satire all those "I Had Sex with an Alien" articles in the Enquirer. What
was their point here, other than that Geordi is, like so many 20th Century
males, incapable of dealing with a female peer on a solely professional level?
For a show which claims that its characters are meant to be archetypes and
frowns at a storyline which shows them with too many tragic flaws, they've
now given Geordi a doozy of one.
My summary judgement is no higher than a 5--not as low as Michael Rawdon. But
I'll be damned if I'll rate it as better than average. For comparison, "Royale"
was a non-rating (actually, I think I rated it "BLEEEEECHH" or some such :-),
the equivilent, roughly, to Rawdon's 'F. Nothing else before or since has ever
ranked so low--even "Justice" earned a 1 :-)
'sall from me
Uncle Mikey
=-=-=-=-=-=
"Can I help it if I have arguments with my body parts and lose?"
--Lizard Hazard, President CUSFA
Timothy W. Lynch
>In <1991Mar14....@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>WARNING: The following article contains spoiler information regarding this
>>week's TNG episode, "Galaxy's Child." All personnel not cleared for access to
>>this information should remain well clear.
>>talk to Geordi (and that she might not be too happy with his modifications to
>>her designs, being a theorist and all ;-) ), and that he'd have a lot of
>>problems dealing with the real her when she did. So the basic ideas were
>>fine.
>This was a decent idea, though Leah's personality in "Booby Trap" wasn't
>nearly interesting enough for me to want to see her come back in different
>circumstances...
I didn't want to see her come back for HER sake--I wanted to see her come back
precisely to see what effect it would have on Geordi. In this, 90% of that
plot didn't disappoint me.
>>Characterization was also a little on the erratic side. Some of it was
>>excellent--I liked Geordi's scenes a lot, for the most part (but I'll get to
>>that after the rest of them),
>I think his scenes in this episode pretty much epitomize the sorts of
>Geordi scenes I *don't* want to see. I don't think TNG needs the recurring
>episodes of the lovestruck young lieutenant (who seems to be acting more
>like a high school boy than a Starfleet officer). I don't think this
>episode dealt with the situation on a level higher than this. It's corny,
>we've seen it all before (in sitcoms, time after time after time after time
>after time... ad nauseum), and it doesn't add a thing to the series. If
>they're going to deal with LaForge's love life, I'd like to see it
>handled in a more creative and intelligent manner.
But if they'd presented Geordi as dealing with his lovelife in a terrific way,
theyd'd be opening themselves up (and quite rightly so) to yet another charge
of making the characters perfect. You can't have it both ways--if you want the
characters to have human problems, you're occasionally going to have the
characters acting in ways you don't like.
>> and Picard's look of pleasure to be encountering
>>something never before seen by humans was a splendid touch. (I also thought
>>that right after Deanna said that the baby had imprinted, Riker's smirk was
>>entirely justified...not to mention hilarious. :-) )
>Both were fine, but really just fluff as far as characterization in the
>episode goes. The deep, deep flaws in handling Picard completely
>overwhelmed the nice touch, IMHO.
I didn't find the flaws in Picard as "deep, deep" as you did, but I'll agree
that the bad outweighed the good in both his and Riker's case.
>> But other bits of it
>>weren't so good. I thought Riker was being far too brusque with all of his
>>orders, particularly an early one when they first saw the creature, for
>>example.
>This didn't bother me. Riker is usually a lot brusquer than Picard when
>giving orders.
True--that's just his style. But this was too much--he was yelling at
everybody, acting like everyone but him was either deaf or an idiot. That's
too brusque for my tastes.
>> I also thought that Picard was actually being a little TOO guilty
>>and depressed for the accidental killing of the mother. I'm all for the
>>careful adherence to protecting new lives espoused in TNG, but this seemed a
>>little overboard, even for Picard.
>A little overboard? It was the first big tip-of that the episode was going
>to go down the tubes, to me.
Yes--a little overboard. I can see his compassion, and a bit of guilt; I just
thought it was too much of it, that's all. (Yes, this is the guy who zapped
the chestbusters--but he also lamented the necessity in a log later.)
>> Whoops--almost forgot: Guinan, as is
>>becoming the norm ("Clues" notwithstanding), is really getting nasty. I like
>>it--her second scene with Geordi was phenomenal. That helps.
>I wasn't impressed.
Hands up, anyone who's surprised by this statement...;-)
>It seems to me like the writers are running out of
>clever ideas for what to do with her.
She did nothing here we haven't seen her do with others in other circumstances.
She was just a little more blunt than usual. Maybe she's runnning out of
patience, or maybe she'd just had a bad day. She was hardly OUT of character.
>> (This also, I hope, might answer some
>>complaints about the characters having no human flaws--Geordi's problems with
>>Leah had shades of most people I know in them.)
>I'd like to see some more interesting flaws.
Hey, if you've had a perfect lovelife all along, fine--but those of us who had
more trouble might find this interesting enough. Name me three flaws you have
that you'd rather see handled and that are more "interesting".
>> I was cringing during a lot
>>of his seduction prepping, yes; but it was a cringe of "no, no, you
>>idiot--I've TRIED that and it just doesn't WORK!", not of disgust. (It was a
>>cringe of empathy, not boredom, in other words.)
>It was a cringe of disgust for me. I've seen it all before, again and again
>and again... ad nauseum. (Wow... deja vu!) It doesn't work on real life,
What doesn't work on real life? I can't figure out what you're saying here.
>and as a dramatic or comedic device, or just one for emotional effect,
>it doesn't work. Geordi could have been played by John Ritter in that scene.
Nonsense. Maybe it didn't work for you, but that much, at least, did for me.
>>Hmm. Well, I guess that's mostly it. I was glad to see the focus on Geordi,
>>particularly on his continuing social problems, and to see the return of Dr.
>>Brahms. I just wish it had been executed a bit better, that's all.
>I wish it had been executed a LOT better. I'd like his social problems
>to be approached in less of a storybook manner. It would have been more
>interesting, IMHO, if Geordi had actually hunkered down BEFORE Leah
>arrived and accepted that she wouldn't meet his preconceptions (heck, *I*
>can do this, and Geordi is surely more socially experienced than I am. Look
>at the job he's in! He's a leader!)
And leaders are automatically better at realizing their own flaws? Not any
leader *this* little astronomer has ever encountered...
And while it might have had its interesting moments, it wouldn't have been in
the least believable--too perfect. If you're one of the 1% of the population
that fully realizes your own flaws and how to stop them from influencing your
actions, you have my congratulations--but this member of the 99% has his
doubts about that.
>If they'd tackled the holo-Leah
>point much earlier on and had Leah not have such a totally predictable
>reaction to it.
Again, if she hadn't gotten incensed by it, everyone would have been rightfully
bitching about "what does it take to get these guys ANGRY?" Tackling it
earlier might have been interesting, though.
>If they'd dispensed with the 'love' aspect of the story
>MUCH earlier and actually concentrated on the friendship potential between
>the two characters. Maybe they could have written that paper together after
>all - before our eyes. That would have had a lot more potential than this
>mishmash of cliche characters and events.
This much I think I can accept--while the love aspect made perfect sense to me,
I wouldn't have minded seeing a less happy, more interesting aftermath.
I think I've inadvertently built up the episode as being better than it is in
this discussion. I hardly consider it a marvel of TNG, but neither do I want
it taken out back and bludgeoned repeatedly, the way you've been talking.
Anyway, I'm outta here. I'm sure you can occupy your time finding something
else to bitch about until more people have seen "Galaxy's Child".
Tim Lynch
In an extremely bad mood
Timothy W. Lynch
>This is an answer to both Tim and Cindy--two birds with one banana, and all
>that... SPOILER HO (sorry, no CTRL_L on this system, so 20 lines of blank
>space instead...
>==
Well, I'll put one in for you, kind sir :-)
>In article <27DFCF7...@ics.uci.edu>, tit...@glacier.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes:
>[In <1991Mar14....@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>[
>[>I was cringing during a lot of his seduction prepping, yes; but it
>[>was a cringe of "no, no, you idiot--I've TRIED that and it just
>[>doesn't WORK!", not of disgust. (It was a cringe of empathy, not
>[>boredom, in other words.)
>Tim: I have to agree here, although Cindy's point had some validity for me
>as well (more in a mo'). My main problem was that I really couldn't believe
>that this hackneyed old scene was being dragged into Star Trek. But then,
>I probably shouldn't be surprised :-)
A little hackneyed, but great masochistic fun for those of us able to remember
similar stupid things we did..."See! It doesn't work for him EITHER!" :-)
>[>I think this did more for Geordi's
>[>character than any episode this season (not difficult, since he's the
>[>only major character who hasn't been focused on this season),
>Again, agreed, but I'm not at all sure it's good.
I think it's mostly good, but not all good by any means.
>[Hm, maybe it depends on your perspective (trying this approach or
>[having it tried on you). I would have simply walked back out about
>[two minutes after having walked in.
>Here's where I agree with Cindy... Leah should have recognized what was going
>on immediately (and later indicates that she did), in which case I consider
>it inconsistent for her character to have put up with it for that long. It
>smells too much of harrassment, quite honestly.
I wouldn't call it harassment, particularly because harassment usually has the
person with more power doing the harassing--and it was quite clear that in the
business end of things, Geordi was at Leah's mercy. She might have put up with
it longer than normal because she was a tad curious, or because it had been so
long since she'd encountered it that she was trying to figure out what the hell
was going on. :-)
>[For me, it WAS a cringe of disgust. Particularly since Geordi was
>[presumably old enough to have already tried this approach and found it
>[wanting.
>Here, too, I must agree partly with Cindy--it still wasn't disgust for me
>(at least, not for those reasons), but I got the distinct feeling that
>Geordi's tried this approach before. However, I DO think he's bright enough
>not to repeat a failed experiment too many times--I think this approach
>actually HAS worked for him.
Hmm. That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure I can buy it. He's
definitely tried an approach like this before--he went just as overboard on the
cliches at the beginning of "Booby Trap", methinks. Maybe he's NOT wise
enough (being bright has little to do with this; I know a lot of bright
people who haven't the foggiest idea which end of a relationship is up, much
less how to reasonably attempt to enter into one...) to learn from his
mistakes in this area. Based on my experience, he'd hardly be the first
engineer with that particular problem...:-)
>What I want to know is what happened to the woman he finally managed to hook
>up with a while ago?
Aye, now there's a good question. Off doing shampoo commercials, I think...
>[I also didn't think the scene was handled well at all in the holodeck.
>[Dr. Brahms had every right to feel invaded over the simulation of her,
>[and Geordi's defense did not at all address over those feelings. I
>[mean the basic message was "You shouldn't feel invaded because all I
>[was trying to do was to be friendly." Uh uh. Nope. No way. It was
>[still entirely inappropriate and he never apologized for the
>[similcraum. In fact SHE apologized later in the 10-forward. ARGH!
>Here I must agree wholeheartedly with Cindy. I was never entirely thrilled (at
>least, I don't THINK I was...Tim, any comments?) with the Brahms-simulacrum
>scenario.
You mean comments on the original sequence in BT? I don't remember you voicing
the slightest objection at the time, and I recall an "eep!" or two, in fact.
;-)
I do agree with Cindy to the extent that I think Leah had no real reason to
get over her justified anger at the situation, and that definitely hurts it in
retrospect. I'm not sure Geordi's defense was so out of place; changing the
subject is a tried and true tactic in times like that. But her acceptance of
that and ignoring the basic issue is stretching things rather a lot, yes.
>It made sense at the time, but there was something about it that
>bothered me. Now I know what it was.
>Mayhap I'm looking at this with a far-too- 20th-century eye, but everything
>about it--even the simulacrum itself--smelled of a sexism that the writers
>ought to know better than to include. Think about it--the gallant male
>engineer
>essentially seduces a simulacrum of a brilliant female other engineer and
>then expects to be able to do the same thing to the real thing. Don't give me
>any of this "friendship" BS, Mr. LaForge. I didn't buy it on this side of the
>screen, and I find it hard to believe that Dr. Brahms would believe it on the
>other.
Define where you're putting your "sexism" label. I think Geordi's attitude
toward the whole thing was and is certainly sexist, yes--but I don't think it
was being espoused by the writers as a particularly Good Thing [TM].
>Cindy is right--the whole issue of Geordi's simulacrum was IGNORED beyond the
>fact and Mz. Brahms initial anger. Why was it bad for Barclay to simulate the
>bridge crew and good for Geordi to siumlate someone he's never even MET? USE
>THE SAME STANDARD.
This I'll heartily second.
>I've long since stopped doing my Spoiler Review due to lack of time, but a
>brief review-and-rating would seem to be in order since I'm saying anything at
>all.
Pant, pant, pant...:-)
>Superficially, I actually found much of this story entertaining. It does not
>stand up well under scrutiny, and as Tim says in another entry, I do not
>believe it will age very well.
Bingo. That's the line I *should* have used last night. It was fairly nice
going down, but it doesn't leave you satisfied for very long afterward.
>Much of the Geordi plot was predictable, hackneyed, and, IMHO, sexist to a
>degree that Star Trek should be above.
This I'll object to, though, at least in part. I think Geordi's attitude was
sexist, yes, but I don't take that to make the depiction of it sexist. Guinan
hit it on the head when she said Geordi's problems with Leah were his own
damn fault--thus, I don't think his sexism was being touted as good.
>What
>was their point here, other than that Geordi is, like so many 20th Century
>males, incapable of dealing with a female peer on a solely professional level?
Does it entirely need a secondary point for this issue? If (and this is a
big if) they let this evolve a bit, it might prove highly...intriguing, I
think.
>For a show which claims that its characters are meant to be archetypes and
>frowns at a storyline which shows them with too many tragic flaws, they've
>now given Geordi a doozy of one.
But is this such a bad thing? Most people around here have been claiming there
aren't enough flaws around--is a major flaw in one of the main characters such
a bad thing? (It's not like this is a flaw which contradicts already-known
things about him, after all--more like confirming them.)
>My summary judgement is no higher than a 5--not as low as Michael Rawdon. But
>I'll be damned if I'll rate it as better than average.
Aye, I can agree with this. In my season-end review, I'll be surprised if
the recheck gets it any better than the 5. Well, I said at the outset that
this one would be a tough call...and so it was.
>'sall from me
>Uncle Mikey
Now if you'd just answer all your back mail...hmph. A fine wedding usher
*you're* going to make. :-) :-)
Tim Lynch
K...@psuvm.psu.edu
more with it than I do with Michael Rawdon's (You're always a bit too harsh
on TNG for my taste Mike :-) I thought it was a great idea and a great story
but they just ruined it with terrible scripts and acting. The ending really
left me feeling empty. If we are to assume that this life form was not
intelligent (or at least no more so than say, a dolphin or whale) I did like
seeing that not all life forms that they encounter in deep space is
intelligent. It did seem silly to me that they didn't even try to communicate
with them (at least I don't remember them trying).
The weakest part of the entire episode (for me, at least) was the bit with
Geordi. I think I've come to the conclusion that I dislike Geordi's
character the most - yes even more than Troi. I guess I don't really dislike
the character so much as I dislike the way Levar Burton portrays Geordi. He
always acts like a little puppy in everything - pouting when turned off by
a woman, hyper excited any time he's given an assignment or guesses some
correct solution. I can't really pin it down but he just... overdoes stuff.
Where is the award winning actor we're supposed to have in this place? I
didn't used to dislike him so much so maybe it's just a recent thing, and I
don't think it is all the fault of the writer's (they get blamed for enough
:-) Anyhow, enough on that, I'll get over it...
As I mentioned, I thought the concept was great, and the special effects
were fairly impressive (except for that opening shot of the Enterprise that
looked awful -where was the guy responsible for antialiasing?), but I just
thought the script and acting (at least on Burton's part) were sub par.
No flames, please...just some opinions.
Kevin S.
KPS at psuvm.psu.edu
Timothy W. Lynch
>In <1991Mar15....@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
Spoilers for "Galaxy's Child":
>>>I'd like to see some more interesting flaws.
>>Hey, if you've had a perfect lovelife all along, fine--but those of us who
>>had more trouble might find this interesting enough. Name me three flaws you
>>have that you'd rather see handled and that are more "interesting".
>I can name three we've already seen which I'd like to see some more of:
>1) Riker's anguish about his career ("BOBW1").
>2) Picard's (once upon a time) consuming desire to explore ("Lonely Among
> Us").
>3) Worf's hatred of the Romulans ("The Enemy").
Well, we're in agreement that #1 is a muffed opportunity, and I happen to think
#3 has been dealt with pretty well every time we've seen or heard about the
Romulans. Do you expect it to come into play when there's no reason for it?
(Picard's desire for exploration is another interesting concept as well, yes.)
>>>I wish it had been executed a LOT better. I'd like his social problems
>>>to be approached in less of a storybook manner. It would have been more
>>>interesting, IMHO, if Geordi had actually hunkered down BEFORE Leah
>>>arrived and accepted that she wouldn't meet his preconceptions (heck, *I*
>>>can do this, and Geordi is surely more socially experienced than I am. Look
>>>at the job he's in! He's a leader!)
>>And leaders are automatically better at realizing their own flaws? Not any
>>leader *this* little astronomer has ever encountered...
>I don't think it takes much experience to realize that people often don't
>meet one's preconceptions. Imagining what my teachers would look and act
>like before I had my first class with them in high school pretty much
>taught me that lesson.
You didn't have an experience beforehand with someone looking exactly like the
teachers in question to skew you ahead of time. Look--if it just so happened
that I met someone in a grocery store, and said person happened to look like a
friend of mine, then even if it weren't that friend, I imagine I would have a
bit of difficulty avoiding surprise whenever this person didn't act like
his/her lookalike. I think your analogy is flawed.
>> If you're one of the 1% of the population
>>that fully realizes your own flaws and how to stop them from influencing your
>>actions, you have my congratulations--but this member of the 99% has his
>>doubts about that.
>He doesn't have to recognize his own flaws; he just has to recognize that
>expecting someone to live up to preconceptions is dumb.
See above. Ordinary preconceptions and preconceptions with a (admittedly
electronic pulse) are vastly different things, I think.
Tim Lynch
Michael Rawdon
>raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>In <1991Mar14....@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>WARNING: The following article contains spoiler information regarding this
>>>week's TNG episode, "Galaxy's Child." All personnel not cleared for access to
>>>this information should remain well clear.
>>>excellent--I liked Geordi's scenes a lot, for the most part (but I'll get to
>>>that after the rest of them),
>>I think his scenes in this episode pretty much epitomize the sorts of
>>Geordi scenes I *don't* want to see. I don't think TNG needs the recurring
>>episodes of the lovestruck young lieutenant (who seems to be acting more
>>like a high school boy than a Starfleet officer). I don't think this
>>episode dealt with the situation on a level higher than this. It's corny,
>>we've seen it all before (in sitcoms, time after time after time after time
>>after time... ad nauseum), and it doesn't add a thing to the series. If
>>they're going to deal with LaForge's love life, I'd like to see it
>>handled in a more creative and intelligent manner.
>But if they'd presented Geordi as dealing with his lovelife in a terrific way,
>theyd'd be opening themselves up (and quite rightly so) to yet another charge
>of making the characters perfect. You can't have it both ways--if you want the
>characters to have human problems, you're occasionally going to have the
>characters acting in ways you don't like.
What I want is interesting stories. If it takes perfect characters to do
that, fine. If not, fine.
At any rate, I don't think he'd have needed to have dealt with it in a
"terrific" way. Just one that's not so worn out; one which will actually
hold my attention for the better part of an hour.
>>> Whoops--almost forgot: Guinan, as is
>>>becoming the norm ("Clues" notwithstanding), is really getting nasty. I like
>>>it--her second scene with Geordi was phenomenal. That helps.
>>It seems to me like the writers are running out of
>>clever ideas for what to do with her.
>She did nothing here we haven't seen her do with others in other circumstances.
Exactly. Repetition of ideas. Tiresome without substantial variation.
>She was just a little more blunt than usual. Maybe she's runnning out of
>patience, or maybe she'd just had a bad day. She was hardly OUT of character.
I didn't say she was. Her schtick has just gotten old. They need to find
something new to do with her. The same sort of thing over and over and over
is just dull. Adding an "angry" edge to it doesn't qualify, unless there's
meaning behind the anger.
>>> (This also, I hope, might answer some
>>>complaints about the characters having no human flaws--Geordi's problems with
>>>Leah had shades of most people I know in them.)
>>I'd like to see some more interesting flaws.
>Hey, if you've had a perfect lovelife all along, fine--but those of us who had
>more trouble might find this interesting enough. Name me three flaws you have
>that you'd rather see handled and that are more "interesting".
I can name three we've already seen which I'd like to see some more of:
1) Riker's anguish about his career ("BOBW1").
2) Picard's (once upon a time) consuming desire to explore ("Lonely Among
Us").
3) Worf's hatred of the Romulans ("The Enemy").
>>> I was cringing during a lot
>>>of his seduction prepping, yes; but it was a cringe of "no, no, you
>>>idiot--I've TRIED that and it just doesn't WORK!", not of disgust. (It was a
>>>cringe of empathy, not boredom, in other words.)
>>It was a cringe of disgust for me. I've seen it all before, again and again
>>and again... ad nauseum. (Wow... deja vu!) It doesn't work on real life,
>What doesn't work on real life? I can't figure out what you're saying here.
Typo alert: I meant "in" real life, paralleling your statement about how
Geordi's "seduction prepping" doesn't work.
>>and as a dramatic or comedic device, or just one for emotional effect,
>>it doesn't work. Geordi could have been played by John Ritter in that scene.
>Nonsense. Maybe it didn't work for you, but that much, at least, did for me.
It didn't work for me.
>>>Hmm. Well, I guess that's mostly it. I was glad to see the focus on Geordi,
>>>particularly on his continuing social problems, and to see the return of Dr.
>>>Brahms. I just wish it had been executed a bit better, that's all.
>>I wish it had been executed a LOT better. I'd like his social problems
>>to be approached in less of a storybook manner. It would have been more
>>interesting, IMHO, if Geordi had actually hunkered down BEFORE Leah
>>arrived and accepted that she wouldn't meet his preconceptions (heck, *I*
>>can do this, and Geordi is surely more socially experienced than I am. Look
>>at the job he's in! He's a leader!)
>And leaders are automatically better at realizing their own flaws? Not any
>leader *this* little astronomer has ever encountered...
I don't think it takes much experience to realize that people often don't
meet one's preconceptions. Imagining what my teachers would look and act
like before I had my first class with them in high school pretty much
taught me that lesson.
>And while it might have had its interesting moments, it wouldn't have been in
>the least believable--too perfect.
I didn't find this very believable. It certainly wasn't interesting, or
surprising.
> If you're one of the 1% of the population
>that fully realizes your own flaws and how to stop them from influencing your
>actions, you have my congratulations--but this member of the 99% has his
>doubts about that.
He doesn't have to recognize his own flaws; he just has to recognize that
expecting someone to live up to preconceptions is dumb. If they want to painta
picture of Geordi as dumb, fine. But that doesn't seem to be what they're
trying to do with his character (though I'm not fully sure WHAT they're trying
to do with his character).
>>If they'd tackled the holo-Leah
>>point much earlier on and had Leah not have such a totally predictable
>>reaction to it.
>Again, if she hadn't gotten incensed by it, everyone would have been rightfully
>bitching about "what does it take to get these guys ANGRY?"
Maybe. Maybe not. If it couldn't be handled well either way (and I certainly
don't think it was handled well this way), then the scene should not have
been included. If it HAD to be included in a story with Brahms, then such
a story should not have been made.
> Tackling it
>earlier might have been interesting, though.
I think so.
>I think I've inadvertently built up the episode as being better than it is in
>this discussion. I hardly consider it a marvel of TNG, but neither do I want
>it taken out back and bludgeoned repeatedly, the way you've been talking.
I don't see much about the episode that doesn't leave itself wide open to
bludgeoning. It seems more and more to be not just an ill-executed, but
an ill-conceived work.
Atsushi Kanamori
>WARNING: The following article contains spoiler information regarding this
>week's TNG episode, "Galaxy's Child." All personnel not cleared for access
>to
>this information should remain well clear.
>Man, this is gonna be a tough call...
For me, too. In fact, this was one case where I really REALLY wanted to
give the episode two grades -- one for the Geordi plot and one for the
Space Slug plot.
>The plot, I would say, was basically sound (aside from a few minor technical
>glitches, which I'll get to in a bit). Given the apparent intelligence level
>of the creature, its imprinting on the Enterprise made perfect sense.
>Further, it certainly makes sense that at some point Dr. Brahms might want to
>talk to Geordi (and that she might not be too happy with his modifications to
>her designs, being a theorist and all ;-) ), and that he'd have a lot of
>problems dealing with the real her when she did. So the basic ideas were
>fine.
>
>The execution, however, was not so fine.
>I guess most of it can be chalked up
>to Winrich Kolbe's direction--this is, after all, the director of such other
>masterpieces of execution as "Up the Long Ladder", "Allegiance" and "The
>Bonding." But a lot of it just felt very, very stiff--particularly much of
>the early part of the "creature" plot. I don't usually find myself checking
>my watch during a new episode (except occasionally to say "how the HELL are
>they going to resolve all this in five minutes?"), but I did it a few times
>here. It just dragged--horribly.
I slept during the Space Creature plot scenes, mostly.
>Characterization was also a little on the erratic side. Some of it was
>excellent--I liked Geordi's scenes a lot, for the most part (but I'll get to
>that after the rest of them), and Picard's look of pleasure to be
>encountering
>something never before seen by humans was a splendid touch.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Excellent scene.
>But other bits of it
>weren't so good. I thought Riker was being far too brusque with all of his
>orders, particularly an early one when they first saw the creature, for
>example.
Huh? I must have been dozing through those.
>I also thought that Picard was actually being a little TOO guilty
>and depressed for the accidental killing of the mother. I'm all for the
>careful adherence to protecting new lives espoused in TNG, but this seemed a
>little overboard, even for Picard.
I hear Gene Roddenberry speaking Loudly and Clearly here.
>Whoops--almost forgot: Guinan, as is
>becoming the norm ("Clues" notwithstanding), is really getting nasty. I like
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>it--her second scene with Geordi was phenomenal. That helps.
^^
Me too.
>But Geordi and Leah's stuff helped a great deal more. I've complained more
>than once that Geordi's being woefully underused, and it was nice to see him
>handled for once, and handled WELL. (This also, I hope, might answer some
>complaints about the characters having no human flaws--Geordi's problems with
>Leah had shades of most people I know in them.)
I'm not complaining about flaws this week (though I saw most of the flaws
as being Leah's rather than Geordi's.)
>I was cringing during a lot
>of his seduction prepping, yes; but it was a cringe of "no, no, you
>idiot--I've TRIED that and it just doesn't WORK!", not of disgust. (It was a
>cringe of empathy, not boredom, in other words.)
Well I have to agree with the bashers on this point. I was fidgeting through
the scene after a while --- not one of the episode's high points.
>I think this did more for
>Geordi's character than any episode this season
>(not difficult, since he's
>the
>only major character who hasn't been focused on this season),
He's been part of the wallpaper mostly -- about time he got some attention.
>and probably
>since "Booby Trap" itself. And Susan Gibney did well returning to Leah
>Brahms.
>I remember the holo-Leah fairly well, and she did a good job being both like
>and unlike the fake one. Well done.
Haven't seen TRAP so I don't know about this one. I *hope* TRAP completes
the other side of the coin.
>Technically, it's mostly good stuff. Certainly, the graphics of the
>creatures were just phenomenal, especially during the birth sequence.
And I thought that was the *weakest* FX --- their sense of velocity and
mass seemed totally off-synch here.
. . . .
: : : :. : : :.. .: : . :
::::::::::.: :::::::.::::::?
------------ ---------------------------------------------------------
TNG Lifelines: From "Yesterday's Enterprise" To "First Contact" - preempted.
Michael Rawdon
>raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>In <1991Mar15....@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>Spoilers for "Galaxy's Child":
>>>had more trouble might find this interesting enough. Name me three flaws you
>>>have that you'd rather see handled and that are more "interesting".
>>I can name three we've already seen which I'd like to see some more of:
>>1) Riker's anguish about his career ("BOBW1").
>>2) Picard's (once upon a time) consuming desire to explore ("Lonely Among
>> Us").
>>3) Worf's hatred of the Romulans ("The Enemy").
>Well, we're in agreement that #1 is a muffed opportunity, and I happen to think
>#3 has been dealt with pretty well every time we've seen or heard about the
>Romulans. Do you expect it to come into play when there's no reason for it?
I don't understand what you're asking. You asked me to name three flaws I'd
rather see handled than Geordi's live-life woes that I find more interesting
and I did.
>(Picard's desire for exploration is another interesting concept as well, yes.)
It's long been the aspect of his character that has most fascinated me, and
that's with barely any real exposure!
>>>>I wish it had been executed a LOT better. I'd like his social problems
>>>>to be approached in less of a storybook manner. It would have been more
>>>>interesting, IMHO, if Geordi had actually hunkered down BEFORE Leah
>>>>arrived and accepted that she wouldn't meet his preconceptions (heck, *I*
>>>>can do this, and Geordi is surely more socially experienced than I am. Look
>>>>at the job he's in! He's a leader!)
>>>And leaders are automatically better at realizing their own flaws? Not any
>>>leader *this* little astronomer has ever encountered...
>>I don't think it takes much experience to realize that people often don't
>>meet one's preconceptions. Imagining what my teachers would look and act
>>like before I had my first class with them in high school pretty much
>>taught me that lesson.
>You didn't have an experience beforehand with someone looking exactly like the
>teachers in question to skew you ahead of time.
Neither did Geordi, and he *knew* it. The holo-Leah wasn't real; she wasn't
a person.
> Look--if it just so happened
>that I met someone in a grocery store, and said person happened to look like a
>friend of mine, then even if it weren't that friend, I imagine I would have a
>bit of difficulty avoiding surprise whenever this person didn't act like
>his/her lookalike. I think your analogy is flawed.
It's one thing to be surprised when someone doesn't act as you expect them
to. It's quite another to act toward hem as if they are someone else,
especially when one is fully cognizant (as Geordi was) that they are NOT
"someone else".
>>> If you're one of the 1% of the population
>>>that fully realizes your own flaws and how to stop them from influencing your
>>>actions, you have my congratulations--but this member of the 99% has his
>>>doubts about that.
>>He doesn't have to recognize his own flaws; he just has to recognize that
>>expecting someone to live up to preconceptions is dumb.
>See above. Ordinary preconceptions and preconceptions with a (admittedly
>electronic pulse) are vastly different things, I think.
I don't.
Kenneth A. Ornstein
>In article <1991Mar14....@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>WARNING: The following article contains spoiler information regarding this
>>week's TNG episode, "Galaxy's Child." All personnel not cleared for access
>>to
>>this information should remain well clear.
>
>
>
>>Man, this is gonna be a tough call...
>
>For me, too. In fact, this was one case where I really REALLY wanted to
>give the episode two grades -- one for the Geordi plot and one for the
>Space Slug plot.
>
>>I also thought that Picard was actually being a little TOO guilty
>>and depressed for the accidental killing of the mother. I'm all for the
>>careful adherence to protecting new lives espoused in TNG, but this seemed a
>>little overboard, even for Picard.
>
>I hear Gene Roddenberry speaking Loudly and Clearly here.
>
Oh come on. Picard should be shattered. They've killed a life form
that could be the only one of its speicies(or the entire species in
one hive). Picard messed up. He should have observed from a distance,
then tried to communicate with the creature before just moving right up to it.
He had 60 seconds until death, he could have used that time to try and
communicate with the creature(worf tie in the univerasal translator to
the running lights, try and warn that creature off on all frequencies and
energy bands.) He didn't ask data if their was a way to revive the creature.
At the end of the episode he fails to attempt to talk with the creatures.
Is he going to bury the incident? Not very Picard like. Offer his resignation?
Perhaps he should. Whatever happended to allowing the whole ship to die
before violating the prime directive? Or are all space faring creatures
exccluded because they have already achieved "space flight."
I wondered why no one mentioned "tin man" since this creature had some obious
parallels. Picard and the crew acted like they had been forced to kill
a bear with a cub, yet they never determined how intellegent the creature
was or was not.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
of course the creature
did look like a third stage navigator from dune....
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ken ---
-----------------------------------------------
You may find after a while Stan that having is not so pleasing a thing
as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often so.-Spock, Amok Time.
James P. Callison
Maybe another.
Well, maybe not.:-)
In article <27DFCF7...@ics.uci.edu> tit...@glacier.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes:
>Hm, maybe it depends on your perspective (trying this approach or
>having it tried on you). I would have simply walked back out about
>two minutes after having walked in.
Then I would have to label you as an inconsiderate, and say good riddance.
Someone who would act like that isn't worth the effort. That is not only
an insensitive, rude, and tactless way to behave, but it is also very
cruel. IMHO, it's heartless, and I wouldn't give someone who acts
like that the time of day.
>For me, it WAS a cringe of disgust. Particularly since Geordi was
>presumably old enough to have already tried this approach and found it
>wanting.
Age has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of old men who have just
as much trouble dealing with women.
> For those of you who would argue that he's perhaps more
>socially immature because of his vision, I would argue that it still
>doesn't feel right. A person who is socially immature like that will
>demonstrate awkwardness in other situations as well, and Geordi hasn't
>demonstrated that at all.
Not necessarily. You will find that, in matters of the heart (or
where hormones are involved) that there's a completely different
set of 'rules' of conduct. A person who deals with other situations
well may still falter when it comes to his love life. Geordie strikes
me as just that kind of person. Look at it this way. Geordie's
day-to-day interactions are guided by a Starfleet code of behavior.
His interactions with his superiors, his interactions with his
subordinates, even his interactions with personnel outside of
the Enterprise are guided by that code of behavior. When something
goes wrong, he knows "this is approximately how I should act to
achieve this result." In the realm of his personal life, he has
no such guidelines to anchor on. There, it's all hit and miss.
And believe you me, it's truly difficult to find the right way
to hit if you're not experienced.
And Geordie's vision has _nothing_ to do with it.
> Believe me, I know what I'm talking about
>in this area as I'm deaf and have dealt with many others who because
>of various handicaps have been more isolated socially (and hence not
>as adept). It just doesn't feel right.
Being handicapped _physically_ isn't his problem. Being inexperienced
in that social context is.
James
James P. Callison Terminal Operator UCS/AUS, University of Oklahoma
JCal...@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu /\/\/\/\ JPCa...@uokmax.ecn.uoknor
And tell me, just how is a programming language which requires a
function call to do something as simple as exponents useful?
<I hate C.> --me
Timothy W. Lynch
>In <1991Mar17.0...@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>>In <1991Mar15....@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>>raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>Spoilers for "Galaxy's Child":
>>>>Hey, if you've had a perfect lovelife all along, fine--but those of us who
>>>>had more trouble might find this interesting enough. Name me three flaws
>>>>you have that you'd rather see handled and that are more "interesting".
>>>I can name three we've already seen which I'd like to see some more of:
>>>1) Riker's anguish about his career ("BOBW1").
>>>2) Picard's (once upon a time) consuming desire to explore ("Lonely Among
>>> Us").
>>>3) Worf's hatred of the Romulans ("The Enemy").
>>Well, we're in agreement that #1 is a muffed opportunity, and I happen to
>>think
>>#3 has been dealt with pretty well every time we've seen or heard about the
>>Romulans. Do you expect it to come into play when there's no reason for it?
>I don't understand what you're asking. You asked me to name three flaws I'd
>rather see handled than Geordi's live-life woes that I find more interesting
>and I did.
Actually, if you look above, that's not quite what I said, but we'll let that
pass. I was just answering your list by saying that at least one of the 3 HAS
been dealt with quite considerably--and to do so much further might be
overkill.
[on Michael's assertion that Geordi "should have known better"]
>>>I don't think it takes much experience to realize that people often don't
>>>meet one's preconceptions. Imagining what my teachers would look and act
>>>like before I had my first class with them in high school pretty much
>>>taught me that lesson.
>>You didn't have an experience beforehand with someone looking exactly like
>>the teachers in question to skew you ahead of time.
>Neither did Geordi, and he *knew* it. The holo-Leah wasn't real; she wasn't
>a person.
Hogwash. First of all, I didn't specify above that the "someone" had to be
flesh-and-blood: or do you think that Data, Picard and Pulaski would just
look up with no more than a shrug if someone looking exactly like Moriarty
came aboard as the Inspector General? Geordi has had precisely that experience
I listed above, and, to throw your own words back at you, he *knew* it--it was
real enough to him that he fell in love with it (he told Barclay so). Not this
one, sir.
>> Look--if it just so happened
>>that I met someone in a grocery store, and said person happened to look like
>>a friend of mine, then even if it weren't that friend, I imagine I would have
>>a bit of difficulty avoiding surprise whenever this person didn't act like
>>his/her lookalike. I think your analogy is flawed.
>It's one thing to be surprised when someone doesn't act as you expect them
>to. It's quite another to act toward hem as if they are someone else,
>especially when one is fully cognizant (as Geordi was) that they are NOT
>"someone else".
Except that the whole point is that he was NOT cognizant of said fact, and
you're going out of your way to deny it.
Tim Lynch
Michael Rawdon
>raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>In <1991Mar17.0...@nntp-server.caltech.edu> tly...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>>Spoilers for "Galaxy's Child":
>>>>meet one's preconceptions. Imagining what my teachers would look and act
>>>>like before I had my first class with them in high school pretty much
>>>>taught me that lesson.
>>>You didn't have an experience beforehand with someone looking exactly like
>>>the teachers in question to skew you ahead of time.
>>Neither did Geordi, and he *knew* it. The holo-Leah wasn't real; she wasn't
>>a person.
>Hogwash. First of all, I didn't specify above that the "someone" had to be
>flesh-and-blood: or do you think that Data, Picard and Pulaski would just
>look up with no more than a shrug if someone looking exactly like Moriarty
>came aboard as the Inspector General?
Data, yes, but then he's a special case (for a number of reasons) and doesn't
really count.
At any rate, the reason I wouldn't expect them to be complacent about the
event you propose is that they wouldn't be expecting someone to look like
Moriarty. Geordi was expecting someone to come aboard looking like the
fake Leah.
> Geordi has had precisely that experience
>I listed above, and, to throw your own words back at you, he *knew* it--it was
>real enough to him that he fell in love with it (he told Barclay so). Not this
>one, sir.
He told Barclay so, and in doing so (ESPECIALLY considering the events of
that episode) demonstrated that he was FULLY cognizant of the fact that the
holo-Leah was NOT the real Leah Brahms. He'd separated fantasy from reality
in that episode; I find it difficult to swallow that he was so flagrantly
unable to do so here.
>>> Look--if it just so happened
>>>that I met someone in a grocery store, and said person happened to look like
>>>a friend of mine, then even if it weren't that friend, I imagine I would have
>>>a bit of difficulty avoiding surprise whenever this person didn't act like
>>>his/her lookalike. I think your analogy is flawed.
>>It's one thing to be surprised when someone doesn't act as you expect them
>>to. It's quite another to act toward hem as if they are someone else,
>>especially when one is fully cognizant (as Geordi was) that they are NOT
>>"someone else".
>Except that the whole point is that he was NOT cognizant of said fact, and
>you're going out of your way to deny it.
I think he was quite aware of the fact. "Hollow Pursuits" shows that, if
nothing else.
John Burns
>He had 60 seconds until death, he could have used that time to try and
>communicate with the creature(worf tie in the univerasal translator to
>the running lights, try and warn that creature off on all frequencies and
>energy bands.)
>a bear with a cub, yet they never determined how intellegent the creature
>was or was not.
I got the impression that the creature had minimal neural activity from the
fact that Troi never ran around screaming "Pain! Pain!", either when they
killed Mama or poked Junior. In which case, Picard's regret stems not from
killing an intelligent life-form, but from destroying a wonder of the
universe they're ou there to explore. I admit, Troi's power has failed
before, but no one seemed to find it remarkable that she didn't sense
anything, so I thought the crew's implicit conclusion was that the creature
was a dumb animal. How would you feel if you were looking for the
endangered pine weasel and you accidentally ran over one with your car?
John A. Burns (bu...@das.harvard.edu, bu...@huche1.bitnet)
"They're incredible roasted."
STEPHEN DENNISON
>Obligatory spoiler-type
>
>Maybe another.
>Well, maybe not.:-)
>
>
>as much trouble dealing with women.
>
>
>where hormones are involved) that there's a completely different
>set of 'rules' of conduct. A person who deals with other situations
>well may still falter when it comes to his love life. Geordie strikes
>me as just that kind of person. Look at it this way. Geordie's
>day-to-day interactions are guided by a Starfleet code of behavior.
>His interactions with his superiors, his interactions with his
>subordinates, even his interactions with personnel outside of
>the Enterprise are guided by that code of behavior. When something
>goes wrong, he knows "this is approximately how I should act to
>achieve this result." In the realm of his personal life, he has
>no such guidelines to anchor on. There, it's all hit and miss.
>And believe you me, it's truly difficult to find the right way
>to hit if you're not experienced.
>And Geordie's vision has _nothing_ to do with it.
>
>> Believe me, I know what I'm talking about
>>in this area as I'm deaf and have dealt with many others who because
>>of various handicaps have been more isolated socially (and hence not
>>as adept). It just doesn't feel right.
>
>Being handicapped _physically_ isn't his problem. Being inexperienced
>in that social context is.
>
> James
>
Oh, c'mon James. Anyone who is competent at ANYTHING involving logic is
totally equipped to handle his own love life without being intimidated by
girls and ...
.. huh ? WOMEN READ THIS STUFF ON THE NET ???!!!
uh .... never mind.
>
>James P. Callison Terminal Operator UCS/AUS, University of Oklahoma
>JCal...@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu /\/\/\/\ JPCa...@uokmax.ecn.uoknor
>And tell me, just how is a programming language which requires a
>function call to do something as simple as exponents useful?
><I hate C.> --me
Stephen
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
The previous statements, opinions, and references do not, in any way, shape
or form represent the opinions, statements, or references of the
Government of the United States of America, NASA, The Lewis Research Center
, or Sverdrup Techonolgy Inc.. The aforementioned organizations had the
good sense to hire me, but lacked the common sense to muzzle me.
Disclaimer
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"If a man controls HIS world, he controls THE world" -- Stephen Dennison
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++