Lynch's Spoiler Review: "The Quality of Life"
Timothy W. Lynch
of Life." (The TNG episode, that is, not the concept itself. :-) ) Those
not wishing said spoilers are advised to remain calm, avoid panic, and simply
skip this message.
Whew. About time we had a really *thought-provoking* show.
While I've certainly had a few shows this season I've really enjoyed, this is
probably the first one this year that has left me thinking; and it's long
overdue. More after a synopsis:
The Enterprise arrives at the planet of Tyra 7A, where Geordi is inspecting
the completion of a "particle fountain," a possible new mining technique.
The scheduling and implementation problems of the fountain, however, quickly
prove overwhelming, and a disaster is averted only with the help of an
exocomp, a tool invented by the station's Dr. Farallon. The exocomp is
designed to be a problem solver, and it not only replicates the tools it
needs to do its jobs, but adds on new circuits in its own brain when
encountering an unfamiliar task. It's a great breakthrough, and Picard
agrees to Farallon's request for a 48-hour delay to use her exocomps to
finish bringing the particle fountain up to full strength.
Unfortunately, this also falls prey to problems. One of the exocomps leaves
a plasma conduit and "refuses" to return, apparently malfunctioning and
burning out its command circuits. This proves fortunate for the exocomp, as
the conduit exploded very shortly thereafter, but puzzles the examiners, who
find large numbers of brain pathways that do not appear to have any impact on
job performance. Farallon dismisses it as a malfunction now rendering the
exocomp useless and returns to the station. Data, however, continues
researching, and finds that approximately two hours after the exocomp burnt
out its own control pathways, it rebuilt them once the danger had passed.
After some thought, Data concludes that the exocomps may very well be alive,
and urges Farallon not to continue using them.
Farallon protests, and at a hastily convened conference no immediate
conclusion is reached. However, all parties do agree to test Data's
hypothesis by recreating the situation where the "malfunction" occurred and
seeing if the exocomp truly has survival instincts. In a test where a
simulated disaster is set up for the exocomp to find while conducting a
repair, the exocomp fails to flee on cue, thus convincing nearly all parties
that it is, in fact, not a living being. Farallon returns to her work,
leaving the one "defective" exocomp with Data. Data, however, continues
testing, and when a conversation with Dr. Crusher distracts him from bringing
the exocomp back after a "failure", he finds that the exocomp didn't fail the
test at all. Rather, it saw right through it, realizing the "disaster" was a
sensor glitch; and not only did it finish the initial repair, it repaired the
sensors to correct the anomaly.
Before he has a chance to inform others of this situation, however, another
mishap befalls the station, calling for its evacuation. Unfortunately, both
Geordi and Picard are trapped on board it, with radiation levels rising
rapidly. With time too short to send a shuttle or properly configure a
photon torpedo, the only chance appears to be programming all three exocomps
to beam into the particle stream and then detonate, shutting down the
fountain. Data strenuously objects to this, but is overruled; and Farallon
goes so far as to disconnect their command pathways just in case they
malfunction and attempt to shut down.
Data responds to this by locking out the transporter controls, and refuses to
release them even under threat of court-martial. In the end, Riker
grudgingly agrees to reconnect the pathways and give the exocomps, if they
are alive, the choice of whether to act or not on the situation. They choose
to help, but not by destroying themselves. Rather, they beam into the
station and absorb enough power from the core to open a "window" through
which Picard and Geordi can be beamed. Two of three are subsequently saved,
with the third remaining behind to hold the window open for the others.
Farallon agrees not to exploit her creations any longer, and Picard informs
an apologetic Data that risking all to fight for the exocomps' rights was
"the most human decision you've ever made."
There we are. (You know, I think that's one of the most densely packed
synops I've written in a long time. Why I didn't just expand out to a
lengthier one is beyond me. :-) ) Anyway, here's some more thought.
Those familiar with my reviews know that I value any episode or part thereof
that will provoke a lot of thought and thoughtful discussion. While I can,
and do, enjoy episodes without that trait a great deal -- take a look at
"Relics" or "True Q" for two examples this season, perhaps because both
brought back old and valued characters -- episodes *with* it start at a
decided advantage.
"The Quality of Life" brought on a lot of thought. In spades. Let's face
it, Bev was right -- "What is the definition of life?" *is* one of the
thorniest questions in the book, and any show that tries to touch on it had
better be very careful where it treads. "The Measure of a Man" did it, and
so, to a point, did "The Offspring". "The Quality of Life" acknowledged
MoaM's legacy and amplified it: "Okay, so Data's alive and sentient, and
after Picard fighting for him, everyone's agreed on that. Now, what happens
next time, when we get a machine that might be alive and that *doesn't* look
as human as Data?" The answer -- only Data realizes it.
(This was driven home to me most when I heard Farallon point out "...and
there is a big difference between Data and a tool!" As Lisa said to me just
after, "Boy, that's a long way from 'Data is a toaster'...")
The plot (the *single* plot; I realized just today that whatever else has
happened this season, TNG has pretty firmly broken with their multi-plot
tradition of late) rolled right along towards its eventual resolution.
Data's investigation leading to his initial thoughts was both scripted and
directed very nicely, evoking a few "2001"ish thoughts from me. (When the
circuit pathways were discovered in working order, I hope I wasn't the only
one suddenly considering a particular AE-35 antenna unit. :-) ) The
exocomp's apparent "failure" of the test, while not much of a surprise to me,
was well done, and the subsequent discovery by Data and Bev of just what the
real situation was had a lot of great moments.
Yes, that part was somewhat predictable, incidentally; but it was predictable
for the *right* reasons, not the wrong ones. Having the exocomp see through
the test was dramatically sensible and *internally* sensible, as was having
no one really see it until it's pointed out to them. I saw it coming, and I
suspect a lot of written-SF fans saw it coming, but that's because it's a
worthwhile approach. And even predictability, if presented well, can be
great; anyone want to argue that "Star Wars" was a failure because you knew
Luke would destroy the Death Star?
About the only plot element that seems perhaps a little weak would be the
crisis situation on the fountain. While I acknowledge that it was probably
necessary to keep many viewers, I'd have preferred the examination of the
exocomps not be forced by outside circumstances. What they did *with* the
approach worked extremely well, and I've no problem with that; but thinking
back to the legacy of "The Measure of a Man" and "The Offspring", it would
have been nice not to have an actual Threat [TM] loom to bring the situation
into high gear.
On characterization, I can't find a thing that was disappointing. Farallon
was appropriately single-minded on her pet project -- perhaps not quite so
much so as Bruce Maddox, or perhaps just in a different arena. Picard was
his usual understanding self, which explains in some respect why the station
crisis had to have Picard involved; had he been on board ship, I doubt he
would have shared Riker's attitude. Riker showed a lot of his usual
strengths and weaknesses; quick to judge and hot-headed, perhaps, but deep
down a decent guy when he's left with no other choice. :-) Dr. Crusher was
surprisingly well done in a way I haven't seen in months, showing just about
everything there is to like about the character (particularly in that opening
poker game, which I'll get to later.)
That, of course, leaves Data, who has finally shifted gears again. This Data
was a return to the one we saw a few years ago in "The Measure of a Man",
"The Offspring", and "The Most Toys". Outwardly, he was his usual calm,
rational, emotionless self. But just *listen* to his voice at the close of
his conversation with Bev, or during the conference, or in several other
places -- and then try to tell me with a straight face he's *really*
emotionless. I know I couldn't. I don't think I've heard a statement as
double-edged as his "Doctor, there is a big difference between you and a
*virus*..." since the end of "The Most Toys"; and I'd almost forgotten how
much I missed it. I am very, *very* gratified to see this, and urge those
involved to please keep up the good work.
I can't say I'm completely surprised by the quality of the episode however,
based on past precedents. The writer was Naren Shankar, whose previous TNG
work included co-writing on "The First Duty", another extremely strong
character piece. And the director was Jonathan Frakes, who is now five for
five in directing stints so far as I'm concerned. Both combined here to
produce a show that worked on emotional levels (oozing tension towards the
end where necessary) and on intellectual ones, provoking a lot of debate
where I was, and hopefully where you were.
I'd also like to applaud the opening poker game. If I'm not wrong, it's the
first one since "Cause and Effect", and the first one to have some terrific,
light character moments since well before that. Beverly's recent sardonic
streak came out quite a bit here, particularly in her zinger after Riker
touted beards as "a sign of strength": "Oh. And, of course, women can't
grow beards..." The subsequent wager was hilarious, and I earnestly hope we
see the results of it sometime soon; if nothing else, Bev seemed extremely
set on that bet, and I can't imagine it would soon be forgotten. (Not, mind
you, that I'd be anxious to see either result be permanent; Bev as a brunette
seems out of place to me, and we already know that a beardless Riker looks
like the Balsa Wood Commander. :-) ) It was a pleasant moment in a show
that became increasingly serious introspective, and as such made a terrific
counterpoint.
A few short takes before I wrap up, then.
--Data's "What about fire?" had me cheering, in part because it is
*precisely* a point made in the science class my students get in eighth
grade. I hope they appreciate it. ;-)
--A discussion Lisa and I got into was whether they wanted evidence of
*life*, or of *intelligence*. My eventual conclusion was that they already
had evidence it was intelligent; if the exocomp was alive to boot, then it's
clearly not in a position to be exploited. Thoughts?
--And MST 3000 rears its head again, oh so subtly. Farallon mentions early
on that the exocomp was based on a "simple industrial servo mechanism".
Inside, it even looked like poor Tom Servo, too. ;-)
--Geordi's eye -- er, VISOR -- rolling when Data and Farallon first started
talking technobabble was a scream.
--Just how complicated, in TNG's time, can something be before it can no
longer be replicated? So far as we know, living tissue can't; yet life and
intelligence are kept intact in the transporter (barring the
every-third-episode accident, of course). Could a virus? A bacterium? A
protozoan? A multicellular animal? An exocomp?
--Transporter Chief Kelso? Someone's into nostalgia...
That's about it for me. Every so often, TNG comes out with a show that's
basically quiet and understated, yet leaves me thinking a lot more than most
of the others. "Darmok" was one of them last year, as was "The Inner Light".
This appears to be the first one of this season, and I truly hope it's not
the last.
So, the numbers:
Plot: 9. As I said, I wish there hadn't had to be any actual "jeopardy".
Plot Handling: 10. No complaints at all.
Characterization: 10. Fewer than no complaints. :-)
TOTAL: 10. Bingo.
NEXT WEEK: The first of five reruns, and I take a very-needed vacation. Ta!
Tim Lynch (Harvard-Westlake School, Science Dept.)
BITNET: tlynch@citjulie
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
"Always the easy questions..."
--us, after Data asks "what is the definition of life?"
--
Copyright 1992, Timothy W. Lynch. All rights reserved, but feel free to ask...
Rob Knauerhase
Spoilers (minor)
>
[...]
>Geordi and Picard are trapped on board it, with radiation levels rising
>rapidly. With time too short to send a shuttle or properly configure a
>Data responds to this by locking out the transporter controls, and refuses to
>release them even under threat of court-martial. In the end, Riker
How many of us were wondering "Where is Scotty? He'd be able to undo the
lock?"
In all seriousness, how can it be that things are so easily "locked" and are
"locked" from just one control panel? Is there no way at all to override,
even saying "Computer, identify Riker. Unlock transporter"? How about
ripping open the panel and patching in something (a tricorder, datapadd, or
even an HP calculator?) to control it?
Rob
--
Rob Knauerhase University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
kna...@cs.uiuc.edu Dept. of Computer Science, Gigabit Study Group
"Eat, drink, and be merry; for tomorrow, ye will be taxed." America, I
hope 'change' was worth it...
Dave Schaumann
>WARNING: The following review contains spoiler information for "The Quality
>of Life." (The TNG episode, that is, not the concept itself. :-) ) Those
>not wishing said spoilers are advised to remain calm, avoid panic, and simply
>skip this message.
[synopsis deleted]
>Those familiar with my reviews know that I value any episode or part thereof
>that will provoke a lot of thought and thoughtful discussion.
Personally, I didn't see anything new here to discuss.
>"The Quality of Life" brought on a lot of thought. In spades. Let's face
>it, Bev was right -- "What is the definition of life?" *is* one of the
>thorniest questions in the book, and any show that tries to touch on it had
>better be very careful where it treads. "The Measure of a Man" did it, and
>so, to a point, did "The Offspring". "The Quality of Life" acknowledged
>MoaM's legacy
What about "Evolution"? IMHO, this is almost a straight re-working of that
episode:
-modification on a tool creates intelligence
-new intelligence causes havoc, which gets in the way of obsessive scientist
-since recognizing this new presence as life would impair the scientist's
research, the scientist is opposed to any line of inquiry to establish
whether a new intelligence is present
-Data is instrumental in proving the existence of the new intelligence.
There were, of course, incidental differences in detail, but IMHO, the
similarities are overwhelming.
>"Okay, so Data's alive and sentient, and
>after Picard fighting for him, everyone's agreed on that. Now, what happens
>next time, when we get a machine that might be alive and that *doesn't* look
>as human as Data?" The answer -- only Data realizes it.
This might have been an interesting point, if they'd done anything with it.
Instead, it's just used as a plot device to drive the overworked "our heros
are in danger and we need to save them" plot. We're now going into the 6th
season of seeing the crew made virtually invulnerable to any threat. I
realize that conflict and danger are important to plot (particularly to Trek-
style stories), but they really need to work harder to convince me that the
characters are in danger.
>[...]evoking a few "2001"ish thoughts from me.
Nah. I was thinking more of "Silent Running" (much to this epsiodes detriment,
I might add). They should've called the exocomps "Huey, Dewy, and Lewy".
>About the only plot element that seems perhaps a little weak would be the
>crisis situation on the fountain. While I acknowledge that it was probably
>necessary to keep many viewers, I'd have preferred the examination of the
>exocomps not be forced by outside circumstances.
I think this is probably the root of what's wrong with this epsisode. The
central idea of machines crossing the line into sentience has been used
effectively in the past, and I have no doubt that it can and will be used
effectively in the future. But instead of exploring that, they let the
tacked-on danger of the fountain dominate the plot, and so it becomes just
another routine "crew in danger; crew solve problem; credits roll" plot
we've already seen way too many times.
>And the director was Jonathan Frakes, who is now five for
>five in directing stints so far as I'm concerned.
I should probably comment that I thought the direction was fine; it was the
story that lacked anything like substance.
>I'd also like to applaud the opening poker game.
Yah. As I mentioned in another post, the best scene in the episode (which,
unfortunately, isn't saying much).
>Plot: 9. As I said, I wish there hadn't had to be any actual "jeopardy".
>Plot Handling: 10. No complaints at all.
As you might guess, I'd put these numbers a lot lower. 4 seems right to me.
Not as terrible as "Man of the People" or "Cost of Living" (to name two
recent awful plots), but still very ordinary.
--
Dave Schaumann da...@cs.arizona.edu
Tim Russell
>--Just how complicated, in TNG's time, can something be before it can no
>longer be replicated? So far as we know, living tissue can't; yet life and
>intelligence are kept intact in the transporter (barring the
>every-third-episode accident, of course). Could a virus? A bacterium? A
>protozoan? A multicellular animal? An exocomp?
My understanding was that the difference between replicators and
transporters is that replicators don't have the high resolution required
to store the sub-atomic patterns required for life. Don't have my ST:TNG
Technical Reference Manual with me at work (some trekkie I am! :)) so I
don't know the lingo they used, but that's the gist of it. Hence,
machines and completely inanimate objects (even Data? Hmm...) can be
replicated, but even one-celled animals can't.
--
Tim Russell Omaha, NE trus...@unomaha.edu
"Who can doubt that pleasure is the only goal of a reasoned life?"
-- Epicurus
Michael Rawdon
In <trussell.722448759@cwis> trus...@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim Russell) writes:
>tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
Spoilers for the TNG episode "The Quality Of Life"...
>>--Just how complicated, in TNG's time, can something be before it can no
>>longer be replicated? So far as we know, living tissue can't; yet life and
>>intelligence are kept intact in the transporter (barring the
>>every-third-episode accident, of course). Could a virus? A bacterium? A
>>protozoan? A multicellular animal? An exocomp?
> My understanding was that the difference between replicators and
>transporters is that replicators don't have the high resolution required
>to store the sub-atomic patterns required for life.
I don't grok this. Why do they even use replicators for many things, then?
The transporter is just a souped-up replicator by your argument. And
before someone comes up with a cost/need argument, transporters clearly aren't
terribly expensive since they have them on shuttlecraft and in some cargo
bays. Surely they could spare one for the holodeck, and surely there would be
scientists out there working feverishly to create life with transporters. But
we never hear about any of this. It doesn't compute.
> Don't have my ST:TNG
>Technical Reference Manual with me at work (some trekkie I am! :)) so I
>don't know the lingo they used, but that's the gist of it. Hence,
>machines and completely inanimate objects (even Data? Hmm...) can be
>replicated, but even one-celled animals can't.
Except that food replicators can create organic matter. Why, then, can't they
create *living* organic matter?
--
Michael Rawdon raw...@colby.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI
"...I guess I'd rather have mediocre Star Trek then none at all."
- A friend, about the ST:TNG episode "Legacy"
Smiley
:)In <1emnn4...@gap.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
:)Spoilers (minor)
:)[...]
:)>Geordi and Picard are trapped on board it, with radiation levels rising
:)>rapidly. With time too short to send a shuttle or properly configure a
:)[...]
:)>Data responds to this by locking out the transporter controls, and refuses to
:)>release them even under threat of court-martial. In the end, Riker
:)In all seriousness, how can it be that things are so easily "locked" and are
:)"locked" from just one control panel? Is there no way at all to override,
:)even saying "Computer, identify Riker. Unlock transporter"? How about
:)ripping open the panel and patching in something (a tricorder, datapadd, or
:)even an HP calculator?) to control it?
Possibly that "locking" them out consists of re-routing connections and the
like so that they would have to be traced before they can be undone.
--
Josh Laff # #
email to: smi...@uiuc.edu _ _ Hello! I am a signature virus!
(217) 384-6249 |#\_____/#| Join the fun and copy mo*#(*&^!>.
\#######/
Smiley
:)In article <1emnn4...@gap.caltech.edu>, tlynch@cco (Timothy W. Lynch) writ
:)>WARNING: The following review contains spoiler information for "The Quality
:)>of Life." (The TNG episode, that is, not the concept itself. :-) ) Those
:)>not wishing said spoilers are advised to remain calm, avoid panic, and simply
:)>skip this message.
:)>"The Quality of Life" brought on a lot of thought. In spades. Let's face
:)>it, Bev was right -- "What is the definition of life?" *is* one of the
:)>thorniest questions in the book, and any show that tries to touch on it had
:)>better be very careful where it treads. "The Measure of a Man" did it, and
:)>so, to a point, did "The Offspring". "The Quality of Life" acknowledged
:)>MoaM's legacy
:)What about "Evolution"? IMHO, this is almost a straight re-working of that
:)episode:
:) -modification on a tool creates intelligence
The nanites were let out of their contained environment. The exocomps were
*physicallY* modified.
:) -new intelligence causes havoc, which gets in the way of obsessive scientist
The intelligence itself causing havoc, and someone *protecting* that
intelligence, is *quite* a difference.
:) -since recognizing this new presence as life would impair the scientist's
:) research, the scientist is opposed to any line of inquiry to establish
:) whether a new intelligence is present
In Evolution, this occured. Here, the scientist *watched* a test that
everyone there agreed would determine it's state of life. Data was the
only one who still had hopes. Even Geordi thought the test meant it
wasn't alive. Quite different from Evolution.
:) -Data is instrumental in proving the existence of the new intelligence.
Actually, Wesley was more instrumental in Evolution. There, the entire
crew pretty much agreed it was probably alive, but the needs of the
crew outweighed the needs of the nanites. Picard ordered their
destruction since there was no alternative to getting them to cooperate,
until Data was able to establish communication.
:)>"Okay, so Data's alive and sentient, and
:)>after Picard fighting for him, everyone's agreed on that. Now, what happens
:)>next time, when we get a machine that might be alive and that *doesn't* look
:)>as human as Data?" The answer -- only Data realizes it.
:)This might have been an interesting point, if they'd done anything with it.
They did. Subtly.
:)Instead, it's just used as a plot device to drive the overworked "our heros
:)are in danger and we need to save them" plot. We're now going into the 6th
:)season of seeing the crew made virtually invulnerable to any threat. I
Actually, Picard and Geordi would have quite probably died if it weren't
for the exocomps. I'd say that doesn't make them invulnerable.
Mike Peercy
Spoilers:
|
| --A discussion Lisa and I got into was whether they wanted evidence of
| *life*, or of *intelligence*. My eventual conclusion was that they already
| had evidence it was intelligent; if the exocomp was alive to boot, then it's
| clearly not in a position to be exploited. Thoughts?
The simple fact that this issue was not brought up in the writing
precluded my enjoying the show.
I don't think the issue is life vs. intelligence, but rather life vs.
sentience. (The issue of MoaM.) Nonetheless, it was not investigated
on either of these grounds. If I remember correctly, the word 'life'
was qualified by 'intelligent' only once all episode.
In all their activities and tests, the exocomps did not distinguish
themselves from sheepdogs. A sheepdog is a life form. A sheepdog
is intelligent. A sheepdog exhibits self-preservation. A sheepdog
learns. A sheepdog will give up its life for its shepherd or a
sufficient number of sheep. And, as we all know, a sheepdog is a
tool. Human beings use sheepdogs as laborers, and none of us would
consider sacrificing a human being for a sheepdog.
So, my distaste for this episode stems from my distaste for whichever
of the following alternatives is the case:
(1) in the 24th century, they _would_ sacrifice a human being for a
sheepdog;
(2) the writing was terribly sloppy in failing to distinguish the
exocomps from sheepdogs, in failing to distinguish sentient life
from life.
As I remember "Evolution", the writers did provide sufficient proof
so that I thought there was reasonable cause to believe the nanites
were sentient. Same with MoaM (although I may be biased there as I
was cheering for Data). But in "Quality" they did not even attempt
to establish sentience, much less succeed.
In fact, by cheapening the conditions of protected life, I think this
episode did more to call into question the sentience of Data than it
did to support the "aliveness" of the exocomps. If being a sheepdog
is all it takes to be a protected life form, maybe the writers have
given me false cause for admiration in Data and the effort of Picard
in MoaM.
One final thought. Did anyone else make the analogies I did of
exocomp is to inventor as fetus is to mother, and crew of Enterprise
is to inventor as Pat Robertson is to mother? Because of the failure
to establish sentience in the exocomps yet treat them as alive with
full rights, this episode sounded like a 100% pro-life tract. It even
went so far as to distinguish between Data and the exocomps on the
basis of "Data was intended to be a life form; the exocomps weren't."
I have no problem with it being a pro-life tract. But if this isn't
how it was intended, it's even more evidence of sloppy, unprincipled
writing. Someone applying the 24th century principles inherent in
this episode to the 20th century abortion debate would find that a
fetus exhibits qualities of life, whether wanted or not, and that
therefore it must be accorded the same rights as the mother.
Mike Peercy
pee...@crhc.uiuc.edu
Dave Schaumann
>da...@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann) writes:
>:)In article <1emnn4...@gap.caltech.edu>, tlynch@cco (Timothy W. Lynch) writ
>:)>WARNING: The following review contains spoiler information for "The Quality
>:)>of Life." (The TNG episode, that is, not the concept itself. :-) ) Those
>:)>not wishing said spoilers are advised to remain calm, avoid panic, and simply
>:)>skip this message.
>:)episode:
>
>:) -modification on a tool creates intelligence
>
>The nanites were let out of their contained environment. The exocomps were
>*physicallY* modified.
So were the nanites. Remember? Wesley's experiment was to see if he could
improve the nanites, just like whatsername wanted to improve the exocomps.
True, "Evolution" required Wesley to act like an idiot so the nanites would
get loose on the ship, but I don't see that that is a major difference.
>:) -new intelligence causes havoc, which gets in the way of obsessive scientist
>
>The intelligence itself causing havoc, and someone *protecting* that
>intelligence, is *quite* a difference.
I was referring specifically to the incident where the exocomp failed to repair
the cracked Whatsis tube, and caused an explosion. This was well before Data
began protecting them.
>:) -since recognizing this new presence as life would impair the scientist's
>:) research, the scientist is opposed to any line of inquiry to establish
>:) whether a new intelligence is present
>
>In Evolution, this occured. Here, the scientist *watched* a test that
>everyone there agreed would determine it's state of life.
She also was opposed to performing it. She was also first to jump to the
conclusion that they were not intelligent on the basis of a single experiment.
>Data was the
>only one who still had hopes. Even Geordi thought the test meant it
>wasn't alive. Quite different from Evolution.
Well, I /did/ say it wasn't *exactly* like "Evolution". IMHO, the essence
of the plots is almost point-for-point the same (as I outlined in my previous
post). Certainly, you can point to differences, and say "See? They're
different!", but it doesn't change the fact that several key elements of
the plot in each case are virtually identical.
>:) -Data is instrumental in proving the existence of the new intelligence.
>
>Actually, Wesley was more instrumental in Evolution.
Since Wesley was the motivating cause in "Evolution", he was (of course?)
the first one to realize what had happened. But if you recall, it was Data
that first established intelligent contact with the nanites, and it was Data
who volunteered his body for the nanites to inhabit for negotiation.
>:)>"Okay, so Data's alive and sentient, and
>:)>after Picard fighting for him, everyone's agreed on that. Now, what happens
>:)>next time, when we get a machine that might be alive and that *doesn't* look
>:)>as human as Data?" The answer -- only Data realizes it.
>
>:)This might have been an interesting point, if they'd done anything with it.
>
>They did. Subtly.
Too subtly, IMHO. The "Picard & LaForge in danger" plot virtually overwhelmed
anything that might have sprung from this.
>Actually, Picard and Geordi would have quite probably died if it weren't
>for the exocomps. I'd say that doesn't make them invulnerable.
So Picard and LaForge die on the fountain, Data is court-martialed, convicted,
and delivered to Bruce Maddox for disassembly, and 3 of the primary characters
of the show are written out with one fell swoop.
You didn't seriously believe that might possibly happen, did you?
--
Essentia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatum -- William of Ockham
(Fact need not be multiplied beyond necessity)
Mark Runyan
>> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>[...]
>>Geordi and Picard are trapped on board it, with radiation levels rising
>>rapidly. With time too short to send a shuttle or properly configure a
>[...]
>>Data responds to this by locking out the transporter controls, and refuses to
>>release them even under threat of court-martial. In the end, Riker
>
>"locked" from just one control panel?
Computer locks are interesting. Given two relatively equally informed
specialists, it is possible for one to lock out something that the other
can not unlock (at least, not without rebooting the computer and even
then, with a little knowledge, you aren't assured of getting the lock
cleared). So, why does it surprise people that Data could create an
unbreakable lock? Aliens use to be able to do it to the ST:TOS Enterprise,
so it seems reasonable that a crew member can do it. What's the problem?
Mark Runyan {r.a.s. random rationalizer}
Michael Scott Shappe
it's the first time in a month I've bothered watching...
Anyway, my main problem with this episode is that it demonstrated, once
more, one of the great weaknesses of Star Trek: the use of gratuitous
magic. Microreplicators synthesizing tools? Machines not only
reprogramming their ROMs (using the same microreplicators) but managing
to bootstrap themselves into sentience in the process?
Can't we have a science-fictional plot that's actually based on (*gasp*)
science instead of Treknology and Technobabble?
Uncle Mikey
Starting to dispair for Trek in general
Gerald W Katz
>
>One final thought. Did anyone else make the analogies I did of
>exocomp is to inventor as fetus is to mother, and crew of Enterprise
>is to inventor as Pat Robertson is to mother? Because of the failure
>to establish sentience in the exocomps yet treat them as alive with
>full rights, this episode sounded like a 100% pro-life tract. It even
>went so far as to distinguish between Data and the exocomps on the
>basis of "Data was intended to be a life form; the exocomps weren't."
>
>I have no problem with it being a pro-life tract. But if this isn't
>how it was intended, it's even more evidence of sloppy, unprincipled
>writing. Someone applying the 24th century principles inherent in
>this episode to the 20th century abortion debate would find that a
>fetus exhibits qualities of life, whether wanted or not, and that
>therefore it must be accorded the same rights as the mother.
>
>Mike Peercy
>pee...@crhc.uiuc.edu
An interesting hypothesis. Personally, I thought the preachy message
of the day was animal rights. Animal Rights activists abhor using animals
in experiments, including medical experiments. Now, trying to be objective here,
in medical experiments, animals may and do die in the search of a cure for
a fatal disease, example, the cure for polio if I'm not mistaken.
In other words, animals die to save human life. In this episode, Riker
explains that even if the Exocomps were alive, he'd sacrifice them to save
human lives.
I will stop here because any further thought would be opinion,
not an objective viewpoint. I don't want to start
a flame war over animal rights.
gkatz
Smiley
:)In article <By531...@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jal41820@uxa (Smiley) writes:
:)>da...@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann) writes:
:)>:)In article <1emnn4...@gap.caltech.edu>, tlynch@cco (Timothy W. Lynch) wr
:)>:)>WARNING: The following review contains spoiler information for "The Qual
:)>:)>of Life." (The TNG episode, that is, not the concept itself. :-) ) Tho
:)>:)>not wishing said spoilers are advised to remain calm, avoid panic, and si
:)>:)>skip this message.
:)>:)What about "Evolution"? IMHO, this is almost a straight re-working of that
:)>:)episode:
:)>:) -modification on a tool creates intelligence
:)>
:)>The nanites were let out of their contained environment. The exocomps were
:)>*physicallY* modified.
:)So were the nanites. Remember? Wesley's experiment was to see if he could
:)improve the nanites, just like whatsername wanted to improve the exocomps.
Nanites are normally not allowed to interact, according to that episode.
Wesley's experiment was to see if, by allowing them to interact by letting
them out of contained sparation, they could be improved. The *problem* occured
when they were let out of *that* containment. There was a mistake that caused
the creation of intelligence. Here, it was a side effect.
:)True, "Evolution" required Wesley to act like an idiot so the nanites would
:)get loose on the ship, but I don't see that that is a major difference.
It's the difference of a mistake versus a side effect. I don't think that's
plot stealing. (And Wesley falling asleep isn't acting like an idiot, but
that's another matter).
:)>:) -new intelligence causes havoc, which gets in the way of obsessive scient
:)>
:)>The intelligence itself causing havoc, and someone *protecting* that
:)>intelligence, is *quite* a difference.
:)I was referring specifically to the incident where the exocomp failed to repai
:)the cracked Whatsis tube, and caused an explosion. This was well before Data
:)began protecting them.
Helllllo. The exocomp didn't repair the tupe because it *knew* it couldn't
repair it in time. It in no way caused the explosion. Furthermore, the
explosion resulted from something completely different than why the exocomp
was sent in, as shown in Data's tests when the exocomp returned with the
tool to correct the other problem.
:)>:) -since recognizing this new presence as life would impair the scientist's
:)>:) research, the scientist is opposed to any line of inquiry to establish
:)>:) whether a new intelligence is present
:)>
:)>In Evolution, this occured. Here, the scientist *watched* a test that
:)>everyone there agreed would determine it's state of life.
:)She also was opposed to performing it. She was also first to jump to the
Quite different than "Evolution" where there was no such test, wouldn't you
agree? And being on a 48 hour time limit, I'd much rather spend my time
on that time limit, too.
:)conclusion that they were not intelligent on the basis of a single experiment.
The fact that she was "first" has nothing to do with it. Everyone there, except
Data, accepted the results as the exocomps not being alive. That isn't
being "opposed to any line of inquiry", that's accepting a scientific test,
which ALL of them (except Data) did.
:)>Data was the
:)>only one who still had hopes. Even Geordi thought the test meant it
:)>wasn't alive. Quite different from Evolution.
:)Well, I /did/ say it wasn't *exactly* like "Evolution". IMHO, the essence
:)of the plots is almost point-for-point the same (as I outlined in my previous
:)post). Certainly, you can point to differences, and say "See? They're
:)different!", but it doesn't change the fact that several key elements of
:)the plot in each case are virtually identical.
I don't think they're identical at all. I don't think they're anywhere *close*.
Hence my post. Basically, unless I think just about every aspect of the
show is awful (like the episode with Riker's father), I'm of the opinion
not to try and find all it's flaws, and just accept the show. So when
other people try and find all the flaws, especially in an episode I enjoyed
so much, I'm going to point out everything I can that's not acurate about
those "flaws".
:)>:) -Data is instrumental in proving the existence of the new intelligence.
:)>
:)>Actually, Wesley was more instrumental in Evolution.
:)Since Wesley was the motivating cause in "Evolution", he was (of course?)
:)the first one to realize what had happened. But if you recall, it was Data
:)that first established intelligent contact with the nanites, and it was Data
:)who volunteered his body for the nanites to inhabit for negotiation.
Data was simply working the computers to establish it. Picard could have
done that, given more time. Data volunteering his body doesn't prove the
intelligence. Dr. Stubbs was the one who proved their intelligence when
he forced the nanites to provoke a counter-attack on him. If anything,
it was Data's *physical* properties that made that episode flow as it did.
Here, it was his *mental* properties, and judgement, that made the episode
flow, an ENTIRELY different approach.
:)>Actually, Picard and Geordi would have quite probably died if it weren't
:)>for the exocomps. I'd say that doesn't make them invulnerable.
:)So Picard and LaForge die on the fountain, Data is court-martialed, convicted,
:)and delivered to Bruce Maddox for disassembly, and 3 of the primary characters
:)of the show are written out with one fell swoop.
:)You didn't seriously believe that might possibly happen, did you?
But that wasn't your point. Your point was that the ending promoted the
feel of invulnerablity of our main characters.
PuterDude
>Except that food replicators can create organic matter. Why, then, can't they
>create *living* organic matter?
Simply because no one knows what life *is* still. IMHO, they can
replicate organic material, but not the _life_ to make it
*living* organic material.
--
(Puter is a deranged individual at pu...@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com)
In rivers and bad governments, the lightest things swim at top.
-- Poor Richard
Michael Rawdon
>This is my first post in regards to an episode in a long time. Frankly,
>it's the first time in a month I've bothered watching...
>Anyway, my main problem with this episode is that it demonstrated, once
>more, one of the great weaknesses of Star Trek: the use of gratuitous
>magic. Microreplicators synthesizing tools?
This was silly. (Cool visual effect, though.) It would have been more
believable if they "merely" had a small collection of tools from which to
draw.
> Machines not only
>reprogramming their ROMs (using the same microreplicators) but managing
>to bootstrap themselves into sentience in the process?
The silly thing here was the way they described the concept. Had the
explanation been something like, "Oh, I just upgraded their processors and
memory capacities so that I could fire up some self-modifying neural net
software I developed", then I could have bought it. (Certainly, we can barely
even attempt such a thing on that scale today, but at least it would have some
more plausibility for us computer scientists. :-)
>Can't we have a science-fictional plot that's actually based on (*gasp*)
>science instead of Treknology and Technobabble?
Nah. What would be the fun of that? :-)
YAN...@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
the episode, the last comparison sort of throws me.
First: Yes, watching the episode again, the script was a bit sloppy about
whether the exocomps were "intelligent" vs "life." However, my interpretation
was that when you call a mechanical thing "life", it means something more than
merely "operating." When we call a biological being as "living", it usually
refers to "operating" (heart pumping, etc.). No one in _Measure of a Man_
denied that Data was "operating", they were trying to see if Data was "alive"
in the sense that Data had the POTENTIAL to be sentient. (Note that Picard
never claimed Data WAS sentient, only that he MAY be, and even if he wasn't,
he may one day BE.) Thus, in TNG, when one calls a machine "alive", that
seems to implicitly mean "sentient."
Second: Not being an animal-rights advocate, I did find Data's willingness
to jeopardize Picard and Geordi somewhat bothersome, but that was the WHOLE
CONFLICT of the episode. Data, being a machine, was in a better position to
see if exocomps were sentient, or even had the potential to be sentient than
the humans were. Data was just doing what Picard did in the MoaM, the
positions were, in a sense, reversed. (I do NOT believe this constitutes a
retread of MoaM; since the whole point of the episode IMHO was seeing how
Data developed. It just used the same situation to see how the characters
react when the tables were turned.)
Finally: I've been reading on and off the net about how TNG is
pro-life, or pro-choice; _Up the Long Ladder_ where Riker and Pulaski decided
to "abort" their clones, and _The Masterpiece Society_ where Geordi argues
he would have been never born if the Society designers had their way.
Of course,
whenever Trek "seems" take a position on one side or another, one side cheers
as they claim "Trek is taking a courageous view about man's future"; while the
other side is chronically offended. (The issue of homosexuals in Trek seems
to be another topic where this attitude prevails.) Personally, I think people
who interprete pro-life or pro-choice arguments into Trek are overinterpreting
the story.
************************************************************************
"INSANITY IS A VIRTUALLY IMPREGNABLE GAMBIT...
BUT YOU HAVE TO LAY THE GROUNDWORK EARLY IN THE GAME..."
JUNSOK YANG (YAN...@YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU)
Michael Scott Shappe
raw...@colby.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>> Machines not only
>>reprogramming their ROMs (using the same microreplicators) but managing
>>to bootstrap themselves into sentience in the process?
>
>The silly thing here was the way they described the concept.
Had the
>explanation been something like, "Oh, I just upgraded their
processors and
>memory capacities so that I could fire up some self-modifying
neural net
>software I developed", then I could have bought it. (Certainly, we can
barely
>even attempt such a thing on that scale today, but at least it would
have some
>more plausibility for us computer scientists. :-)
The thing that REALLY roasts me about all of this is that you just *know*
they haven't thought through all the implications of it...like how about
the fact that we now have an easy, cheap, effective way of producing
sentience, and probably replicating (or at least approximating) Data.
Data should be running to his lab, based on what he's learned studying
the Exocomps, to try to recreate Lal. Bruce Maddox should be frothing at
the mouth. This raises entirely new legal and scientific and ethical
issues which they're just never going to bother covering. They're going
to forget it ever happened and just go on with blithely without any rhyme
or god-damned reason!
..and it really pisses me off.
Can you tell I'm a bit upset with the folks at Paramount? I mean, is it
obvious?
The reasons are mostly rooted in comparisons between Berman's & Piller's
approach versus J. Michael Strwhatshisname's approach toward Babylon 5.
The more I hear about B5, particularly the approach JMS is taking (having
an over-arching, 5-year story already plotted with a beginning, middle,
and end), the more I like it, and the less I like TNG's approach (and,
frankly, TNG itself), which is one of the most haphazards approach to a
series I've ever seen outside of sitcoms.
There's no real *direction* to TNG. It's 'boldly going' nowhere in
particular. Whenever they're asked questions about continuity, past or
future, their argument is that continuity is not as important as a good
story.
Ok, fine...so where are the good stories? I haven't seen terribly many of
them lately, and when they *do* have them, they never follow up on the
questions they provoke!
All right, enough rambling from...
Uncle Mikey
Jose Gonzalez
>The reasons are mostly rooted in comparisons between Berman's & Piller's
>approach versus J. Michael Strwhatshisname's approach toward Babylon 5.
>The more I hear about B5, particularly the approach JMS is taking (having
>an over-arching, 5-year story already plotted with a beginning, middle,
>and end), the more I like it, and the less I like TNG's approach (and,
>frankly, TNG itself), which is one of the most haphazards approach to a
>series I've ever seen outside of sitcoms.
Long ranging stories are fine, I'm also really looking forward to B5 as well
as DS9, but there are two inherent problems.
1) What if the story doesn't work? If you've committed yourself to one
direction only, how do you change it if it ain't so hot? You may be
disallowing new ideas and directions because you've got everything
"set." Admittedly, if a long range story works well, it's the best way
to go.
2) Where do you go when your story's finished? This happens with comics all
the time. A writer creates a story with a definite beginning, middle, and
end. When he's finished, what's left? He's taken the characters and the
plot where he wants them to go. Star Trek is still thriving after 25 years
because it's not about a specific "story," it's about an idea. If JMS wants
B5 to run just five years, then fine. But I don't think that's what he
wants, he's looking much larger.
Anyway, I'm excited about both B5 and DS9, but I think that DS9 has left it
self more room to correct any problems it may have in the early-going. B5
may not be able to. Of course, it may end up being perfect, and not need
any improvments. We'll see....
--
Jose Gonzalez
ske...@skatter.usask.ca
> pee...@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:
>>
>>
>>So, my distaste for this episode stems from my distaste for whichever
>>of the following alternatives is the case:
>>
>>(1) in the 24th century, they _would_ sacrifice a human being for a
>> sheepdog;
>>(2) the writing was terribly sloppy in failing to distinguish the
>> exocomps from sheepdogs, in failing to distinguish sentient life
>> from life.
>>
>>As I remember "Evolution", the writers did provide sufficient proof
>>so that I thought there was reasonable cause to believe the nanites
>>were sentient. Same with MoaM (although I may be biased there as I
>>was cheering for Data). But in "Quality" they did not even attempt
>>to establish sentience, much less succeed.
Also, in MoaM there was no threat presented to other humans by Data
being sentient or not. In Evolution, they were willing to destroy the
nanites if that became their only option.
However, in QoL, the writers were not clear in showing us Data had
calculated _HE_ could do whatever they asked of the exocomps (i.e. Data
took way too much time to explain this last point).
IMHO, much of the time when people should be DOING something, they are
shown standing around _CALMLY_ discussing. The whole dialogue between
Data and Riker should have taken no more than 20 seconds and should not
have required them to take time to go to another room!
--
ske...@skatter.usask.ca no nifty .sig
The weight of one's wallet is inversly proportional to the size of
one's heart. -- me
ne...@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca
>pro-life, or pro-choice; _Up the Long Ladder_ where Riker and Pulaski decided
>to "abort" their clones, and _The Masterpiece Society_ where Geordi argues
>he would have been never born if the Society designers had their way.
>Of course,
>whenever Trek "seems" take a position on one side or another, one side cheers
>as they claim "Trek is taking a courageous view about man's future"; while the
>other side is chronically offended. (The issue of homosexuals in Trek seems
>to be another topic where this attitude prevails.) Personally, I think people
>who interprete pro-life or pro-choice arguments into Trek are overinterpreting
>the story.
>
body" in _Up the Long Ladder_
Worf: suggests killing the fetus in _The Child_
Picard: doesn't chastize Riker for killing his clone in _Up the Long
Ladder_; allows abortion to be considered an option in _The
Child_; doesn't feel he has the right to tell Worf to give
blood even though a Romulan would die in _The Enemy_
but
Geordi: diapproves of the selective birthing in _The Masterpiece
Society_ or in Romulan society (_The Enemy_)
Deanna: has a child she didn't want in _The Child_ (was it planned?)
Data: would not "sacrifice one life to save another" in _The Quality
of Life_
Could this be ... CHARACTERISATION?
And what does Beverly think? :)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
! Address as above or use
Martin Phipps (aka Cliche Lad) ! LO...@hep.physics.mcgill.ca or simply
! MUHEP::LOULA if you're on a VAX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any simularity between myself and a sane individual is pure coincidence.
David P. Murphy
>
>tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
>Nah. I was thinking more of "Silent Running" (much to this epsiodes detriment,
>I might add). They should've called the exocomps "Huey, Dewy, and Lewy".
>
>da...@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann)
no kidding, i was calling them that for most of the episode (btw, the spelling
is HUEY DUEY and LUEY, and i'm sure i will be corrected if _i_ am wrong :-).
three of them. they didn't vocalize. they waved their upper extensions.
they even "waddled" like those guys from SR. the resemblance was obvious to me.
ok
dpm
--
mur...@npri6.npri.com 602 Cameron St. Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 683-9090
When every one is dead the Great Game is finished. Not before.
--- Hurree Babu, "Kim"
YAN...@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
mur...@npri6.npri.com (David P. Murphy) writes:
>
>>[a scene of the exocomps] evoking a few "2001"ish thoughts from me.
>>
>>tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
>
>>Nah. I was thinking more of "Silent Running" (much to this epsiodes detriment,
>>I might add). They should've called the exocomps "Huey, Dewy, and Lewy".
>>
>>da...@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann)
>
>no kidding, i was calling them that for most of the episode (btw, the spelling
>is HUEY DUEY and LUEY, and i'm sure i will be corrected if _i_ am wrong :-).
>
>three of them. they didn't vocalize. they waved their upper extensions.
>they even "waddled" like those guys from SR. the resemblance was obvious to me.
>
written by Carl Barks, which is about as canon as it gets.
The three nephews are "Huey", "Louie", and "Dewey".
Michael Scott Shappe
wom...@eng.umd.edu writes:
>1) What if the story doesn't work? If you've committed yourself to one
> direction only, how do you change it if it ain't so hot? You may be
> disallowing new ideas and directions because you've got everything
> "set." Admittedly, if a long range story works well, it's the best
way
> to go.
A good point. I think JMS is risking a *lot* on the assumption that his
5-year-story-arc is a GOOD one... but, of course, if you don't take
risks, you don't advance the state of the art. Think what might have
happened if Gene Roddenberry hadn't pitched "The Cage", if NBC hadn't
taken the historical step of commissioning a second pilot, etc...
Frankly, what I'd like to see TNG do is somewhat less radical than what
B5 will be doing. Don't have a 5-year story...but how about this: before
a season starts, have an itinerary for the Enterprise planned (rather
than having them fly randomly around the galaxy). The first story of the
season has them setting out on that itinerary, and maybe ever 4th story
directly relates to a specific mission on it; the intervening stories can
be more free-form, as long as they don't have the Enterprise haring off
to portions of the galaxy not related to the itinerary.
The point of all of this is to have a definite idea of where the
Enterprise is boldly going. This business of having them out on the edge
of known space one week and home at Terra a week later has got to stop
:-) A naval vessel has a schedule of missions. They know that on a given
date they're due in a certain place. That itinerary is, of course,
subject to change based on circumstances, but by and large, they know in
advance what they'll be doing for the next few months, at least. Berman
and Piller should be thinking along these lines, instead of just having
the Enterprise randomly flitting around the galaxy, without rhyme or
reason, and ultimately going nowhere!
(Mr. Berman, Mr. Piller, are you listening? Is someone listening for you?)
>2) Where do you go when your story's finished? This happens with comics
all
> the time. A writer creates a story with a definite beginning,
middle, and
> end. When he's finished, what's left? He's taken the characters and
the
> plot where he wants them to go. Star Trek is still thriving after 25
years
> because it's not about a specific "story," it's about an idea. If
JMS wants
> B5 to run just five years, then fine. But I don't think that's what
he
> wants, he's looking much larger.
Why do you have to go ANYWHERE? I honestly think that JMS is thinking
that when B5 is over, it's *over*. And he'll then move on to other
things. He's had a successful career as a writer and producer to date,
and he certainly will no matter what happens with B5 unless it's an
unmitigated disaster. After 5 years of planning and 5 years of production
(assuming B5 is successful), I should think he'll be ready to move on!
That doesn't mean no more stories within the B5 universe, but simply a
new story!
It works in the print world: The _Belgariad_ and _Malloreon_, by David
Eddings are really only 2 stories, but they're 5 books each! The same can
be said of Donaldson's _Chronicles of Thomas Covenant_ and _Second
Chronicles..._ (only 3 books each there :-). Think of JMS's concept in
those terms, rather than in TV's short-attention-span terms, and it may
make more sense.
Sequelitis and commercialism have caused this culture to think that
nothing successful should ever end, and I think that that is ridiculous.
When you've said what you come to say, you pack up and go home until you
come up with something else to say.
I am feeling more and more that TNG's biggest problem (one which DS9 will
inherit) is that Berman and Piller (and, frankly, Gene before them) don't
have anything specific they want to say with Trek any more. It's not just
that there is no consistent over-arching story; I no longer even feel
that there is a coherent direction, a common idea behind Trek. TNG feels
like a patchwork, not a dramatic series. It has soap-opera plots and
sitcom continuity -- the worst of both worlds!
Feeling critical this Turkey season...
Mikey
Legene
>pee...@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:
>>
>>I don't think the issue is life vs. intelligence, but rather life vs.
>>sentience. (The issue of MoaM.) Nonetheless, it was not investigated
>>on either of these grounds. If I remember correctly, the word 'life'
>>In all their activities and tests, the exocomps did not distinguish
>>themselves from sheepdogs. A sheepdog is a life form. A sheepdog
>>is intelligent. A sheepdog exhibits self-preservation. A sheepdog
>>learns. A sheepdog will give up its life for its shepherd or a
>>sufficient number of sheep. And, as we all know, a sheepdog is a
>>tool. Human beings use sheepdogs as laborers, and none of us would
>>consider sacrificing a human being for a sheepdog.
>>
>>So, my distaste for this episode stems from my distaste for whichever
>>of the following alternatives is the case:
>>
>>(1) in the 24th century, they _would_ sacrifice a human being for a
>> sheepdog;
>>(2) the writing was terribly sloppy in failing to distinguish the
>> exocomps from sheepdogs, in failing to distinguish sentient life
>> from life.
I would sacrifice some humans for some sheepdogs, not just
consider it. I'm not trying to start another animal-rights argument on
this thread (can't resolve such an argument -- no objective evidence
for human or non-human rights or lack thereof, just opinions). What
I'm saying is that this is not a logical flaw in the episode, just a
difference of opinion. That is, if interpretation (1) is used.
Second, what is sentience? If it isn't problem-solving
capability or self-awareness then what is it? If you can't define it
then it seems to me not to be a reasonable criterion for decisions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: S.D.S.U. *made* me say it! They're holding my pocket
protector hostage!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Lee Smallwood
SECRET plan that only a few people know about. It isn't likely,
but...
--
Lee Smallwood
Tazewell High School
msma...@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu
Carter/Mondale '96
Paul Pick
>>> sheepdog;
>>>(2) the writing was terribly sloppy in failing to distinguish the
>>> exocomps from sheepdogs, in failing to distinguish sentient life
>>> from life.
> I would sacrifice some humans for some sheepdogs, not just
>consider it. I'm not trying to start another animal-rights argument on
>this thread (can't resolve such an argument -- no objective evidence
>for human or non-human rights or lack thereof, just opinions). What
>I'm saying is that this is not a logical flaw in the episode, just a
>difference of opinion. That is, if interpretation (1) is used.
Of course it's a logical flaw in the episode... Sentience is the only
criteria which can be used to determine a 'right to life' [ gads, I hate
that phrase... :) ]. The comparison of exocomps to sheepdogs was very apt.
> Second, what is sentience? If it isn't problem-solving
>capability or self-awareness then what is it?
It was well defined in MoaM... just not well used :). Intelligence ( the
ability to adapt, to cope with new situations ), self-awareness, and
consciousness. The exocomps were intelligent. That's all folks...
At no point did they exhibit self-awareness. Generally speaking,
self-consciousness can be indicated by some form of language - this is
indicative of a predicate logic ( which gives rise to me vs else situations ).
Remember that the exocomps did not communicate their willingness to go
on that final mission... they just sat there and Data assumed the rest...
I refer the reader to G.E.Moore ( 'cause I haven't the time/inclination to
reproduce his argument here )...
Suffice it to say that the episode was extremely frustrating for _this_
amature philosopher... :)
--
/----------------------------------------------------------------------------\
|Paul A Pick / NS / Canada | AKA Croaker, Captain "Black Company" - Striving |
|871...@dragon.acadiau.ca | to be the most relaxed team in Paintball today! |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Gary Sarff
>In <1emnn4...@gap.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>Spoilers (minor)
>>
>[...]
>>Geordi and Picard are trapped on board it, with radiation levels rising
>>rapidly. With time too short to send a shuttle or properly configure a
>[...]
>How many of us were wondering "Where is Scotty? He'd be able to undo the
>lock?"
>In all seriousness, how can it be that things are so easily "locked" and are
>"locked" from just one control panel? Is there no way at all to override,
There was that doctor who locked the ships propulsion and some gravity wave
program in the Silicon Avatar that caused the Enterprise to shatter the
crystalline entity, and the entire bridge crew just stood around then and did
nothing, so maybe any casual passerby could lock the bridge computers. Maybe
they trust everyone in the 24th century. 8-)
---------------------------------------------------
Dave Schaumann
DS = da...@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann)
[nothing of Tim's comments are left except the spoiler warning...]
TL>WARNING: The following review contains spoiler information for "The Qual
TL>of Life." (The TNG episode, that is, not the concept itself. :-) ) Tho
TL>not wishing said spoilers are advised to remain calm, avoid panic, and si
TL>skip this message.
DS>What about "Evolution"? IMHO, this is almost a straight re-working of that
DS>episode:
DS> -modification on a tool creates intelligence
[arguments deleted]
DS>True, "Evolution" required Wesley to act like an idiot so the nanites would
DS>get loose on the ship, but I don't see that that is a major difference.
JL>It's the difference of a mistake versus a side effect.
A mighty fine distinction in this case, IMHO. Consider:
- Wesly experiments with the nanites to see if he can improve them. Through
carelessness, the modified nanites get loose. At some point, they become
intelligent. Perhapse only because they got loose, perhaps not -- but the
episode makes clear (to me, anyway) that Wesley's modifications are the
essential catalyst for the evolution of intelligent nanites.
- The scientist experiments with exocomps to see if she can improve them.
Through normal usage, the modified exocomps become intelligent. Again, the
episode makes clear that the scientit's modifications are the essential
catalyst for the evolution of intelligent exocomps.
JL>I don't think that's plot stealing.
Yeah, well. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. If you still
don't think the similarities are important, there's nothing I can say to
convince you different, and I don't think you're going to change my mind...
JL>(And Wesley falling asleep isn't acting like an idiot, but
JL>that's another matter).
Wesley didn't just "fall asleep". He
1. Took nanites from sickbay without asking and without permission.
2. He then made an unsupervised, unauthorized modification on them.
3. He allowed himself to fall asleep while this experiment was in
progress, and while the nanites were outside any kind of sealed
environment.
4. As a direct result, the entire ship, as well as Dr. Stubb's experiment
are placed in grave jeopardy.
5. Despide the potentially lethal malfunctions this causes, Wesley
doesn't say anything until he is "sure" the nanites are the cause.
Remember that Wesley is (supposedly) an acting ensign at this point? Since
he /is/ supposed to be performing some kind of experiment, one would also
suppose that he was trained in laboratory safey. My assertion stands:
Wesley acted like an idiot.
[lines and lines o' stuff deleted; synopsis: Josh and I don't agree,
[and in all likelyhood, won't anytime soon, at least as far as tQoL goes...
JL>Actually, Picard and Geordi would have quite probably died if it weren't
JL>for the exocomps. I'd say that doesn't make them invulnerable.
DS>So Picard and LaForge die on the fountain, Data is court-martialed, convicted,
DS>and delivered to Bruce Maddox for disassembly, and 3 of the primary characters
DS>of the show are written out with one fell swoop.
DS>You didn't seriously believe that might possibly happen, did you?
JL>But that wasn't your point.
It was yours, though (wasn't it?) You wrote "Picard and Geordi would quite
probably have died..." It takes more than a few $1K of special effects and
some technobabble about shields and radiation to make me think they were in
mortal danger. Various permutations of the crew have escaped from tighter
fixes countless times in the past.
More to the point, the fact that the show focused on a routine "crew in
danger" plot instead of the (potentially, anyway) more interesting
questions raised by the exocomp's intelligence was a first-class cop-out.
We've *seen* the "crew in danger" plot time and time again. Why should I
believe that they are in mortal danger now? Riker's histrionics? The only
thing /that/ convinced me of is that Riker is capable of acting like an idiot
in a tight situation. IMHO, unless the crew-in-danger device is written
extraordinarily well, it comes across as just another repeat of the same old
thing.
A legion of nameless walk-ons not withstanding, death is simply not arbitrary
and unpredictable like it is in Real Life (tm). They have to WORK to make
me believe that they're in danger. Simply putting them in an ostensibly
dangerous situation doesn't cut it, 'cause I know all the main characters
are protected by the 6-year-contract-grace-sheilds.
The fact of it is, Paramout is simply unwilling to kill a major character
(and always has been). Look at ST2:TWOK. All that prattle at the end
about "he's not /really/ dead". Even when they pretended to kill a major
character, they were backpeddling even before the credits rolled. And
it was no great surprise to me that Leonard Nimoy was in ST3:TSFS, even
if they didn't show his credit until the end. And look at ST6:TUC. They
had a golden opportunity to show the death of Kirk, and from all accounts,
that is how it was originally written. But noooooo... if they kill Kirk,
how will they have a ST7?
JL>Your point was that the ending promoted the
JL>feel of invulnerablity of our main characters.
No, no, no! The invulnerability of Our Heros has been established
for a long time. It simply made it impossible to believe that they
were in danger.
--
Hey, everybody -- somebody said `mattress' to Mr. Lambert! TWICE!
Jose Gonzalez
>In article <1992Nov24.2...@eng.umd.edu> Jose Gonzalez,
>wom...@eng.umd.edu writes:
>>1) What if the story doesn't work? If you've committed yourself to one
>> direction only, how do you change it if it ain't so hot? You may be
>> disallowing new ideas and directions because you've got everything
>> "set." Admittedly, if a long range story works well, it's the best
>way
>> to go.
>
>A good point. I think JMS is risking a *lot* on the assumption that his
>5-year-story-arc is a GOOD one... but, of course, if you don't take
>risks, you don't advance the state of the art.
Absolutely. But I notice that the Cinefantastique article on B5 didn't have
a whole lot to say on what actual stories would be. They focused more on
how it's going to be different than any other previous SF series, without
ever stately *how* it's going to be different. I hope the expectations don't
exceed the actual quality of the show.
>Frankly, what I'd like to see TNG do is somewhat less radical than what
>B5 will be doing. Don't have a 5-year story...but how about this: before
>a season starts, have an itinerary for the Enterprise planned (rather
>than having them fly randomly around the galaxy). The first story of the
>season has them setting out on that itinerary, and maybe ever 4th story
>directly relates to a specific mission on it; the intervening stories can
>be more free-form, as long as they don't have the Enterprise haring off
>to portions of the galaxy not related to the itinerary.
I don't know if they need to get that strict. I like the somewhat smaller
arcs such as the Borg Threat (end of season 2 to end of season 3) and the
Klingon Politics arc of season 4. Not every episode has a reference to them,
but there is a definite feeling that they're "heading somewhere." It gives
you something to look forward to. From what I've seen and read, the very
nature of the fact that DS9 takes place on a space station is going to
stories that take a longer period of time to tell.
>
>The point of all of this is to have a definite idea of where the
>Enterprise is boldly going. This business of having them out on the edge
>of known space one week and home at Terra a week later has got to stop
>:-) A naval vessel has a schedule of missions. They know that on a given
>date they're due in a certain place. That itinerary is, of course,
>subject to change based on circumstances, but by and large, they know in
>advance what they'll be doing for the next few months, at least. Berman
>and Piller should be thinking along these lines, instead of just having
>the Enterprise randomly flitting around the galaxy, without rhyme or
>reason, and ultimately going nowhere!
Yeah, but how often does an episode consist merely of completing a mission?
Once a season? (-: Usually, something unexpected happens to them while
they're on a particular mission. Kind of hard to put in an itinerary. (:
>>2) Where do you go when your story's finished? This happens with comics
> all the time. A writer creates a story with a definite beginning,
>middle, and
>> end. When he's finished, what's left? He's taken the characters and
>> the plot where he wants them to go. Star Trek is still thriving after 25
>> years because it's not about a specific "story," it's about an idea. If
>> JMS wantsB5 to run just five years, then fine. But I don't think that's what
>> he wants, he's looking much larger.
>
>Why do you have to go ANYWHERE? I honestly think that JMS is thinking
>that when B5 is over, it's *over*. And he'll then move on to other
>things.
He's mentioned that B5 could be the start of a "new franchise." It just
doesn't sound short-term to me.
>That doesn't mean no more stories within the B5 universe, but simply a
>new story!
Exactly, where does he go? And after (hopefully) a five-year story epic,
can it do anything but pale in comparison?
--
Jose Gonzalez
Thomas G. Kiefer
In article <1992Nov27.0...@wicat.com> gsa...@wicat.com (Gary Sarff) writes:
>There was that doctor who locked the ships propulsion and some gravity wave
>program in the Silicon Avatar that caused the Enterprise to shatter the
>crystalline entity, and the entire bridge crew just stood around then and did
>nothing, so maybe any casual passerby could lock the bridge computers. Maybe
>they trust everyone in the 24th century. 8-)
I have a dumb question. (Yeah, I know: surprise, surprise.) It's been
awhile since I've seen this one...
Did she lock out any controls? Where was this stated?
I had the impression that, since *she* had written the subroutines that
would produce the hopefully-communicative vibrations, that perhaps she
was the only one familiar enough with her own program to run/adjust it--
that was why she was on the bridge handling the frequency adjustments:
she wrote the program.
Sensibly, Data should have familiarized himself with the program so
that he could operate it as well (this presumably wouldn't take very
long for Data). Then, if anything happened on the bridge, he could take
over the doctor's station, and, in this case, avoided the problem. (I
guess he's used to everyone doing their own job...)
Anyway, that was my impression. Did I miss something?
--
======================================================
====> Thomas Kiefer <===> tho...@cco.caltech.edu <====
======================================================
Michael Rawdon
>In article <1992Nov25....@mail.cornell.edu> Michael Scott Shappe <Michael-...@cornell.edu> writes:
>>In article <1992Nov24.2...@eng.umd.edu> Jose Gonzalez, wom...@eng.umd.edu writes:
>>>1) What if the story doesn't work? If you've committed yourself to one
>>> direction only, how do you change it if it ain't so hot? You may be
>>> disallowing new ideas and directions because you've got everything
>>> "set." Admittedly, if a long range story works well, it's the best way
>>> to go.
>>A good point. I think JMS is risking a *lot* on the assumption that his
>>5-year-story-arc is a GOOD one... but, of course, if you don't take
>>risks, you don't advance the state of the art.
>Absolutely. But I notice that the Cinefantastique article on B5 didn't have
>a whole lot to say on what actual stories would be. They focused more on
>how it's going to be different than any other previous SF series, without
>ever stately *how* it's going to be different. I hope the expectations don't
>exceed the actual quality of the show.
Well, there is always that danger, though keep in mind that Cinemafantastique
may simply have not done a very good job of reporting.
However, I think that doing a series with one contextual storyline with a
definite beginning and end WOULD make it different from any other SF series,
save perhaps the V mini series. (Unless you count The Prisoner as SF.)
Personally, I have high expectations for Babylon 5 (because I like what I've
heard about it so far), and low expectations for Deep Space 9 (because of the
people who are producing it).
>>Frankly, what I'd like to see TNG do is somewhat less radical than what
>>B5 will be doing. Don't have a 5-year story...but how about this: before
>>a season starts, have an itinerary for the Enterprise planned (rather
>>than having them fly randomly around the galaxy). The first story of the
>>season has them setting out on that itinerary, and maybe ever 4th story
>>directly relates to a specific mission on it; the intervening stories can
>>be more free-form, as long as they don't have the Enterprise haring off
>>to portions of the galaxy not related to the itinerary.
>I don't know if they need to get that strict. I like the somewhat smaller
>arcs such as the Borg Threat (end of season 2 to end of season 3)
This isn't really a story arc. It was four episodes (with two stragglers,
"The Drumhead" and "I, Borg", but they're not really part of the story, such
as it was). A story arc might be something like the Doctor Who E-Space
trilogy, or "Key To Time" piece. I think Mike's idea is an excellent one.
>and the
>Klingon Politics arc of season 4. Not every episode has a reference to them,
>but there is a definite feeling that they're "heading somewhere." It gives
>you something to look forward to.
Except that TNG doesn't give me that sense. It gives me a sense of, "Well,
maybe we'll do something else with this story sometime, but maybe not." For
instance, the aliens from "Conspiracy" who never appeared again, or Moriarty
from "Elementary Dear Data" (though apparently he will never appear again for
legal reasons).
A real story arc would involve some event happening to the Enterprise and MOST
of the remainder of that arc dealing with that event (which could be as simple
as exploring some sector of space which is unusual in some way), moving to an
eventual conclusion, but one which we KNOW will be reached, one way or the
other. TNG does not give us that now. They could easily have never brought
back the Borg again. (In fact, they never did deal adequately with the
disappearance of the outposts along the Neutral Zone.)
>>The point of all of this is to have a definite idea of where the
>>Enterprise is boldly going. This business of having them out on the edge
>>of known space one week and home at Terra a week later has got to stop
>>:-) A naval vessel has a schedule of missions. They know that on a given
>>date they're due in a certain place. That itinerary is, of course,
>>subject to change based on circumstances, but by and large, they know in
>>advance what they'll be doing for the next few months, at least. Berman
>>and Piller should be thinking along these lines, instead of just having
>>the Enterprise randomly flitting around the galaxy, without rhyme or
>>reason, and ultimately going nowhere!
>Yeah, but how often does an episode consist merely of completing a mission?
>Once a season? (-: Usually, something unexpected happens to them while
>they're on a particular mission. Kind of hard to put in an itinerary. (:
But many of these stories are 1) Awful :-) , and 2) Too much information
crammed into one episode. For instance, they EASILY could have gotten three
episodes (or more) out of "The Masterpiece Society".
>>That doesn't mean no more stories within the B5 universe, but simply a
>>new story!
>Exactly, where does he go? And after (hopefully) a five-year story epic,
>can it do anything but pale in comparison?
Sure; he could do ANOTHER five-year epic, dealing with different events
elsewhere within the B5 universe. Or he could do a series of short stories
involving different aspects of said universe (a la Twilight Zone). Or any
number of things.
--
Michael Rawdon raw...@colby.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI
( To be in the Boston, Massachusetts area for Christmas vacation )
"My favorite Star Trek With Jean-Luc episode is the one where some alien
kills another in the first five minutes and then the crew debates for the
next 55 minutes about what to do. My favorite Star Trek With Captain Kirk
is the same as anyone else's, the one where Kirk, overacting, falls in
love with a beautiful alien babe, which Spock calls illogical, and where a
bunch of security guys die. You know the one?"
- A friend
Richard Blewitt
>>In article <1992Nov25....@mail.cornell.edu> Michael Scott Shappe <Michael-...@cornell.edu> writes:
>>>advance what they'll be doing for the next few months, at least. Berman
>>>and Piller should be thinking along these lines, instead of just having
>>>the Enterprise randomly flitting around the galaxy, without rhyme or
>>>reason, and ultimately going nowhere!
>>Yeah, but how often does an episode consist merely of completing a mission?
>>Once a season? (-: Usually, something unexpected happens to them while
>>they're on a particular mission. Kind of hard to put in an itinerary. (:
>But many of these stories are 1) Awful :-) , and 2) Too much information
>crammed into one episode. For instance, they EASILY could have gotten three
>episodes (or more) out of "The Masterpiece Society".
I can't believe you're serious about that last line. IMNSHO, they
got 1 too many episodes out of "The Mousterpiece Society". I
seriously hope that whoever wrote that one is not allowed anywhere
near Babylon 5.
>>>That doesn't mean no more stories within the B5 universe, but simply a
>>>new story!
In fact that's just about exactally what JMS said about it at the
ComicCon. Of course we won't have to worry about any of that for
another 5 years. I think that between now and then, he can come up
with a few nore things to do with the B5 universe.
Rick
--
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________.sig____________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
The generic .sig Rick Blewitt rble...@ucsd.edu
Edward V. Wright
>Except that TNG doesn't give me that sense. It gives me a sense of, "Well,
>maybe we'll do something else with this story sometime, but maybe not."
So? Isn't that the way a lot of "stories" turn out in real life? Maybe
the US will fight Saddam Hussein again, but maybe not. Maybe the breakup
of he Soviet Union will lead to internal wars, but maybe not. etc., etc.
>A real story arc would involve some event happening to the Enterprise and MOST
>of the remainder of that arc dealing with that event (which could be as simple
>as exploring some sector of space which is unusual in some way), moving to an
>eventual conclusion, but one which we KNOW will be reached, one way or the
>other.
Events in real life do not move toward an inevitable eventual conclusion
that you *know* will be reached. Why should events in fiction? Having
a predictable ending does not make a story more interesting for most people.
Not knowing is a lot more exciting.
Jose Gonzalez
>>In article <1992Nov25....@mail.cornell.edu> Michael Scott Shappe <Michael-...@cornell.edu> writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov24.2...@eng.umd.edu> Jose Gonzalez, wom...@eng.umd.edu writes:
>
>>Absolutely. But I notice that the Cinefantastique article on B5 didn't have
>>a whole lot to say on what actual stories would be. They focused more on
>>how it's going to be different than any other previous SF series, without
>>ever stately *how* it's going to be different. I hope the expectations don't
>>exceed the actual quality of the show.
>
>Well, there is always that danger, though keep in mind that Cinemafantastique
>may simply have not done a very good job of reporting.
True enough, but I wasn't as impressed as I needed to be from the scenes
shown in the satellite promos. Only two impressed me. The special effects
are excellent and really beautiful, even if it's obviously computer animation.
>
>However, I think that doing a series with one contextual storyline with a
>definite beginning and end WOULD make it different from any other SF series,
>save perhaps the V mini series. (Unless you count The Prisoner as SF.)
You're right, I can't think of any SF series that had one particular story
in mind. (Although if War of the Worlds (Ack) had run longer, it might have.)
I can name you lots with definite beginnings, though. (:
>Personally, I have high expectations for Babylon 5 (because I like what I've
>heard about it so far), and low expectations for Deep Space 9 (because of the
>people who are producing it).
Well, since I'm in the court that happens to think TNG is the best show on
TV, (even when it's not spectacular such as now), I'm really looking
forward to a darker version of it in Deep Space Nine. Babylon 5 is going
to have to be at least in the ballpark of TNG quality to really impress me.
>>I don't know if they need to get that strict. I like the somewhat smaller
>>arcs such as the Borg Threat (end of season 2 to end of season 3)
>
>This isn't really a story arc. It was four episodes (with two stragglers,
>"The Drumhead" and "I, Borg", but they're not really part of the story, such
>as it was). A story arc might be something like the Doctor Who E-Space
>trilogy, or "Key To Time" piece. I think Mike's idea is an excellent one.
Sure it's an arc, (You forgot "Peak Performance," "Evolution", and "Family" in
the arc), it's just a less involved one.
>>and the
>>Klingon Politics arc of season 4. Not every episode has a reference to them,
>>but there is a definite feeling that they're "heading somewhere." It gives
>>you something to look forward to.
>
>Except that TNG doesn't give me that sense. It gives me a sense of, "Well,
>maybe we'll do something else with this story sometime, but maybe not." For
>instance, the aliens from "Conspiracy" who never appeared again, or Moriarty
>from "Elementary Dear Data" (though apparently he will never appear again for
>legal reasons).
You can't follow up on everything, of course. I think they will eventually
do a followup on "Conspiracy" and Moriarty is coming back this season.
>>Yeah, but how often does an episode consist merely of completing a mission?
>>Once a season? (-: Usually, something unexpected happens to them while
>>they're on a particular mission. Kind of hard to put in an itinerary. (:
>
>But many of these stories are 1) Awful :-) , and 2) Too much information
>crammed into one episode. For instance, they EASILY could have gotten three
>episodes (or more) out of "The Masterpiece Society".
I don't think so, TMS was a solid idea for one episode, but this would not,
I think, fit well into three. "The Defector," perhaps.
>>>That doesn't mean no more stories within the B5 universe, but simply a
>>>new story!
>
>>Exactly, where does he go? And after (hopefully) a five-year story epic,
>>can it do anything but pale in comparison?
>
>Sure; he could do ANOTHER five-year epic, dealing with different events
>elsewhere within the B5 universe. Or he could do a series of short stories
>involving different aspects of said universe (a la Twilight Zone). Or any
>number of things.
But how many times do the second and succeeding stories pale in comparison
to the first? (Admittedly, this is a bit silly, if Babylon 5 is able to give
a real epic 5 year story, and that's it, I'll hardly be upset. (-:)
--
Jose Gonzalez
Michael Rawdon
>In article <rawdon.7...@cs.wisc.edu> raw...@colby.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>>In <1992Nov30.0...@eng.umd.edu> wom...@eng.umd.edu (Jose Gonzalez) writes:
>>>Absolutely. But I notice that the Cinefantastique article on B5 didn't
>>>have a whole lot to say on what actual stories would be. They focused more
>>>on how it's going to be different than any other previous SF series,
>>>without ever stately *how* it's going to be different. I hope the
>>>expectations don't exceed the actual quality of the show.
>>Well, there is always that danger, though keep in mind that Cinemafantastique
>>may simply have not done a very good job of reporting.
>True enough, but I wasn't as impressed as I needed to be from the scenes
>shown in the satellite promos. Only two impressed me. The special effects
>are excellent and really beautiful, even if it's obviously computer animation.
So are a lot of TNG's SFX (especially the space scenes).
>>Personally, I have high expectations for Babylon 5 (because I like what I've
>>heard about it so far), and low expectations for Deep Space 9 (because of the
>>people who are producing it).
>Well, since I'm in the court that happens to think TNG is the best show on
>TV, (even when it's not spectacular such as now),
Hmm... I can think of a number of better shows (Law And Order... probably
Northern Exposure if I'd watched it from day one... a lot of PBS
broadcasting...)
> I'm really looking
>forward to a darker version of it in Deep Space Nine. Babylon 5 is going
>to have to be at least in the ballpark of TNG quality to really impress me.
I would say "That shouldn't be too hard" except that American TV continues to
impress (or is that depress) me with its thuggish dimness. (Definition of a
bottomless pit: The American "entertainment" industry.)
>>>I don't know if they need to get that strict. I like the somewhat smaller
>>>arcs such as the Borg Threat (end of season 2 to end of season 3)
>>This isn't really a story arc. It was four episodes (with two stragglers,
>>"The Drumhead" and "I, Borg", but they're not really part of the story, such
>>as it was). A story arc might be something like the Doctor Who E-Space
>>trilogy, or "Key To Time" piece. I think Mike's idea is an excellent one.
>Sure it's an arc, (You forgot "Peak Performance," "Evolution", and "Family" in
>the arc), it's just a less involved one.
I remembered "Family" (the other three are "Q Who" and both parts of BOBW).
"Peak Performance" and "Evolution" are, like "The Drumhead" and "I, Borg",
only barely tangentially related to the arc.
>You can't follow up on everything, of course. I think they will eventually
>do a followup on "Conspiracy" and Moriarty is coming back this season.
Hmmm... wonder how they got around the legal problems? Apparently Conan
Doyle's estate threatened to sue or something if they brought him back. (See
the TNG Companion.)
However, there's quite a bit that they never did follow up on adequately.
Picard's experiences with the Borg, for instance. Or Riker's command
decisions (which they never dealt with at ALL).
>>>Yeah, but how often does an episode consist merely of completing a mission?
>>>Once a season? (-: Usually, something unexpected happens to them while
>>>they're on a particular mission. Kind of hard to put in an itinerary. (:
>>But many of these stories are 1) Awful :-) , and 2) Too much information
>>crammed into one episode. For instance, they EASILY could have gotten three
>>episodes (or more) out of "The Masterpiece Society".
>I don't think so, TMS was a solid idea for one episode, but this would not,
>I think, fit well into three. "The Defector," perhaps.
I feel rpecisely the opposite. "The Defector" was a vignette. "The
Masterpiece Society" had a lot of interesting issues to explroe which it
didn't have time for.
>>Sure; he could do ANOTHER five-year epic, dealing with different events
>>elsewhere within the B5 universe. Or he could do a series of short stories
>>involving different aspects of said universe (a la Twilight Zone). Or any
>>number of things.
>But how many times do the second and succeeding stories pale in comparison
>to the first? (Admittedly, this is a bit silly, if Babylon 5 is able to give
>a real epic 5 year story, and that's it, I'll hardly be upset. (-:)
Well, I don't know; how many times did Foundation and Empire, Second
Foundation, and Foundation's Edge (which many people feel is an excellent
book) pale in comparison to Foundation? (For that matter, I quite liked The
Robots Of Dawn and Robots and Empire.)
For that matter, I thought Star Treks II and III were better than TMP, and
Superman II was about as good as the first. And then there's Godfather II.
On the other hand, on YOUR side of the argument, we have TNG paling in
comparison to what prceded it... :-)
--
Michael Rawdon raw...@colby.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI
( To be in the Boston, Massachusetts area for Christmas vacation )
The Trekkie who doesn't own a VCR.
Joshua Grass
I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't seen any post about what network
it is going to be on (e.g. NBC, ABC...) or if it is going to be a cable show.
I can't get my VCR ready unless I know what channel to set it to.
Joshua Grass
Vidiot
I believe that it has been mentioned in the past...
B5 is a syndicated program.
--
harvard\ spool.cs.wisc.edu!astroatc!vidiot!brown
Vidiot ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!vidiot!brown
rutgers/ INTERNET:vidiot!brown%astroa...@spool.cs.wisc.edu
br...@wi.extrel.com