3rd Season Enterprise - Similitude - 5 star poll - SPOILERS AHOY
George Avalos
11-19-03
5 stars (Beatitude)
0-1 stars (Craptitude)
-George
Sugapablo
> "Similitude"
> 11-19-03
5! The first 5 star rating I've given to ENT. It was just fantastic!
--
[ Sugapablo ]
[ http://www.sugapablo.com <--music ]
[ http://www.sugapablo.net <--personal ]
[ suga...@12jabber.com <--jabber IM ]
John "Grumpy" Frum
news:da6729e4.0311...@posting.google.com...
6 stars. That's not a typo.
Rarely do I finish ANY television program (these days) with any degree of
satisfaction. Enterprise, in particular, has remained mildly entertaining,
but certainly not impressive...until tonight. This was simply excellent
television drama, not just as science-fiction, or not just as Star Trek. It
was an honest-to-goodness diamond in the rough of a sea of unimaginative,
mindless television. It brought the morality play back to television in a
way that Rod Serling, and, of course, Roddenberry, would have been proud.
Well done!
Steve Jaros
news:slrnbro966.m...@dell.sugapablo.net...
> In article <da6729e4.0311...@posting.google.com>, George Avalos
wrote:
> > "Similitude"
> > 11-19-03
>
>
> 5! The first 5 star rating I've given to ENT. It was just fantastic!
Better than average.. about the only thing that made we wince was the
opening 'foot massage' scene. What's the point of sexualizing that...?
--
"if federal judges have the final word over its meaning,
the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands
of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form
they please".
- Thomas Jefferson
Sugapablo
>
> Better than average.. about the only thing that made we wince was the
> opening 'foot massage' scene. What's the point of sexualizing that...?
>
Watchin T'pol lately has made me wince virtually every time. That one
scene she looked like she was going to cry! Vulcans don't cry!
But I've about given up on her, and any hopes that B&B would not just
try to use her as eye-candy.
Steve Jaros
> scene she looked like she was going to cry! Vulcans don't cry!
>
> But I've about given up on her, and any hopes that B&B would not just
> try to use her as eye-candy.
Yes. IMO, T'Pol was just fine as an unemotional (i.e., normal) vulcan. The
only thing negative was that they sexualized her with those slinky catsuits.
Now, they've decided to give her a 'soft' look and emotionalize her, meaning
that she has no resemblance to a 'vulcan' at all, just a sex kitten.
Pathetic.
nwsy
4.5 - yet another corker!
--
We are talking Jape of the Decade. We are talking April, May,
June, July, and August Fool. Yes, that's right -- I am Queeg.
Mac Breck
> 11-19-03
>
> 5 stars (Beatitude)
>
> 0-1 stars (Craptitude)
4.5 Nicely done.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN) - from the desktop PC
-------------------------------
http://www.scifi.com/babylon5/
http://www.scifi.com/crusade/
http://www.scifi.com/bboard/browse.cgi/1/5/1521 (Brimstone)
Ar Q
5.001. I have given "Twilight" 5, but this one surpasses it.
Dave
After hearing about the simbiant within 10-minutes, I thought "Aww hell,
that ain't Tripp in there, what a cheep way to keep him around." Thus, I
thought I'd hate this weeks episode. However, I kept on watching, and
changed my mind by the end.
The acting was sound, the dialouge was well-writen, and the episode just
flowed nicely. It was like I was watching another one of the TOS 'morality
episode without being a morality episode" episode.
So I'm giving it a sound 4.95. It wasn't perfect, but at least it was a
whole hell of a lot better then something from the first season.
BTW, I thought that was interesting how the particles just started to flake
off the ship once it cleared the cloud. And it made sense, since they were
magnatitized particles, they would naturally be drawn back to the larger
clump when they were pulled away.
Dave
Lizard
wrotC:DRIVE_E
>"Similitude"
>11-19-03
>
>5 stars (Beatitude)
>
>0-1 stars (Craptitude)
>
4.0 from my wife. It made her cry.
As for me...3.0. Well, it wasn't nearly as painful as expected, and
for that alone it gets bonus points. It was also eminently MSTable,
esp. in the Sim/T'Pol "sexual tension" scenes. A few additional bonus
points for some nice special effects, the cabin window 'frosted over'
with space gunk, and the really Trip-looking actors they got to play
Sim at various levels of development.
Major league "you couldn't suspend my disbelief with a foot thick
cable made of buckyballs" for the idea that human memory is stored in
DNA. No, it isn't. Not even close. Utterly, unbearably, lame. Hell,
I'd have settled for something like "The simulant can telepathically
absorb memories" or something!
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
"I've heard of this thing men call 'empathy', but I've never
once been afflicted with it, thanks the Gods." Bruno The Bandit
http://www.mrlizard.com
William December Starr
memories' thing was just plain bogus, but their hearts were in the
right place and they handled the main story well.
They do lose some credit though for (1) the silly sexualized scene
between T'Pol and Tucker early in the episode, (2) the absence of the
scene where the "fifteen-day lifespan" thing is explained to Sim and
(3) the absence of an explanation of how Sim learned about the circle
of illicit medical researchers and their enzyme.
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Buckaroo Banzai
"Steve Jaros" <esteb...@covxrtyv.com> wrote in message
news:GWVub.10056$0K4.5428@lakeread04...
> >"Sugapablo" <russR...@sugapablo.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnbro966.m...@dell.sugapablo.net...
> > In article <da6729e4.0311...@posting.google.com>, George
Avalos
> wrote:
> > > "Similitude"
> > > 11-19-03
> >
> >
> > 5! The first 5 star rating I've given to ENT. It was just fantastic!
>
> Better than average.. about the only thing that made we wince was the
> opening 'foot massage' scene. What's the point of sexualizing that...?
Ever seen Pulp Fiction?
GMAN
>On 19 Nov 2003 18:18:20 -0800, gav...@cctimes.com (George Avalos)
>wrotC:DRIVE_E
>
>>"Similitude"
>>11-19-03
>>
>>5 stars (Beatitude)
>>
>>0-1 stars (Craptitude)
>>
>
>4.0 from my wife. It made her cry.
>
>As for me...3.0. Well, it wasn't nearly as painful as expected, and
>for that alone it gets bonus points. It was also eminently MSTable,
>esp. in the Sim/T'Pol "sexual tension" scenes. A few additional bonus
>points for some nice special effects, the cabin window 'frosted over'
>with space gunk, and the really Trip-looking actors they got to play
>Sim at various levels of development.
>
>Major league "you couldn't suspend my disbelief with a foot thick
>cable made of buckyballs" for the idea that human memory is stored in
>DNA. No, it isn't. Not even close. Utterly, unbearably, lame. Hell,
>I'd have settled for something like "The simulant can telepathically
>absorb memories" or something!
Thats modern day scientists poor excuse of explaining away our souls. By
claiming that our memories exist in only some chemical reaction or dna, they
can explain away god.
GMAN
69!!!! That was f*&king funny when T Pol had to tell Tripp to breathe!!!
Tony Calguire
>
> "Similitude"
> 11-19-03
>
Oh, OK, it can have a 3.
Doc Phlox just happened to have a magic clonefish on the shelf. Ugh!
And, since hull shielding seems to be such a concern in this part of
space, wouldn't it have been considered a good thing to have an extra
layer of thickness on the ship's hull?
David B.
>
> "Similitude"
> 11-19-03
>
> 5 stars (Beatitude)
>
> 0-1 stars (Craptitude)
4
Zombie Elvis
and cats lived together. One voice cried out in the wilderness:
gav...@cctimes.com (George Avalos) wrote in
<da6729e4.0311...@posting.google.com>:
> "Similitude"
> 11-19-03
>
> 5 stars (Beatitude)
>
> 0-1 stars (Craptitude)
>
A tough moral dilemma handled well by the writers, angst, pathos, and
Porthos this episode had all. Good performance by Connor Trinnear.
Best Enterprise episode ever.
4.42222222111115558
Zombie Elvis
Jaros" <esteb...@covxrtyv.com> wrote in
<GWVub.10056$0K4.5428@lakeread04>:
> >"Sugapablo" <russR...@sugapablo.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnbro966.m...@dell.sugapablo.net...
> > In article <da6729e4.0311...@posting.google.com>, George Avalos
> wrote:
> > > "Similitude"
> > > 11-19-03
> >
> >
> > 5! The first 5 star rating I've given to ENT. It was just fantastic!
>
> Better than average.. about the only thing that made we wince was the
> opening 'foot massage' scene. What's the point of sexualizing that...?
It happens all the time for some reason. It goes all the way back to
TNG.
--
"I am First Omet'iklan, and I am dead. As of this moment, we are all
dead. We go into battle to reclaim our lives. This we do gladly, for
we are Jem'Hadar. Remember, victory is life."
-- Omet'iklan
"I am Chief Miles Edward O'Brien. I'm very much alive, and I intend
to *stay* that way."
-- O'Brien
Roberto Castillo
roberto...@ameritech.net
http://www.freewebs.com/robertocastillo/
Jason
5!! Can I give it 6? :D
Evan
I was going to nitpick it to death but on the whole is was the best
episode of the series so it's a 5.
nospa...@nospampanix.com
4.8, and a big I'll-be-damned. "Enterprise" is actually capable
of generating a _good_ episode, not the mediocre-at-best stuff
we've seen so far. I guess sometimes persistence pays off.
William A. Noyes
> Major league "you couldn't suspend my disbelief with a foot thick
> cable made of buckyballs" for the idea that human memory is stored in
> DNA. No, it isn't. Not even close. Utterly, unbearably, lame. Hell,
> I'd have settled for something like "The simulant can telepathically
The idea of an inborn racial / "genetic" memory used in the science fiction
story,
"The First Adam" by Jack London around 1900. The idea is just silly now.
The story was about a prehuman/apeman's memories of his adventures up until
he
mated with his female as remembered by a human.
William A. Noyes
"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bphlr8$qd4$1...@panix1.panix.com...
Does this mean that Trip has a new brain part that only has 15 days
to go:-) I hope Archer saved his sales receipt.
That Guy
"Steve Jaros" <esteb...@covxrtyv.com> wrote in message
news:l8Wub.10058$0K4.9418@lakeread04...
I agree that the sex kitten thing is a sellout to the dumbest common
denominator, but I like in *some ways* how her character has softened due to
the combination of stress and living among humans. I didn't like the
"always pissed" T'Pol any better than the "sex kitten" T'Pol. If they took
the "always pissed" T'Pol and gave her maybe 10 or 15 percent of the
softening of the bunny T'Pol (without the gratuitous sex scenes), then I
think I'd like her character better.
That Guy
"GMAN" <glen...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:bphsha$78n$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com...
> In article <2ojorv47aig74i5ka...@4ax.com>, Lizard
<liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
> >On 19 Nov 2003 18:18:20 -0800, gav...@cctimes.com (George Avalos)
> >wrotC:DRIVE_E
> >
> >>"Similitude"
> >>11-19-03
> >>
> >>5 stars (Beatitude)
> >>
> >>0-1 stars (Craptitude)
> >>
> >
> >4.0 from my wife. It made her cry.
> >
> >As for me...3.0. Well, it wasn't nearly as painful as expected, and
> >for that alone it gets bonus points. It was also eminently MSTable,
> >esp. in the Sim/T'Pol "sexual tension" scenes. A few additional bonus
> >points for some nice special effects, the cabin window 'frosted over'
> >with space gunk, and the really Trip-looking actors they got to play
> >Sim at various levels of development.
> >
> >Major league "you couldn't suspend my disbelief with a foot thick
> >cable made of buckyballs" for the idea that human memory is stored in
> >DNA. No, it isn't. Not even close. Utterly, unbearably, lame. Hell,
> >I'd have settled for something like "The simulant can telepathically
> >absorb memories" or something!
>
> Thats modern day scientists poor excuse of explaining away our souls. By
> claiming that our memories exist in only some chemical reaction or dna,
they
> can explain away god.
Yeah, all scientists are actively working to eliminate any belief in a God.
I can vouch for this because before I could become a scientist, I had to
sign an affidavit stating that I hated God.
Greg Hanson
> "Similitude"
> 11-19-03
>
> 5 stars (Beatitude)
>
> 0-1 stars (Craptitude)
>
>>4.5 stars<< Once you realized that this wasn't a standard reset
button episode, it became a lot more watchable.
THE GOOD: Presented some real ethical dilemmas, when Sim ends up with
Trip's knowledge and memories. Forcing Archer to tell Sim that he
didn't want to be a murderer, but he would for the necessity of the
mission was very powerful. (Anybody else notice the 5:00 shadow
Archer was wearing, making him look more harried and stressed?) Sim's
confusion about his feelings for T'Pol was understated and well done.
The actors they found to portray Sim as he grew up - especially the
adolescent on day 4. I even liked that the neuro-pressure scene at the
beginning - they've taken it from the soft-core porn stuff in the
beginning and made it into part of the ongoing story. Who's up for
some 69?!? ;-)
THE BAD: No impulse engines when the warp core is knocked out? Then
SAY SO!! T'Pol's little trembly lip when Sim professes love for her
and then the kiss. Way preferred Tuvok's dance step tribute to Neelix
in VOY. THAT was Vulcan.
THE UGLY: Enterprise covered in space-goo. Yuck!
Lizard
> Thats modern day scientists poor excuse of explaining away our souls. By
> claiming that our memories exist in only some chemical reaction or dna, they
> can explain away god.
>
>
Uhm...memory DOES exist in chemical reactions. Just not in DNA. *R*NA is
part of it, though. The mere fact physical trauma to the brain, or
drugs, can distort/change/destroy memory or personality is pretty hard
evidence that who we are is inexorably tied to the physical state of the
brain.
Mitsy6666
thought-provoking.
I don't think they ever explained how Sim got the shuttles to tow
Enterprise. Did I miss something?
I missed last week's episode, but it'd be great if Enterprise could
maintain the quality of the last several weeks. (However, since the
Next Generation, it seems like the good ST episodes have come in
spurts.)
Cory C. Albrecht
>"Similitude"
>11-19-03
>5 stars (Beatitude)
>0-1 stars (Craptitude)
I will give it 3.1 stars. It would have been a 4.1, but for two
stupidities.
First -0.5 for the stupid physics of using the shuttles as tugs. the
Little E should have started moving _immediately_ when the shuttles
started moving. It may have only been a few millimeters per hour per
hour accelleration, but it should have been there. Absolutely terrible
science.
Second -0.5 for the cringe-inducing idiotic method of introducing
T'Pol's feelings for Trip.
You know this means that the previously posted rumours about T'Pol
getting jealous/angry at Trip for neuro-pressuring with some female
MACO. :-P
--
Cory Albrecht
http://www.sentex.net/~corya/
Jason
"Cory C. Albrecht" <coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bpj4b4$a0i2...@news.sentex.ca...
> In article <da6729e4.0311...@posting.google.com>,
gav...@cctimes.com (George Avalos) wrote:
> >"Similitude"
> >11-19-03
> >5 stars (Beatitude)
> >0-1 stars (Craptitude)
>
> I will give it 3.1 stars. It would have been a 4.1, but for two
> stupidities.
>
> First -0.5 for the stupid physics of using the shuttles as tugs. the
> Little E should have started moving _immediately_ when the shuttles
> started moving. It may have only been a few millimeters per hour per
> hour accelleration, but it should have been there. Absolutely terrible
> science.
>
Not completely true, its been a while since I have taken Physics, but there
are two types of friction, static and... whats the other... I think
dynamic...
Anyhow, push your keyboard. It wont move until you apply a minimum force,
after that minimum force has been reached, it will move, and continue to
accelerate with the same force on it. Now in space there is no friction so
it normally would be a moot argument. But remember they were in that goopy
cloud, which undoubtedly had friction :D
> Second -0.5 for the cringe-inducing idiotic method of introducing
> T'Pol's feelings for Trip.
>
Well... I liked it, but there is no scientific argument for this one :D
Bob Flaminio
>> Better than average.. about the only thing that made we wince was the
>> opening 'foot massage' scene. What's the point of sexualizing
>> that...?
>
> Ever seen Pulp Fiction?
LOL! Good one.
--
Bob
GMAN
>3. Not as thought-provoking as Star Trek at its best, but still
>thought-provoking.
>
>I don't think they ever explained how Sim got the shuttles to tow
>Enterprise. Did I miss something?
>
get momentum going its easy.
Mac Breck
news:8f4e867f.03112...@posting.google.com...
> gav...@cctimes.com (George Avalos) wrote in message
news:<da6729e4.0311...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Similitude"
> > 11-19-03
> >
> > 5 stars (Beatitude)
> >
> > 0-1 stars (Craptitude)
> >
> > -George
>
> >>4.5 stars<< Once you realized that this wasn't a
standard reset
> button episode, it became a lot more watchable.
> THE BAD: No impulse engines when the warp core is knocked
out?
Wasn't the magnetic space goo messing with all their
engines, and soon all their system would have failed?
--
Mac Breck (KoshN) - from the desktop PC
-------------------------------
http://www.scifi.com/babylon5/
http://www.scifi.com/crusade/
http://www.scifi.com/bboard/browse.cgi/1/5/1521 (Brimstone)
Mac Breck
<da6729e4.0311...@posting.google.com>,
gav...@cctimes.com (George Avalos) wrote:
> >"Similitude"
> >11-19-03
> >5 stars (Beatitude)
> >0-1 stars (Craptitude)
>
> I will give it 3.1 stars. It would have been a 4.1, but
for two
> stupidities.
>
> First -0.5 for the stupid physics of using the shuttles as
tugs. the
> Little E should have started moving _immediately_ when the
shuttles
> started moving. It may have only been a few millimeters
per hour per
> hour accelleration, but it should have been there.
Absolutely terrible
> science.
The Enterprise was not free to move. It was magnetically
stuck in that field. That bond had to be broken. It was
not a case of tugs towing a ship that was just sitting there
in space, no engines but free to move once inertia was
overcome.
Captain Infinity
>"Similitude"
>11-19-03
>
>5 stars (Beatitude)
>
>0-1 stars (Craptitude)
>
>-George
This is a tough one to grade, but I've decided to give it 4.25.
The pros outweigh the cons. On the plus side we had a really good story
and some fine acting. Also, nice views of Blalock's bum.
On the minus side we had dumb science. The ship should have moved right
away, at least a little. All the magnetic stuff should have been in one
big clump. And since when is a Southern drawl inherited through DNA?
But on the whole I enjoyed it a lot. I have a feeling this episode will
be a high-water mark for Enterprise, by which I mean I doubt the series
will get any better than this.
**
Captain Infinity
...it's 10:00 ...do you know where your pants are?
Traveler
> 11-19-03
>
> 5 stars (Beatitude)
>
> 0-1 stars (Craptitude)
>
> -George
0
no... -5 no..... -500
Ug! Yuck. Ick.
Pathetic!
Paul Vader
>"Similitude"
>11-19-03
First off, let me say that I am totally within my rights if I turned in a
1.0 for this episode. But that's not what I'm doing - I'm giving it a 3.0.
Why I should have hated it:
- That little pod that makes a two-week clone sounds like an idea right out
of the vilest kind of fanfiction.
- A little blood carries a person's entire store of memories? Excuse me?
- And they release themselves at the right chronological moment? Wha?
- Yet *another* cheat episode, where it appears something brutal and final
is done to a character or the series setting, only to be sucked back
in a hideously contrived manner?
- That thing with the shuttles. Gah! I don't know where to start, the
tethers or the inertial mechanics?
Why I liked it:
- Ridiculously stupid premise aside, it was a fun story.
- Some *wonderful* casting for Trip's younger selves.
- A reference to current bioethical issues (stem cells) without being
even a little hamhanded.
- Good use of effects. Though I have to say, this had to be a pretty
cheap episode to make. I liked the char-blackened enterprise, and
the way the boogers peeled off from the viewports once they got out
of the field.
Not a masterpiece, but it stopped me from dumping the show from my
recording list for another week, after the previous two episodes but me at
defcon 1. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
The Merry Piper
>BTW, I thought that was interesting how the particles just started to flake
>off the ship once it cleared the cloud. And it made sense, since they were
>magnatitized particles, they would naturally be drawn back to the larger
>clump when they were pulled away.
Maybe they had some form of group sentience & could not exist away
from the rest of the cloud?
--
Piper
http://www.livejournal.com/users/tmpiper/
(Take your coat off to send an e-mail)
Cory C. Albrecht
>"Cory C. Albrecht" <coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bpj4b4$a0i2...@news.sentex.ca...
>> Little E should have started moving _immediately_ when the shuttles
>> started moving. It may have only been a few millimeters per hour per
>> hour accelleration, but it should have been there. Absolutely terrible
>> science.
>The Enterprise was not free to move. It was magnetically
>stuck in that field. That bond had to be broken. It was
>not a case of tugs towing a ship that was just sitting there
>in space, no engines but free to move once inertia was
>overcome.
No, they never said that the Little E was stuck in a magnetic field.
What they said was that the particles affixing themselves to the hull
were each midly magnetic and that as more and more stuck to the hull it
was creating a growing "diamagnetic" field around the ship.
The engines were offline, and the implication was that engine use was
one of the ship's services that would be affected and later extinguished
by the growing field strength. However, it was never said (nor even
implied) that they were "stuck" there like how an iron bar is "stuck" to
a magnet.
They couldn't move because the engines were offline, not becuas ethey
were stuck there.
Mac Breck
They may never have said it explicitly, but it's the only
way to reconcile the Enterprise's velocity over time as the
shuttlepods began to pull.
Must everything be stated explicitly? Granted, not dropping
any tidbit to explain the motion in the episode was lazy
writing. It makes it "look like" an error in the writers'
understanding of physics. It MAY BE an actual error, or
possibly the writers just figured the audience would
understand that something was preventing the Enterprise from
slowly accelerating.
Greg Hanson
> "Greg Hanson" <ssl...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:8f4e867f.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > gav...@cctimes.com (George Avalos) wrote in message
> news:<da6729e4.0311...@posting.google.com>...
> > > "Similitude"
> > > 11-19-03
> > >
> > > 5 stars (Beatitude)
> > >
> > > 0-1 stars (Craptitude)
> > >
> > > -George
>
> > >>4.5 stars<< Once you realized that this wasn't a
> standard reset
> > button episode, it became a lot more watchable.
>
>
> > THE BAD: No impulse engines when the warp core is knocked
> out?
>
> Wasn't the magnetic space goo messing with all their
> engines, and soon all their system would have failed?
Keep reading to the next sentence.....Then SAY SO!! Maybe I missed
it, but they never said the impulse engines were down and since
impulse engines are basically just fusion rockets, the exhaust and
forward momentum would have kept the space goo out of the engines.
All they needed was five seconds of throwaway dialogue: Archer:
"Travis, ahead, full impulse." Buzzer from panel. Mayweather (Hey, a
line!!) "Sir, impulse emgines are not responding." THEN let the space
goo do it's thing.
David Johnston
wrote:
>"Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bpjkq3$vgn$0...@208.239.203.88>...
>> "Greg Hanson" <ssl...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:8f4e867f.03112...@posting.google.com...
>> > gav...@cctimes.com (George Avalos) wrote in message
>> news:<da6729e4.0311...@posting.google.com>...
>> > > "Similitude"
>> > > 11-19-03
>> > >
>> > > 5 stars (Beatitude)
>> > >
>> > > 0-1 stars (Craptitude)
>> > >
>> > > -George
>>
>> > >>4.5 stars<< Once you realized that this wasn't a
>> standard reset
>> > button episode, it became a lot more watchable.
>>
>>
>> > THE BAD: No impulse engines when the warp core is knocked
>> out?
>>
>> Wasn't the magnetic space goo messing with all their
>> engines, and soon all their system would have failed?
>
>Keep reading to the next sentence.....Then SAY SO!! Maybe I missed
>it, but they never said the impulse engines were down and since
>impulse engines are basically just fusion rockets,
They are not. We've never seen any kind of exhaust coming out
of the ship. Impulse engines are some kind of Newton-defyining
reactionless drive.
Windsor Williams
> "Similitude"
> 11-19-03
>
> 5 stars (Beatitude)
>
> 0-1 stars (Craptitude)
3 stars.
The core story and moral dilemma was well done, but too many
peripheral issues failed to work. And don't get me started on
the magical "instant clone kit, genetic memory thrown in free"
idiocy.
Windsor
Rick
> In article <da6729e4.0311...@posting.google.com>, gav...@cctimes.com (George Avalos) wrote:
>
> First -0.5 for the stupid physics of using the shuttles as tugs. the
> Little E should have started moving _immediately_ when the shuttles
> started moving. It may have only been a few millimeters per hour per
> hour accelleration, but it should have been there. Absolutely terrible
> science.
Yeah, I thought that should have happened too. Especially since before
he knew of Sim's intentions of overloading the engines, Malcom said that
the shuttles would not have enough thrust to get them out of the nebula
_in time_. That statement implies that they should be able to
accelerate Enterprise a little bit.
I thought it was a little sad that once the shuttles started it moving,
they were able to just return to Enterprise. If they were able to do
that, they could have just used the shuttles normally for more time.
They should have accellerated the ship all the way through the nebula.
Also, if the magnetic gunk was blocking the shuttle doors, wouldn't they
also block the cannon ports?
Captain Infinity
>> They couldn't move because the engines were offline, not
>>becuas ethey were stuck there.
>
>They may never have said it explicitly, but it's the only
>way to reconcile the Enterprise's velocity over time as the
>shuttlepods began to pull.
Screw that noise. I, for one, refuse to cobble up some rationalization
to account for shoddy writing.
>Must everything be stated explicitly? Granted, not dropping
>any tidbit to explain the motion in the episode was lazy
>writing. It makes it "look like" an error in the writers'
>understanding of physics.
It looks that way because that's exactly what it was.
>It MAY BE an actual error, or
>possibly the writers just figured the audience would
>understand that something was preventing the Enterprise from
>slowly accelerating.
No, see, what it is is this: the Enterprise is big. Really, really big,
and it weighs a lot. It's *really* heavy, so it takes a lot of energy to
pull it. Think of how hard it would be for you to pull a railroad car.
Well, the Enterprise is a *lot* bigger and heavier than a railroad car,
so it takes a *lot* more energy. See what a simple explanation that is?
Simple. Simple simple simple. Just like the viewers.
Is this insulting? It should be. That's the way Enterprise writers
think.
I don't care how much wanking has to be done to cover this mistake, that
frigging ship should have moved *the instant* the tether lines went taut.
**
Captain Infinity
..."You couldn't deny that, even if you tried with both hands."
--the Red Queen, _Through The Looking Glass_
Carl J.
same memories as the original!! So the whole premise is absurd.
1 star
In article <vroia5d...@corp.supernews.com>, Dave wrote:
>
> "George Avalos" <gav...@cctimes.com> wrote in message
> news:da6729e4.0311...@posting.google.com...
>> "Similitude"
>> 11-19-03
>>
>> 5 stars (Beatitude)
>>
>> 0-1 stars (Craptitude)
>>
>> -George
>
> After hearing about the simbiant within 10-minutes, I thought "Aww hell,
> that ain't Tripp in there, what a cheep way to keep him around." Thus, I
> thought I'd hate this weeks episode. However, I kept on watching, and
> changed my mind by the end.
>
> The acting was sound, the dialouge was well-writen, and the episode just
> flowed nicely. It was like I was watching another one of the TOS 'morality
> episode without being a morality episode" episode.
>
> So I'm giving it a sound 4.95. It wasn't perfect, but at least it was a
> whole hell of a lot better then something from the first season.
>
> BTW, I thought that was interesting how the particles just started to flake
> off the ship once it cleared the cloud. And it made sense, since they were
> magnatitized particles, they would naturally be drawn back to the larger
> clump when they were pulled away.
>
> Dave
>
>
Mac Breck
news:sgktrvcci50l7uj84...@4ax.com...
> Once Upon A Time Mac Breck wrote:
>
> >> They couldn't move because the engines were offline,
not
> >>becuas ethey were stuck there.
> >
> >They may never have said it explicitly, but it's the only
> >way to reconcile the Enterprise's velocity over time as
the
> >shuttlepods began to pull.
>
> Screw that noise. I, for one, refuse to cobble up some
rationalization
> to account for shoddy writing.
Hey, when things don't make sense on the surface, I look for
things that would explain the observed discrepancies.
<shrug> It's a habit.
It sounds like an intro. course in Physics should be
required for writers of sci-fi shows. It'd probably have to
stress the qualitative over the quantitative, since they'd
never be able to handle the latter.
Mac Breck
news:3fbea...@newspeer2.tds.net...
> Cory C. Albrecht wrote:
> Also, if the magnetic gunk was blocking the shuttle doors,
wouldn't they
> also block the cannon ports?
Anything that was on the firing point of the emitters would
be probably be blown off in the first firing. Now, as to
how the emitters could articulate to aim, that's another
matter. Maybe a maintenance crew freed them, but then,
how'd the maintenance crew get out there? The airlock doors
were probably also inoperative. Transporter?
So many plot holes and unexplained things.....
no_one_special
>"Similitude"
>11-19-03
>
>5 stars (Beatitude)
>
>0-1 stars (Craptitude)
>
>-George
4.5 stars
Excellent.
Respectfully submitted,
no_one_special
David Johnston
<Infi...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>Is this insulting? It should be. That's the way Enterprise writers
>think.
What do writers have to do with it? They don't film the special
effects.
Captain Infinity
>On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 22:11:38 -0500, Captain Infinity
><Infi...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>
>>No, see, what it is is this: the Enterprise is big. Really, really big,
>>and it weighs a lot. It's *really* heavy, so it takes a lot of energy to
>>pull it. Think of how hard it would be for you to pull a railroad car.
>>Well, the Enterprise is a *lot* bigger and heavier than a railroad car,
>>so it takes a *lot* more energy. See what a simple explanation that is?
>>Simple. Simple simple simple. Just like the viewers.
>>
>>Is this insulting? It should be. That's the way Enterprise writers
>>think.
>
>What do writers have to do with it? They don't film the special
>effects.
Wow. Nothing gets past you, does it David?
**
Captain Infinity
..."You're sitting there, happier than an idiot in Idiotland
on 'Idiots Get In Free' day!" --Dick Solomon
Greg Hanson
> On 21 Nov 2003 08:58:29 -0800, ssl...@netscape.net (Greg )
> wrote:
>
> >"Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bpjkq3$vgn$0...@208.239.203.88>...
> >> news:8f4e867f.03112...@posting.google.com...
> >> > gav...@cctimes.com (George Avalos) wrote in message
> news:<da6729e4.0311...@posting.google.com>...
> >> > > "Similitude"
> >> > > 11-19-03
> >> > >
> >> > > 5 stars (Beatitude)
> >> > >
> >> > > 0-1 stars (Craptitude)
> >> > >
> >> > > -George
>
> >> > >>4.5 stars<< Once you realized that this wasn't a
> standard reset
> >> > button episode, it became a lot more watchable.
> >>
> >>
> >> > THE BAD: No impulse engines when the warp core is knocked
> >> out?
> >>
> >> Wasn't the magnetic space goo messing with all their
> >> engines, and soon all their system would have failed?
> >
> >Keep reading to the next sentence.....Then SAY SO!! Maybe I missed
> >it, but they never said the impulse engines were down and since
> >impulse engines are basically just fusion rockets,
>
> They are not. We've never seen any kind of exhaust coming out
> of the ship. Impulse engines are some kind of Newton-defyining
> reactionless drive.
We're both right. Referring to the TNG Tech Manual, pp 75-78, reveals
that impulse engines are comprised of "two sets of fusion powered
engines." Deuterium is heated and fed to the reaction chamber, where
a fusion reaction takes place. The resulting plasma is then fed into
the EPS system as needed and into a low-level space-time driver coil
assembly (essentially a mini warp drive assembly). This is then fed
into a vectored exhaust director. The combination of the thrust from
the exhaust and the driver coil assembly alters the mass of the ship,
slightly warps space-time to allow the ship to move more easily and
drives the ship forward. Remember Uhura's line from ST6 - "The
thing's gotta have a tail pipe!" And they do show it - what did you
think that red glow is from the impulse engines?
Regardless, my point was that all they had to do was say the impulse
engines were down too.
Captain Freaky Pants
wrote:
>We're both right. Referring to the TNG Tech Manual, pp 75-78, reveals
>that impulse engines are comprised of "two sets of fusion powered
>engines." Deuterium is heated and fed to the reaction chamber, where
>a fusion reaction takes place. The resulting plasma is then fed into
>the EPS system as needed and into a low-level space-time driver coil
>assembly (essentially a mini warp drive assembly). This is then fed
>into a vectored exhaust director. The combination of the thrust from
>the exhaust and the driver coil assembly alters the mass of the ship,
>slightly warps space-time to allow the ship to move more easily and
>drives the ship forward. Remember Uhura's line from ST6 - "The
>thing's gotta have a tail pipe!" And they do show it - what did you
>think that red glow is from the impulse engines?
So the writers of the TNG tech manual didn't actually understand the
simple concept in physics of 'impulse' and thought that it actually
meant something technobabblish?
===================================================
http://www.rocketshipvideo.com
http://www.classicfilmimages.com
===================================================
Jaime M. de Castellvi
wrote:
>"Similitude"
>11-19-03
>
>5 stars (Beatitude)
>
>0-1 stars (Craptitude)
>
>-George
_Enterprise_ sucks. That's pretty much getting to be an indisputed
axiom by now. But for nearly every axiom there is a proverbial
exception which helps to prove it, and I guess this episode qualifies
as it (notice that it wasn't written by either Berman or Braga).
Guess I'll have to grumblingly grant this one a 4.0. Even though they
turned the reset switch on right at the beginning instead of the end
of the episode.
Hmmm, going by _Enterprise_ logic, since they slapped Sim's grey
matter onto Trip, shouldn't the latter now have the former's memories
also?
Cheers,
Jaime
David Johnston
wrote:
>>slightly warps space-time to allow the ship to move more easily and
>>drives the ship forward. Remember Uhura's line from ST6 - "The
>>thing's gotta have a tail pipe!" And they do show it - what did you
>>think that red glow is from the impulse engines?
>
>So the writers of the TNG tech manual didn't actually understand the
>simple concept in physics of 'impulse' and thought that it actually
>meant something technobabblish?
No, they just recognised that the Enterprise's impulse engines act
absolutely nothing like a rocket.
Captain Freaky Pants
Let's be correct: They DECIDED that Enterprise's impulse engines act
absolutely nothing like a rocket.
Timo S Saloniemi
>On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:09:45 GMT, bl...@telusplanet.net (David
>Johnston) wrote:
>>On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:00:02 GMT, Captain Freaky Pants <n...@x.com>
>>wrote:
>>>>slightly warps space-time to allow the ship to move more easily and
>>>>drives the ship forward. Remember Uhura's line from ST6 - "The
>>>>thing's gotta have a tail pipe!" And they do show it - what did you
>>>>think that red glow is from the impulse engines?
>>>So the writers of the TNG tech manual didn't actually understand the
>>>simple concept in physics of 'impulse' and thought that it actually
>>>meant something technobabblish?
>>No, they just recognised that the Enterprise's impulse engines act
>>absolutely nothing like a rocket.
>Let's be correct: They DECIDED that Enterprise's impulse engines act
>absolutely nothing like a rocket.
It's difficult to see how they could have decided otherwise, though.
Clearly, the Trek ships dedicade disproportionately little volume for
fuel tanks if they are supposed to be using F=ma thrust. This "mass
reduction" trickery sounds like as good a workaround as any.
Timo Saloniemi
Captain Freaky Pants
In a lot of the earlier blueprints from around the time of Star
Trek: The Motion Picture they indicate various parts of Enterprise to
be bussard ramjets. Granted, the ramjet is probably an unrealistic
solution, but its no less silly than 'impulse' drive is just a little
version of warp drive.
Joseph Nebus
And there's a good history in the original Trek of treating the
warp engines and the impulse engines as the high and low gears anyway;
note episodes like ``The Apple'' in which somehow all the power is put
through the impulse engines and it's trusted that will do some good.
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cory C. Albrecht
>"Cory C. Albrecht" <coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bpj4b4$a0i2...@news.sentex.ca...
>> Little E should have started moving _immediately_ when the shuttles
>> started moving. It may have only been a few millimeters per hour per
>> hour accelleration, but it should have been there. Absolutely terrible
>> science.
>Not completely true, its been a while since I have taken Physics, but there
>are two types of friction, static and... whats the other... I think
>dynamic...
>Anyhow, push your keyboard. It wont move until you apply a minimum force,
>after that minimum force has been reached, it will move, and continue to
>accelerate with the same force on it. Now in space there is no friction so
>it normally would be a moot argument. But remember they were in that goopy
>cloud, which undoubtedly had friction :D
8 a "cloud", in space, is not my keyboard resting upon my desk. The
Little E, one solid object, was not flat up against another solid
object, and they were not trying to slide the one along the other.
As soon as the shuttles started playing tugboat, the Little E should
have started moving immediately. Now, each time the NX-01 hit one if the
particles in the nebula it would have lost some forward momentum.
However that loss would have been so fractionally miniscule such
that even the accumulation of all those particulate impacts would not
have made any significant difference. How much momentum does a jet
airplane lose when it flies into a cloud?
Trying to use friction as a reasoning for why the Little didn't start
moving immediately is bad science as well.
Almost a fanwank, I'd say. :-)
Cory C. Albrecht
>"Cory C. Albrecht" <coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bpkd2b$i0r8...@news.sentex.ca...
Not, it is not. The increase in velocity over time is because they continued to
apply acceleration to the enterprise with the shuttles.
And that acceleration should have started _immediately_.
>Must everything be stated explicitly? Granted, not dropping
>any tidbit to explain the motion in the episode was lazy
>writing. It makes it "look like" an error in the writers'
>understanding of physics. It MAY BE an actual error, or
>possibly the writers just figured the audience would
>understand that something was preventing the Enterprise from
>slowly accelerating.
No "may be" about it - it is bad physics, plain and simple.
If something is not going to act accordingly to the laws of physics then yes, it
shoudl be stated explicitly. Either Reed or Mayweather should have stated "We're
not moving forward - the Enterprise seems to be stuck in something."
Anyways, the thing still is, they were _not_ stuck in a magnetic field like you
claimed they were, and trying to make something like that up to try and cover up
the writers' bad understanding of physics is only a fankwank, and a rather weak
one, too.
Cory C. Albrecht
Because the way the writers wrote this, the shuttlepod had to pull for a
while _before_ the Little E started moving. The SFX people only depicted
what the writer monkeys typed out.
It ain't SFX's fault, it's the writer monkeys fault.
la_haine
> Yeah, all scientists are actively working to eliminate any belief in a God.
> I can vouch for this because before I could become a scientist, I had to
> sign an affidavit stating that I hated God.
Are you a fully paid up member of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy, then?
--
'To be honest, I can't remember him scoring a goal that wasn't memorable'
- Jerome Anderson, 5 Live
Mac Breck
Force. Force applied to a mass will cause the mass to
accelerate ***IF*** the mass is free to move. That the mass
did NOT start moving as soon as force was applied (and any
slack and elasticity in the cables taken up), means that the
mass was NOT free to move. If the Enterprise was sitting in
space and free to move (not held by anything), and was towed
by applying a constant force, and it was not gaining or
losing mass, it would have constant acceleration. F=ma.
Velocity would gradually increase in accordance with that
constant acceleration, until the force was removed. Then,
assuming no friction, magnetic or gravitational forces, the
mass would continue to move at the same velocity and in the
same direction it had when the force was removed.
> to the enterprise with the shuttles.
> And that acceleration should have started _immediately_.
***IF*** Enterprise was NOT being held by anything, yes.
> >Must everything be stated explicitly? Granted, not
dropping
> >any tidbit to explain the motion in the episode was lazy
> >writing. It makes it "look like" an error in the
writers'
> >understanding of physics. It MAY BE an actual error, or
> >possibly the writers just figured the audience would
> >understand that something was preventing the Enterprise
from
> >slowly accelerating.
>
> No "may be" about it - it is bad physics, plain and
simple.
Oh, and you're one to talk about physics, Mr. "Apply
Acceleration." You apply a Force. That causes
acceleration.
> If something is not going to act accordingly to the laws
of physics then yes, it
> shoudl be stated explicitly. Either Reed or Mayweather
should have stated "We're
> not moving forward - the Enterprise seems to be stuck in
something."
>
> Anyways, the thing still is, they were _not_ stuck in a
magnetic field like you
> claimed they were, and trying to make something like that
up to try and cover up
> the writers' bad understanding of physics is only a
fankwank, and a rather weak
> one, too.
As I said, the only way to reconcile the Enterprise's
velocity over time as the shuttlepods began to pull, IS that
they were held by something. To which you replied, "Not, it
is not. The increase in velocity over time is because they
continued to apply acceleration"
I'm looking at the Enterprise's motion, and looking for a
logical way to explain it. I guess there are three
possibilities:
1. Enterprise was being held by something, and the writers
left it to the audience to figure that out.
2. The writers are complete idiots.
3. The writers value dramatic tension over reality, and
figure the audience will be too stupid to notice.
Mike Dicenso
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, George Avalos wrote:
> "Similitude"
> 11-19-03
>
> 5 stars (Beatitude)
>
> 0-1 stars (Craptitude)
I give this a solid 5. Great casting for the various child incarnations of
Sim, and great acting all around for the entire cast. A great story that
did not pull any punches.
-Mike
Mike Dicenso
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Sugapablo wrote:
> In article <GWVub.10056$0K4.5428@lakeread04>, Steve Jaros wrote:
> >
> > Better than average.. about the only thing that made we wince was the
> > opening 'foot massage' scene. What's the point of sexualizing that...?
> >
>
> Watchin T'pol lately has made me wince virtually every time. That one
> scene she looked like she was going to cry! Vulcans don't cry!
Ever see the Director's Cut of ST:TMP? Even in ST2, Saavik looks like she
is about to shed a tear at Spock's funeral. It's been mentioned in
episodes like "Fusion", that T'Pol is perhaps a bit more emotional than
most other vulcans, so T'Pol being moved by Sim's sacrifice does not come
as much of suprise to me. Certainly her kissing Sim toward the end there
might seem a bit much, but is no worse than say, Spock mind melding with
Kirk in "Requiem for Methuselah", and erasing Kirk's unhappy memories of
Rayna Kapec.
> But I've about given up on her, and any hopes that B&B would not just
> try to use her as eye-candy.
T'Pol has been a mix for me. If B&B had not tried so hard to shove the
"eye-candy" onto us, T'Pol would have been a much more interesting
character.
-Mike
Mike Dicenso
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Tony Calguire wrote:
> George Avalos wrote:
> >
> > "Similitude"
> > 11-19-03
> >
>
>
> Oh, OK, it can have a 3.
>
> Doc Phlox just happened to have a magic clonefish on the shelf. Ugh!
>
> And, since hull shielding seems to be such a concern in this part of
> space, wouldn't it have been considered a good thing to have an extra
> layer of thickness on the ship's hull?
Huh? The only "shielding" anyone seems to want more is Trellium-D to
INSULATE the hull from the Sphere-generated anomalies affecting the
Expanse. That would not have necessarily have helped protect the NX-01
from stuff collecting on the ship's hull.
-MIke
Mike Dicenso
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Mitsy6666 wrote:
> 3. Not as thought-provoking as Star Trek at its best, but still
> thought-provoking.
>
> I don't think they ever explained how Sim got the shuttles to tow
> Enterprise. Did I miss something?
The shuttlepods just used good old fashioned brute force to tow the NX-01.
If you're wondering how they got out, the phase canon were used to clear
enough of the gunk off the ship's hanger bay doors so that they could
leave the ship.
-Mike
Mike Dicenso
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Captain Freaky Pants wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:09:45 GMT, bl...@telusplanet.net (David
> Johnston) wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:00:02 GMT, Captain Freaky Pants <n...@x.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>slightly warps space-time to allow the ship to move more easily and
> >>>drives the ship forward. Remember Uhura's line from ST6 - "The
> >>>thing's gotta have a tail pipe!" And they do show it - what did you
> >>>think that red glow is from the impulse engines?
> >>
> >>So the writers of the TNG tech manual didn't actually understand the
> >>simple concept in physics of 'impulse' and thought that it actually
> >>meant something technobabblish?
> >
> >No, they just recognised that the Enterprise's impulse engines act
> >absolutely nothing like a rocket.
>
> Let's be correct: They DECIDED that Enterprise's impulse engines act
> absolutely nothing like a rocket.
Huh? Which Enterpise are you refering to here? The impulse engines on
other Enterprises have acted just like a big rocket. See TNG's "Booby
Trap", and "Evolution", for instance. While the TNG TM is not a canon
source, the idea that there is some kind of mass reduction property going
seems to be in line with what we see on screen. Otherwise, how could any
of these ships accelerate to better than .5 c on impulse engines only with
such relatively small fuel reserves? And we know from episodes like TNG's
"Deja Q", and DS9's "Emissary" that wrapping a low-level warp field around
an object, will reduce the mass of the object by a considerable amount.
-Mike
Mike Dicenso
But the impulse engines are basically rockets, but they cannot push the
ship to high relativistic velocities on their on their own, so the mass
reduction of a low level subspace field is used to assist. But the mass
reduction is not in and of itself the actual propulsion mechanism.
-Mike
Captain Infinity
>I guess there are three
>possibilities:
>
>1. Enterprise was being held by something, and the writers
>left it to the audience to figure that out.
>
>2. The writers are complete idiots.
>
>3. The writers value dramatic tension over reality, and
>figure the audience will be too stupid to notice.
My guess is #3. However, this does not negate the included possibility
of #2.
**
Captain Infinity
Mitsy6666
> In article <ed840aea.03112...@posting.google.com>, Mits...@my-deja.com (Mitsy6666) wrote:
> >3. Not as thought-provoking as Star Trek at its best, but still
> >thought-provoking.
> >
> >I don't think they ever explained how Sim got the shuttles to tow
> >Enterprise. Did I miss something?
> >
> get momentum going its easy.
But originally Archer said, "The shuttles aren't powerful enough to
get Enterprise moving." Then Sim said, "I'll find a way" (or something
like that).
> >I missed last week's episode, but it'd be great if Enterprise could
> >maintain the quality of the last several weeks. (However, since the
> >Next Generation, it seems like the good ST episodes have come in
> >spurts.)
> >
> >
> >gav...@cctimes.com (George Avalos) wrote in message
> > news:<da6729e4.0311...@posting.google.com>...
> >> "Similitude"
> >> 11-19-03
> >>
> >> 5 stars (Beatitude)
> >>
> >> 0-1 stars (Craptitude)
> >>
> >> -George