I wrote this first as a reply to a YouTube video that comments about why the tech in "Alien" is so outdated compare to "Prometheus", which canonically took place many years previous to the events in "Alien".
I think, that there's a digital and class divide of sorts: the miners get CRTs on the ships they run, which is just enough to get the job done, and the scientists get all the fancy stuff. — But not always, if the company knows, that any such mission with the xenomorphs is doomed from the outset. And anyway, the most advanced thing onboard Nostromo was Ash. The most advanced thing in Aliens was the atmospheric processor.
I can guess, that at some point, Weyand-Yutani might have thought it cheaper to recycle old technology than to mine and make new stuff, because they came to be short on resources back on Earth and any colonies. The Nostromo was sent out to bring back the very necessary readymade ore to manufacture new things, but its mission failed.
A good explanation is, indeed, that for certain objectives, obsolete[-looking] tech is used.
Kuvatud on postitused sildiga Post if lost. Kuva kõik postitused
Kuvatud on postitused sildiga Post if lost. Kuva kõik postitused
kolmapäev, 17. jaanuar 2018
laupäev, 30. september 2017
Gul Dukat's magnanimity
reply to comment post on YouTube
First, Weyoun admires Dukat's thinking without really showing it ("I had no idea," video at 0:53). Dukat then indulges in his magnanimity, which Weyoun notices, and having realised that by 1:52, rather diplomatically calls it 'fascinating.'
Many dictators — and Dukat is no exception there — have a certain frame of mind, and thus, certain ways of rhetoric that give their dictatorial tendencies away long before most people even realise it.
On the other hand, there are people, who are incredibly charming and very effective. So, Tain and Weyoun at the apex of their power, if we consider the baddies. Good people... Well, there are Spock and Sarek, Elim Garak; President Obama, Chancellor Merkel, President Macron, Prime Minister Trudeau from the real world.
wrt dictators in the real world (and in DS9), then they are rather more multifaceted, and can be very charming, if they want to be. Some dictators in the real world are the ones that women find as dream men: Either one is rich, or he has capabilities that a previous and unpopular, though democratic leader never had, such as specifically not drinking, doing various sports, etc.
Good leaders can sport similar qualities, too: Barack plays basketball; PM Trudeau has boxed (for a charitable event, if I recall correctly), other heads of state or government run marathons.
First, Weyoun admires Dukat's thinking without really showing it ("I had no idea," video at 0:53). Dukat then indulges in his magnanimity, which Weyoun notices, and having realised that by 1:52, rather diplomatically calls it 'fascinating.'
Many dictators — and Dukat is no exception there — have a certain frame of mind, and thus, certain ways of rhetoric that give their dictatorial tendencies away long before most people even realise it.
On the other hand, there are people, who are incredibly charming and very effective. So, Tain and Weyoun at the apex of their power, if we consider the baddies. Good people... Well, there are Spock and Sarek, Elim Garak; President Obama, Chancellor Merkel, President Macron, Prime Minister Trudeau from the real world.
wrt dictators in the real world (and in DS9), then they are rather more multifaceted, and can be very charming, if they want to be. Some dictators in the real world are the ones that women find as dream men: Either one is rich, or he has capabilities that a previous and unpopular, though democratic leader never had, such as specifically not drinking, doing various sports, etc.
Good leaders can sport similar qualities, too: Barack plays basketball; PM Trudeau has boxed (for a charitable event, if I recall correctly), other heads of state or government run marathons.
kolmapäev, 24. mai 2017
Garak's friend "Elim", and Cardassians
This is a reply in a thread to a DS9 YouTube clip
Now, about that daughter of a prominent Cardassian military official that Garak spoke of... here.
Then the follow-up story here,
and the conclusion here (with the 'Sons of Tain' comment here).
Interestingly, Garak places Tain's retirement to a point of time at which Tain, per Garak, could not protect him anymore.
There's a possibility, that Tain was duly informed of the scandal, and chose to retire to avoid being implicated in it, or having fingers suspiciously pointed at him, had he stayed as head of the Obsidian Order.
Effectively, Tain washed his hands off the matter, thereby forcing, or rather, allowing Garak to slip into exile. Dukat's return to Cardassia, and Tain's retirement meant, that Garak was without protection on Cardassia.
My suspicion is, that "Elim" was really that daughter of a prominent Cardassian military official, and she got blown up in the shuttle.
It appears to me from Garak's tales, that at one time, she was a close colleague of Garak, and she found out, that Garak might not have been entirely loyal to Cardassia, of which Tain felt, that Garak betrayed him. We learn in episode "Cardassians", that Garak at one point was boastful of his contacts with the Bajoran underground. Strange, is it not?
Garak most likely released the children, then his colleague (the daughter) discovered that, decided to report it, and Garak had to make sure she didn't.
I also have another theory:
This daughter of a prominent Cardassian military official may have been the same woman linked to Dukat, who brought Rugal, the lost-and-much-later-found son of Cardassian exarch Kotan Pa'Dar, to the Bajoran orphanage.
Note, that Pa'Dar was Gul Dukat's rival in Cardassian politics, and Pa'Dar was the one, who decided to end the Cardassian Occupation of Bajor.
Garak may have gathered, that this same woman linked to Dukat was about to expose the scandal around Pa'Dar on her departure from Bajor, so he chose to subdue the scandal by letting the shuttle explode.
Cardassians
Garak did not intend to expose Dukat, because during Dukat's reign over Bajor, Garak's life on the planet probably depended on him not telling about the affair of Dukat's associate bringing Rugal to the orphanage. And other things. Garak knew that about Dukat, and Dukat knew that Garak knew.
Dukat didn't have any need to humiliate Pa'Dar so long as Dukat was reigning over Bajor. What kept Dukat quiet, is, that Garak knew, too.
As the occupation of Bajor ended, the situation changed, and upon his return to Cardassia, Dukat may have intended to save his face by way of exposing Pa'Dar and undermining the politician who ended his occupation of Bajorans, and to simultaneously neutralise Garak's knowledge.
Garak, apparently, had enough foresight to make sure that there wasn't anyone else left to corrobarate Dukat's words.
Now, about that daughter of a prominent Cardassian military official that Garak spoke of... here.
Then the follow-up story here,
and the conclusion here (with the 'Sons of Tain' comment here).
Interestingly, Garak places Tain's retirement to a point of time at which Tain, per Garak, could not protect him anymore.
There's a possibility, that Tain was duly informed of the scandal, and chose to retire to avoid being implicated in it, or having fingers suspiciously pointed at him, had he stayed as head of the Obsidian Order.
Effectively, Tain washed his hands off the matter, thereby forcing, or rather, allowing Garak to slip into exile. Dukat's return to Cardassia, and Tain's retirement meant, that Garak was without protection on Cardassia.
My suspicion is, that "Elim" was really that daughter of a prominent Cardassian military official, and she got blown up in the shuttle.
It appears to me from Garak's tales, that at one time, she was a close colleague of Garak, and she found out, that Garak might not have been entirely loyal to Cardassia, of which Tain felt, that Garak betrayed him. We learn in episode "Cardassians", that Garak at one point was boastful of his contacts with the Bajoran underground. Strange, is it not?
Garak most likely released the children, then his colleague (the daughter) discovered that, decided to report it, and Garak had to make sure she didn't.
I also have another theory:
This daughter of a prominent Cardassian military official may have been the same woman linked to Dukat, who brought Rugal, the lost-and-much-later-found son of Cardassian exarch Kotan Pa'Dar, to the Bajoran orphanage.
Note, that Pa'Dar was Gul Dukat's rival in Cardassian politics, and Pa'Dar was the one, who decided to end the Cardassian Occupation of Bajor.
Garak may have gathered, that this same woman linked to Dukat was about to expose the scandal around Pa'Dar on her departure from Bajor, so he chose to subdue the scandal by letting the shuttle explode.
Cardassians
Garak did not intend to expose Dukat, because during Dukat's reign over Bajor, Garak's life on the planet probably depended on him not telling about the affair of Dukat's associate bringing Rugal to the orphanage. And other things. Garak knew that about Dukat, and Dukat knew that Garak knew.Dukat didn't have any need to humiliate Pa'Dar so long as Dukat was reigning over Bajor. What kept Dukat quiet, is, that Garak knew, too.
As the occupation of Bajor ended, the situation changed, and upon his return to Cardassia, Dukat may have intended to save his face by way of exposing Pa'Dar and undermining the politician who ended his occupation of Bajorans, and to simultaneously neutralise Garak's knowledge.
Garak, apparently, had enough foresight to make sure that there wasn't anyone else left to corrobarate Dukat's words.
teisipäev, 21. veebruar 2017
CBS, Star Trek, and Axanar
This is in reply to a YouTube comment poster, who was dismayed, that the CBS vs Axanar lawsuit was settled.
These lawsuits are done to avoid both brand dilution and to prevent misappropriation of intellectual property.
The brand of a franchise is an important part of that intellectual property.
Around 1997/1998, when Paramount had gone after amateur websites that hosted Trek content without permission, Jonathan Frakes gave an interview to Yahoo! Internet Life, wherein he said, that when he leaves the Star Trek set, then he can take his beard with him, but not the costumes, pointing out who owns what content.
The Axanar case is unfortunate, because on one hand, the Axanar people wanted to make a great fan film, but on the other hand, CBS saw, that someone was raking in money for it through crowdfunding. Were CBS to allow that to continue, a larger production (fan, "fan", or otherwise) would have eventually felt it permissible to do so, too. And that would be quite a can of worms.
The interesting part is, that Axanar had begun to appear much better than what Paramount and CBS had been doing so far. Some fans detest JJ-Trek, and others savaged the new Discovery ship shown in a Comic-Con preview clip (I like it, btw).
If I were a pointy-haired boss at CBS, I'd see a better-looking fan film as a threat to my properties, especially at a time of one 'Trek project being in pre-production; all of which is not cheap.
From the corporate point of view, a competing fan production would potentially devalue the existing project and affect its ratings after episodes were published, because (die-hard) fans would begin to compare Axanar to Discovery, especially, if Axanar looked better.
That Axanar looked better, guaranteed bad optics when coming down with a lawsuit on Axanar people, but CBS were not in a position to make a different move.
The copyright and brand protection issues were still pertinent, and to me, it seems, CBS found themselves between a rock and a hard place, just as they were about to get busy with Discovery.
Because on one hand, CBS had to protect the Star Trek brand, and on the other hand, they had to avoid alienating fans.
Therefore, the only way to avoid a worse situation, was to settle the lawsuit.
And so, CBS now have a very tough job of making Discovery twice as better.
These lawsuits are done to avoid both brand dilution and to prevent misappropriation of intellectual property.
The brand of a franchise is an important part of that intellectual property.
Around 1997/1998, when Paramount had gone after amateur websites that hosted Trek content without permission, Jonathan Frakes gave an interview to Yahoo! Internet Life, wherein he said, that when he leaves the Star Trek set, then he can take his beard with him, but not the costumes, pointing out who owns what content.
The Axanar case is unfortunate, because on one hand, the Axanar people wanted to make a great fan film, but on the other hand, CBS saw, that someone was raking in money for it through crowdfunding. Were CBS to allow that to continue, a larger production (fan, "fan", or otherwise) would have eventually felt it permissible to do so, too. And that would be quite a can of worms.
The interesting part is, that Axanar had begun to appear much better than what Paramount and CBS had been doing so far. Some fans detest JJ-Trek, and others savaged the new Discovery ship shown in a Comic-Con preview clip (I like it, btw).
If I were a pointy-haired boss at CBS, I'd see a better-looking fan film as a threat to my properties, especially at a time of one 'Trek project being in pre-production; all of which is not cheap.
From the corporate point of view, a competing fan production would potentially devalue the existing project and affect its ratings after episodes were published, because (die-hard) fans would begin to compare Axanar to Discovery, especially, if Axanar looked better.
That Axanar looked better, guaranteed bad optics when coming down with a lawsuit on Axanar people, but CBS were not in a position to make a different move.
The copyright and brand protection issues were still pertinent, and to me, it seems, CBS found themselves between a rock and a hard place, just as they were about to get busy with Discovery.
Because on one hand, CBS had to protect the Star Trek brand, and on the other hand, they had to avoid alienating fans.
Therefore, the only way to avoid a worse situation, was to settle the lawsuit.
And so, CBS now have a very tough job of making Discovery twice as better.
reede, 17. veebruar 2017
Climate change and acceptance of science
I decided (yet again) to save a reply I'd written in a discussion under a YouTube video clip an episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine about a group of genetically modified geniuses. Three of them geniuses arrive on the station, and make startling long-term analyses about the Dominion War. The analyses are complex and also correct.
One of the YouTube commenters then asked, if the writers had in mind the climate scientists, their predictions, and how many people in the public — even decisionmakers — would dismiss these scientific conclusions.
One of the YouTube commenters then asked, if the writers had in mind the climate scientists, their predictions, and how many people in the public — even decisionmakers — would dismiss these scientific conclusions.
My response was, that
The episode wasn't particularly on climate change, but about how ready the 'normal' people would be to accept accurate science, even if they did could not comprehend it.
For example, we are able and willing to use all kinds of gadgets despite the fact, that there is a huge amount of science behind them. We are able to take care of individual plants without knowing exactly how they work, but knowing, that they need sunlight, water, nutrients, and bees (for pollination).
What many people are unable to grasp wrt the climate of the Earth, is, that they fail to treat it as such a gadget or a plant that also needs care and maintenance, such as: 'Grow more plants' and 'exhaust less CO2 and other dangerous micromaterials'.
In many ways, the science fiction show "The Expanse" has a very accurate view of how the climate of the Earth might have progressed in the future. There, the icecaps of the Earth have melted quite a bit, and everything is swimming, with 30 (yes, thirty) billion people inhabiting the planet.
kolmapäev, 7. september 2016
Religion in Estonia and in Nordic countries
A reply in an IMDb forum to a post about religion (wrt "Ida").
There are differences between eliminating religion, not following organised religion, and being spiritual instead.
Most research and surveys fail to be precise enough to record the latter two notions, and thus their methodologies are all similar and very nearly always skewed to present black/white results that inadvertently (or by intent) support a black/white worldview.
For people in Nordic countries, religion is something very personal. I'd say it's the same in Northern Europe.
For example, Estonia is about the least-religious country in the world, because surveys don't take into account spirituality. It's that among Estonians, organised religion is not followed much, if at all. I have a feeling, that Nordic countries are similar in that regard.
There is, of course, a possibility, that people in Estonia might see religion as something so personal, that they might as well not indicate their affiliation.
There are differences between eliminating religion, not following organised religion, and being spiritual instead.
Most research and surveys fail to be precise enough to record the latter two notions, and thus their methodologies are all similar and very nearly always skewed to present black/white results that inadvertently (or by intent) support a black/white worldview.
For people in Nordic countries, religion is something very personal. I'd say it's the same in Northern Europe.
For example, Estonia is about the least-religious country in the world, because surveys don't take into account spirituality. It's that among Estonians, organised religion is not followed much, if at all. I have a feeling, that Nordic countries are similar in that regard.
There is, of course, a possibility, that people in Estonia might see religion as something so personal, that they might as well not indicate their affiliation.
reede, 2. september 2016
The Die Is Cast: Why Sisko chose to disobey orders, and why Odo chose to stay on DS9
There be spoilers for those, who haven't watched these episodes.
I read a review of "The Die is Cast", an episode of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine", and the comments that accompanied the said review.
Two very widespread issues for many people who watched the episode, are Sisko disobeying orders to not go into the Gamma Quadrant to retrieve Odo, and Odo choosing to return to the station and not join the Great Link and return to his people -- something that he'd wanted to do for a long time.
Text in this post is licensed under Creative Commons-Attribution / CC-BY.
re Sisko not returning --
Lovok's reveal is the reason Odo finally chose instead to return to DS9, because he understood the danger that the Dominion posed to Bajor and the entire Alpha Quadrant. We should not forget, that Odo is an officer of Bajor.
Were he to join the Great Link right then and there, his adoptive home would have been left completely defenseless, and the other shapeshifters would have then been free to work their magic on DS9.
Because Odo's presence on Deep Space Nine meant, that the Dominion really could not use the station and Bajor as a springboard into the Alpha Quadrant (they could not attack either for fear of hitting Odo by accident), and therefore had to go past these places to use Dukat and the Cardassians to expand their galactic domination. This essentially bought some time for everyone. And the Alpha Quadrant.
Of course, Fake Lovok didn't like it, and that's why he chose to use the narrower definition of 'no Changeling has harmed another', in that he decided not to notify the Jem'Hadar to not shoot at (or even provide cover to) the runabout carrying Odo and Garak, who were attempting to escape the mêlée of a very intense space battle.
There's a high probability, that Odo has by then realised Fake Lovok's hypocrisy about the 'no harm' adage, because the runabout was repeatedly shot at, and lost its shields.
----
Many episodes later, we can actually see how palpable Odo's importance is during Dukat's occupation of Terek Nor, as Odo's presence alone causes Weyoun to defer to Odo (because like any other changeling, he's like a god to the Vorta) — much to the chagrin of Dukat and the annoyance of the Female Shapeshifter, who finally arrives in "Sacrifice of Angels" to neutralise Odo, and by proxy, the resistance movement on the station.
----
Edit: This post was initially published on 02.09.2016 03:33 UTC +0300 (01.09.2016 19:33 UTC -5). A minute or so later, I posted much of this text in a comment here.
I read a review of "The Die is Cast", an episode of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine", and the comments that accompanied the said review.
Two very widespread issues for many people who watched the episode, are Sisko disobeying orders to not go into the Gamma Quadrant to retrieve Odo, and Odo choosing to return to the station and not join the Great Link and return to his people -- something that he'd wanted to do for a long time.
Text in this post is licensed under Creative Commons-Attribution / CC-BY.
re Sisko not returning --
Commenter DLPB wrote, that one of the most serious crimes that a captain can commit, is neglect of comrades.Furthermore, Odo is a Changeling, the nature of which makes him a very valuable asset; his presence on the station is essentially Bajor's life insurance policy, and Sisko knows that very well. So does Odo, [spoiler—] especially when he chooses to stay on DS9 after the Dominion and Cardassians much later overran the station's defenses, and Sisko was forced to leave.
Lovok's reveal is the reason Odo finally chose instead to return to DS9, because he understood the danger that the Dominion posed to Bajor and the entire Alpha Quadrant. We should not forget, that Odo is an officer of Bajor.
Were he to join the Great Link right then and there, his adoptive home would have been left completely defenseless, and the other shapeshifters would have then been free to work their magic on DS9.
Because Odo's presence on Deep Space Nine meant, that the Dominion really could not use the station and Bajor as a springboard into the Alpha Quadrant (they could not attack either for fear of hitting Odo by accident), and therefore had to go past these places to use Dukat and the Cardassians to expand their galactic domination. This essentially bought some time for everyone. And the Alpha Quadrant.
Of course, Fake Lovok didn't like it, and that's why he chose to use the narrower definition of 'no Changeling has harmed another', in that he decided not to notify the Jem'Hadar to not shoot at (or even provide cover to) the runabout carrying Odo and Garak, who were attempting to escape the mêlée of a very intense space battle.
There's a high probability, that Odo has by then realised Fake Lovok's hypocrisy about the 'no harm' adage, because the runabout was repeatedly shot at, and lost its shields.
----
Many episodes later, we can actually see how palpable Odo's importance is during Dukat's occupation of Terek Nor, as Odo's presence alone causes Weyoun to defer to Odo (because like any other changeling, he's like a god to the Vorta) — much to the chagrin of Dukat and the annoyance of the Female Shapeshifter, who finally arrives in "Sacrifice of Angels" to neutralise Odo, and by proxy, the resistance movement on the station.
----
Edit: This post was initially published on 02.09.2016 03:33 UTC +0300 (01.09.2016 19:33 UTC -5). A minute or so later, I posted much of this text in a comment here.
neljapäev, 25. august 2016
Voyager: I really would have kept Kes
This is a comment to a poll post on Google+.
AFAIK, the powers that be introduced Seven, but then were short on money, so they had to remove either Kim or Kes, but Kim's actor was named one of "50 most beautiful people", and so it was Kes who had to leave.
Instead, I would have definitely kept Kes, but given the actress some time to recover from the stress of work during the show's hiatus.
And as one of "50 most beautiful people" that season, the actor who played Kim would have been easily lapped up by another show.
So, I would have certainly kept Kes as part of the primary cast, because Kes was the soul of the show. Imagine the friendship between Seven and Kes :-)
I would either have removed Kim, Neelix, and Chakotay (and maybe Tom) from the show, or at least from the primary cast, and given them recurring roles instead.
The PR spin would have been about keeping the show within budget.
And in-universe, there would have been a realistic story depicting discord within the crew about having a former Borg onboard, while at the same time they met USS Equinox or another old Starfleet ship.
Preferably, I really would have given the pink slip to Kim, but the episode "Nightingale" showed another potential future path for Kim et al.
AFAIK, the powers that be introduced Seven, but then were short on money, so they had to remove either Kim or Kes, but Kim's actor was named one of "50 most beautiful people", and so it was Kes who had to leave.
Instead, I would have definitely kept Kes, but given the actress some time to recover from the stress of work during the show's hiatus.
And as one of "50 most beautiful people" that season, the actor who played Kim would have been easily lapped up by another show.
So, I would have certainly kept Kes as part of the primary cast, because Kes was the soul of the show. Imagine the friendship between Seven and Kes :-)
I would either have removed Kim, Neelix, and Chakotay (and maybe Tom) from the show, or at least from the primary cast, and given them recurring roles instead.
The PR spin would have been about keeping the show within budget.
And in-universe, there would have been a realistic story depicting discord within the crew about having a former Borg onboard, while at the same time they met USS Equinox or another old Starfleet ship.
Preferably, I really would have given the pink slip to Kim, but the episode "Nightingale" showed another potential future path for Kim et al.
neljapäev, 4. august 2016
The Avalanches - Frankie Sinatra
In reply to a video comment thread —
The video (linked, of course, because I'm loth to embeds)
I heard this track first on the radio, so I knew ahead how mischievous the song was. But before I even saw the video (first time today), then every time I listened to it, I always imagined a travelling carnival of rogues and creeps, à la Carnivàle (which tv series I haven't seen yet either), along with Baz Luhrmann's "Moulin Rouge!", and a fair amount of Tim Burton's film/art, such as "Big Fish", "Batman Returns", and "Batman Forever".
The plot of the video is something of a mix of anything Stephen King would write, and what Tim Burton would readily direct.
The video (linked, of course, because I'm loth to embeds)
I heard this track first on the radio, so I knew ahead how mischievous the song was. But before I even saw the video (first time today), then every time I listened to it, I always imagined a travelling carnival of rogues and creeps, à la Carnivàle (which tv series I haven't seen yet either), along with Baz Luhrmann's "Moulin Rouge!", and a fair amount of Tim Burton's film/art, such as "Big Fish", "Batman Returns", and "Batman Forever".
The plot of the video is something of a mix of anything Stephen King would write, and what Tim Burton would readily direct.
kolmapäev, 3. august 2016
One. Drone. Voyager. Borg.
This is in reply to a thread in IMDb about actor Todd Babcock, who played in Star Trek: Voyager episode "Drone".In one of my earlier posts, I'd listed several cute guys on Voyager, and "Mulcahey" made the list.
In "Star Trek: Voyager", "Drone" is one of the show's best episodes, and it could have been the beginning of a longer arc, given that "One" was based on the DNA of Ensign Mulcahey (Babcock).
While "Drone" the episode was more-or-less whole, they could have expanded the storyline in order to explore the fact, that "One" and Ensign Mulcahey were essentially relatives, and this could have been the base for additional drama.
Since "One" was so valuable because of the superior technology he possessed, then USS Voyager running from the Borg could have been the leitmotif for at least half a season. The ending would have been somewhat predictable in the story arc's grand telemovie two- or three-parter, but at least it would have kept viewers on the edges of their seats, and given the series a substantial ratings boost.
Given all of the above, a much more complicated and expanded Delta Quadrant would have been on order.
I should be perplexed, that they didn't make this storyline at least into a two-parter, but the show's standard was to have self-contained episodes.
Todd Babcock looked good enough to be a regular on the series, and maybe even Seven's date and an eventual beau. Given the fact, that starship Voyager was already so far into deep space, it's not inconceivable to speculate, that Mulcahey might have already been in a relationship with someone.
In episode "Collective", Voyager encounters a Borg cube full of child drones, who have been rejected by the actual Borg Collective, because the young drones are immature, and therefore unimportant. The story ends with the destruction of the cube.
Given the presence of such a large cube, there are several flaws in the story:
In "Star Trek: Voyager", "Drone" is one of the show's best episodes, and it could have been the beginning of a longer arc, given that "One" was based on the DNA of Ensign Mulcahey (Babcock).
While "Drone" the episode was more-or-less whole, they could have expanded the storyline in order to explore the fact, that "One" and Ensign Mulcahey were essentially relatives, and this could have been the base for additional drama.
Since "One" was so valuable because of the superior technology he possessed, then USS Voyager running from the Borg could have been the leitmotif for at least half a season. The ending would have been somewhat predictable in the story arc's grand telemovie two- or three-parter, but at least it would have kept viewers on the edges of their seats, and given the series a substantial ratings boost.
Given all of the above, a much more complicated and expanded Delta Quadrant would have been on order.
I should be perplexed, that they didn't make this storyline at least into a two-parter, but the show's standard was to have self-contained episodes.
Todd Babcock looked good enough to be a regular on the series, and maybe even Seven's date and an eventual beau. Given the fact, that starship Voyager was already so far into deep space, it's not inconceivable to speculate, that Mulcahey might have already been in a relationship with someone.
In episode "Collective", Voyager encounters a Borg cube full of child drones, who have been rejected by the actual Borg Collective, because the young drones are immature, and therefore unimportant. The story ends with the destruction of the cube.
Given the presence of such a large cube, there are several flaws in the story:
- First off, Voyager could have gotten itself another transwarp drive from that cube, and gotten closer to home.
- Secondly, the writers could have chosen to have the cube disabled instead of destroyed by malfunction, and the cube could have been appropriated by the Voyager crew to accelerate their way home through hostile Borg territory (this can always be conjured up from hammerspace); essentially masking themselves as Borg in order to avoid assimilation and possible certain death.
laupäev, 9. juuli 2016
The Sisko and the burden of The Greater Good
This is a reply to a YouTube comment in a thread that was initially over the definition of "he (Sisko) can live with it" — a phrase from the last scene of "In the Pale Moonlight", an episode of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine". One poster interpreted 'living with it' as living with the burden of having done these things, thus indirectly attributing guilt to Sisko. I disagreed with that.
The episode shows Sisko's evolution from potentially becoming a continually-burdened man to not being one.
I guess, Sisko realised, that if he chose to be a burdened man, he would become ineffective as a leader, and especially as a war leader.
Sisko couldn't have done these things himself, because he had long ago adopted a certain value system, and was basically living it.
Had The Sisko done all those things on his own, he would have been court-martialed, if found out. He was also given a go-ahead by Starfleet Intelligence.
That's why Sisko went to Garak, because doing so allowed the Starfleet officer to skirt the rules in such a way that would not deeply compromise his conscience and his uniform.
Only he didn't know it yet until after finishing his personal log.
He 'could [finally] live with it' — without being burdened by it.
What Sisko and Garak did, was so wrong, it was right. (Perhaps I shouldn't be expressing it that way, but it sounds nice :-)
re Garak's conscience:
In "Afterimage", Garak seems to have developed PTSD because of this.
Edit: Updated wording and context. Sidelined some original text.
The episode shows Sisko's evolution from potentially becoming a continually-burdened man to not being one.
I guess, Sisko realised, that if he chose to be a burdened man, he would become ineffective as a leader, and especially as a war leader.
Sisko couldn't have done these things himself, because he had long ago adopted a certain value system, and was basically living it.
Had The Sisko done all those things on his own, he would have been court-martialed, if found out. He was also given a go-ahead by Starfleet Intelligence.
That's why Sisko went to Garak, because doing so allowed the Starfleet officer to skirt the rules in such a way that would not deeply compromise his conscience and his uniform.
Only he didn't know it yet until after finishing his personal log.
He 'could [finally] live with it' — without being burdened by it.
What Sisko and Garak did, was so wrong, it was right. (Perhaps I shouldn't be expressing it that way, but it sounds nice :-)
re Garak's conscience:
| Eventually, Garak began semi-officially working | |
| with the Federation and against the Dominion (officially allies of the Cardassian Union, but de facto governing it), which effort indirectly affected Cardassia and Garak's people. | Cardassia and his people. |
Edit: Updated wording and context. Sidelined some original text.
pühapäev, 5. juuni 2016
ID4. Aftermath.
Reply to thread post at "Independence Day: Resurgence" IMDb board. The post was interested about how reconstruction worked, and what could have been the changes in society.
My reply:
The POW thing is interesting, because I wouldn't be surprised, if a huge can of worms was not opened.
And also something to deal with how that alien society works. In 20 years, the surviving aliens must have had children, who never experienced living in space.
Omitted:
Sure, war stories must have been aplenty, but then how do you explain your children, that you lost a conflict? One option is, that they never told their offspring. But being all-telepathic, it's hard to imagine, that the kids wouldn't learn in time. Unless the surviving aliens completely isolated their children, or that the amount of offspring was too small to worry too much about what they would think.
OTOH, there's the nowadays' North Korea, where people truly believe, almost as a matter of religion, that they had an upper hand. Or that they're still the best thing ever. Dictatorships often rely on propagandistic belief systems that support such a rule.
The trailers suggest, that the first-wave aliens knew their stay was temporary, so I imagine the offspring might have been taught, that "oh, it's just temporary, we're leaving soon."
My reply:
The POW thing is interesting, because I wouldn't be surprised, if a huge can of worms was not opened.
And also something to deal with how that alien society works. In 20 years, the surviving aliens must have had children, who never experienced living in space.
Omitted:
Sure, war stories must have been aplenty, but then how do you explain your children, that you lost a conflict? One option is, that they never told their offspring. But being all-telepathic, it's hard to imagine, that the kids wouldn't learn in time. Unless the surviving aliens completely isolated their children, or that the amount of offspring was too small to worry too much about what they would think.
OTOH, there's the nowadays' North Korea, where people truly believe, almost as a matter of religion, that they had an upper hand. Or that they're still the best thing ever. Dictatorships often rely on propagandistic belief systems that support such a rule.
The trailers suggest, that the first-wave aliens knew their stay was temporary, so I imagine the offspring might have been taught, that "oh, it's just temporary, we're leaving soon."
pühapäev, 8. mai 2016
Sexualisation of Women in Star Trek. Then and Now.
This was originally a reply in Google+ to a comment that complained about Uhura's sexualisation in the new Star Trek movies.
With sexualisation I mean a sexualised depiction of women.
The fact, that Uhura never had a long-term on-screen relationship with anyone until 'Trek 2009, meant, that many viewers felt her character not bound to anyone.
Part of the ploy of any exotic production is to get enough non-fans to catch on to a show.
It's possible, that the sexualisation part might have been the reason why Ms. Nichols almost left the show, had Martin Luther King, Jr. not prevented her from actually doing so.
During the TOS era, Uhura wasn't any less sexualised by those days' mores, but visual stimulation did not appear unusual.
But because how Uhura was positioned, it was: "Wow, a black woman is part of the major cast! Fourth-in-command (MLK told Ms. Nichols how important that was)! She can fix radio equipment! Operate a difficult communications console! Play with frequencies!" All this was so huge, that people forgot, that the dress on Ms. Nichols was per fashion still very skimpy.
Now the progressive part of society is desensitised to the fact, that a black person and a woman is just as capable and even more so; cf. Mae Jemison.
Sexualisation of characters is not unusual now either, but as a (Western) society, we appropriate a different value system to it, because our expectations are higher.
With sexualisation I mean a sexualised depiction of women.
The fact, that Uhura never had a long-term on-screen relationship with anyone until 'Trek 2009, meant, that many viewers felt her character not bound to anyone.
Part of the ploy of any exotic production is to get enough non-fans to catch on to a show.
It's possible, that the sexualisation part might have been the reason why Ms. Nichols almost left the show, had Martin Luther King, Jr. not prevented her from actually doing so.
During the TOS era, Uhura wasn't any less sexualised by those days' mores, but visual stimulation did not appear unusual.
But because how Uhura was positioned, it was: "Wow, a black woman is part of the major cast! Fourth-in-command (MLK told Ms. Nichols how important that was)! She can fix radio equipment! Operate a difficult communications console! Play with frequencies!" All this was so huge, that people forgot, that the dress on Ms. Nichols was per fashion still very skimpy.
Now the progressive part of society is desensitised to the fact, that a black person and a woman is just as capable and even more so; cf. Mae Jemison.
Sexualisation of characters is not unusual now either, but as a (Western) society, we appropriate a different value system to it, because our expectations are higher.
I've been so late to Star Trek memorabilia
This was a reply in Google+ to a comment, which encouraged people not to go to watch any new Star Trek movies.
Well, unfortunately, the first 'Trek movie I saw in a cinema, was Into Darkness.
• My first physical Trek item was a keychain I got from my sister in 1995, who returned from a student trip to Florida. I loved the keychain, but after years of use, the appended Trek Star pendant was unable to hold itself onto the keychain, and is now lost somewhere. I still have the keychain part.
• My first 'Trek DVD is "Star Trek: Nemesis" (a present from a close relative).
• I bought my first and only Trek toy just a couple of years ago, and it was a small JJ-Enterprise by Hot Wheels.
I'm 34, and so late with all that fan stuff, though I've been a Trek fan since I first saw "Q Who?" on Finnish tv at a classmate's house.
And when I was a kid, I first heard of Star Trek in a hospital from an older kid (a teenager). It was the second or fourth time I was in a hospital, because I had had an ear infection (again). I still remember how he drew the outline of Enterprise-D, and said that people lived there and stuff. It was truly fascinating.
I can't exactly remember which year it was, but Estonia had not yet regained independence, and Finnish tv was officially verboten, but change was in the air already.
Not all people could see Finnish commercial tv channel MTV3 (launched in 1986), because their sets didn't have the "Finnish block" or "the Finnish antenna" (probably PAL support), but those that could see, salivated at all the yoghurt ads, and cried the most bitter tears for not having all that yummy goodness :9
Whilst we had the deficit. And there were block-long queues for sugar, for milk, for butter, for meat (any kind), for oranges (rare!),
for tangerines (only during holidays),
for bananas (the nomenklatura and the wives of Soviet officers could have a lot of everything from special shops meant for the nomenklatura, but bananas were on occasion sold to families with lots of children),
for cotton (important for the ladies),
for ciggies, for vodka, and for almost everything else.
Basically, anywhere you saw a queue, you joined it and then information about what people were standing in the queue for, was eventually passed down the grapevine. Like in that children's game of "Telephone" (-:
Well, unfortunately, the first 'Trek movie I saw in a cinema, was Into Darkness.
• My first physical Trek item was a keychain I got from my sister in 1995, who returned from a student trip to Florida. I loved the keychain, but after years of use, the appended Trek Star pendant was unable to hold itself onto the keychain, and is now lost somewhere. I still have the keychain part.
• My first 'Trek DVD is "Star Trek: Nemesis" (a present from a close relative).
• I bought my first and only Trek toy just a couple of years ago, and it was a small JJ-Enterprise by Hot Wheels.
I'm 34, and so late with all that fan stuff, though I've been a Trek fan since I first saw "Q Who?" on Finnish tv at a classmate's house.
And when I was a kid, I first heard of Star Trek in a hospital from an older kid (a teenager). It was the second or fourth time I was in a hospital, because I had had an ear infection (again). I still remember how he drew the outline of Enterprise-D, and said that people lived there and stuff. It was truly fascinating.
I can't exactly remember which year it was, but Estonia had not yet regained independence, and Finnish tv was officially verboten, but change was in the air already.
Not all people could see Finnish commercial tv channel MTV3 (launched in 1986), because their sets didn't have the "Finnish block" or "the Finnish antenna" (probably PAL support), but those that could see, salivated at all the yoghurt ads, and cried the most bitter tears for not having all that yummy goodness :9
Whilst we had the deficit. And there were block-long queues for sugar, for milk, for butter, for meat (any kind), for oranges (rare!),
for tangerines (only during holidays),
for bananas (the nomenklatura and the wives of Soviet officers could have a lot of everything from special shops meant for the nomenklatura, but bananas were on occasion sold to families with lots of children),
for cotton (important for the ladies),
for ciggies, for vodka, and for almost everything else.
Basically, anywhere you saw a queue, you joined it and then information about what people were standing in the queue for, was eventually passed down the grapevine. Like in that children's game of "Telephone" (-:
pühapäev, 10. aprill 2016
Handsome men of Voyager
Right, so, this was inspired by this tiny poll at Google+. Took me a while to compile the list.
I've looked through Memory Alpha's USS Voyager personnel list, and found 13 (yes, thirteen) men, who were handsome during Voyager's run.
Unfortunately, the hairdos of crewmen look particularly dated (oh wow, it was all 20+ years ago), and so it's impossible to tell if and how they would have looked more handsome with nowadays' hairdos.
Gleaned from USS Voyager Personnel at Memory Alpha wiki. I'm not going to include pictures, but I might link to more of them sometime later.
Listed in no particular order:
I'll also give some benefit of the doubt to Ensign Rollins.
Oh, Neelix, Jonas, Carey, Vorik, Chell, Golwat, and Lon Suder, and most everyone else do not count. So, Very few from Memory Alpha's Voyager personnel list look appealing. And all their hairdos look heavily dated.
Icheb doesn't count.
I've looked through Memory Alpha's USS Voyager personnel list, and found 13 (yes, thirteen) men, who were handsome during Voyager's run.
Unfortunately, the hairdos of crewmen look particularly dated (oh wow, it was all 20+ years ago), and so it's impossible to tell if and how they would have looked more handsome with nowadays' hairdos.
Gleaned from USS Voyager Personnel at Memory Alpha wiki. I'm not going to include pictures, but I might link to more of them sometime later.
Listed in no particular order:
- Crewman Yosa;
- Ensign Bennet (KIA);
- Doug Bronowski and Fitzpatrick (same uncredited actor);
- Crewman Emmanuel;
- Crewman James Morrow;
- Ensign Mulcahey — Cute.. Oh, he played the DNA donor to One in "Drone";
- Ensign Murphy (security);
- Ensign Michael Parsons (Command Division);
- Ensign Tabor (Maquis, Bajoran);
- Crewman William Telfer (giving him some benefit of the doubt there);
- An Unnamed male security officer accompanying Chakotay to the Borgified cargo room in "Scorpion, Part II" — I always remember that he stood out during that sequence;
- Chief Medical Officer (KIA)
- Unnamed Male Science Officer, who was previously handsome as one Roga Danar in TNG.
I'll also give some benefit of the doubt to Ensign Rollins.
Oh, Neelix, Jonas, Carey, Vorik, Chell, Golwat, and Lon Suder, and most everyone else do not count. So, Very few from Memory Alpha's Voyager personnel list look appealing. And all their hairdos look heavily dated.
Icheb doesn't count.
There wasn't any other place I could post than this blog. Memory Alpha has a non-commercial license, and there might be issues with such a userspace page; and a similar userpage at Wikipedia would have relevancy issues.
This post is licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0.
pühapäev, 28. veebruar 2016
Tangerines. The turning of tables.
Warning: This blogpost contains major spoilers, and assumes you've already seen the Estonian-Georgian film Tangerines.
In a recent IMDb post, a user wondered, if Ahmed had grown to like Niko a lot, which caused Ahmed to shoot the Russians. Here's my response:
(As was specified in the post's thread, it was only heavily implied that these were Russians, because it's not said so on-screen.)
And so, near the end, Ahmed was playing his part as he did before (covering for Niko), but the Russians were actively provoking Ahmed (who had been fighting as a mercenary on their side), and were very disrespectful towards him, because they didn't believe that he was a Chechen and on their side.
As far as I could see, they were ready to kill Ahmed anyway, but then Niko intervened, and then Ahmed killed the Russians.
So, it wasn't because Ahmed had grown close to Niko, but that in the nick of time, Niko saved Ahmed's life, and they had to protect themselves and their hosts Ivo and Margus.
Before things went downhill, Ivo had thought that he could de-escalate the situation as he did before, but Niko saw from the window, that these weren't mercenaries, so he essentially knew better.
All in all, it didn't end well in the film.
As it is, it's a fairly realistic film about war, because death happens, and usually, both sides lose in one or another way. Or that neither side wins convincingly.
While it's not rare, that one of the parties wins, then recent history has shown, that a definite victory does not happen often. That's why it's called a win, because chances are, that one could lose, too. The victors may realize the subsequent loss only after war ends, and after some time has passed to reflect on the events; especially, if it was not a just war.
In a recent IMDb post, a user wondered, if Ahmed had grown to like Niko a lot, which caused Ahmed to shoot the Russians. Here's my response:
(As was specified in the post's thread, it was only heavily implied that these were Russians, because it's not said so on-screen.)
And so, near the end, Ahmed was playing his part as he did before (covering for Niko), but the Russians were actively provoking Ahmed (who had been fighting as a mercenary on their side), and were very disrespectful towards him, because they didn't believe that he was a Chechen and on their side.
As far as I could see, they were ready to kill Ahmed anyway, but then Niko intervened, and then Ahmed killed the Russians.
So, it wasn't because Ahmed had grown close to Niko, but that in the nick of time, Niko saved Ahmed's life, and they had to protect themselves and their hosts Ivo and Margus.
Before things went downhill, Ivo had thought that he could de-escalate the situation as he did before, but Niko saw from the window, that these weren't mercenaries, so he essentially knew better.
All in all, it didn't end well in the film.
As it is, it's a fairly realistic film about war, because death happens, and usually, both sides lose in one or another way. Or that neither side wins convincingly.
While it's not rare, that one of the parties wins, then recent history has shown, that a definite victory does not happen often. That's why it's called a win, because chances are, that one could lose, too. The victors may realize the subsequent loss only after war ends, and after some time has passed to reflect on the events; especially, if it was not a just war.
laupäev, 9. jaanuar 2016
ID4/IDR: Economy during the interwar period
This is just a speculation, and mostly a reply to an IMDb thread post about Independence Day: Resurgence.
The first IDR trailer is out since December, but the film won't be out before Summer 2016.
The post started out, that the economy would tank, and the many U.S. carmakers would go bankrupt and would cease to exist.
I think the government(s) would have bailed out any and all carmakers, because they manufacture transport vehicles, which are crucial to rebuilding the infrastructure. Really important manufacturing locations are also kept away from large population centres.
For a short while, the model selection would be either less varied or less luxurious overall, and based on what parts are available at any time. Basically, a logistics's nightmare.
The production emphasis would have reoriented towards making parts for existing cars, and manufacturing transport and military vehicles. Cargo transport is actually more important, as it's responsible for supplies of, like, everything.
Because of petrol shortages, commuter transport in the U.S. would become very widespread. Trams, trolleybuses, trains, etc. would be more prevalent; provided there'd be enough electricity available. I haven't specifically mentioned petrol-based buses, because the military infrastructure would take those off city lines at any time for their own purposes.
Reverse-engineering alien tech can also help. It seems that they did a lot of that presumably under the U.S. aegis, as the world united.
After WWII, the Soviet war loot (aka contributions) from Germany — including a number of German scientists — allowed the Soviet Union to keep up technological parity to some extent until about mid-to-late 1970s, when self-imposed isolation (and some export restrictions) allowed the split between the West and the Soviet sphere to became more visible.
'Common-mold' products would be more widespread. People would certainly splurge less, and concentrate more on essentials, such as food, medicine, clothes and maintentance of creature comforts. Interestingly, lots of manufacturing would not have been moved to China.
Of important note is, that in 1996, many companies that were supposed to rely on redundant tech, had not made any, or had not finished deploying backup contingencies that were done during the onset of Y2K. If the ID4 situation had happened on 9/11 instead, the U.S. and many other countries would have been better-prepared to recover. (As it happened, many companies continued running on 9/11, because their tech infrastructure switched to using backup locations.)
Presumably, there would very likely be a holdout of people who would never use alien-based tech, and they would even try to maintain and improve native technologies. The Amish might probably be an example of that. So I wouldn't be surprised, if many of the common people would have chosen to only keep [consumer] tech from 1996 and somewhat before. Nowadays in the real world, there are people who make this a lifestyle choice to live like people once did in 1950s, 1960s, and 1980s even.
Locations that were not as affected by alien attacks, would be burdened with supplying food and medicine and everything else. There would be rationing until after production rates would have recovered to sufficient levels.
The state of refugees and internally displaced persons would be something akin to what Syrians and Iraqis are experiencing.
And then there's the question of what happened to some of the aliens that crashed. The trailer and the War of 1996 website suggest that some concentrated in Congo.
Update: The IDR website does get occasional updates, so the story along the timeline evolves.
As with any movie website, The War of 1996 site uses the latest technologies; so, compared to most other sites, it's obviously one of those that have actual system requirements with regard to hardware and sofware. More about that is detailed in a post in my technology-oriented blog.
The first IDR trailer is out since December, but the film won't be out before Summer 2016.
The post started out, that the economy would tank, and the many U.S. carmakers would go bankrupt and would cease to exist.
I think the government(s) would have bailed out any and all carmakers, because they manufacture transport vehicles, which are crucial to rebuilding the infrastructure. Really important manufacturing locations are also kept away from large population centres.
For a short while, the model selection would be either less varied or less luxurious overall, and based on what parts are available at any time. Basically, a logistics's nightmare.
The production emphasis would have reoriented towards making parts for existing cars, and manufacturing transport and military vehicles. Cargo transport is actually more important, as it's responsible for supplies of, like, everything.
Because of petrol shortages, commuter transport in the U.S. would become very widespread. Trams, trolleybuses, trains, etc. would be more prevalent; provided there'd be enough electricity available. I haven't specifically mentioned petrol-based buses, because the military infrastructure would take those off city lines at any time for their own purposes.
Reverse-engineering alien tech can also help. It seems that they did a lot of that presumably under the U.S. aegis, as the world united.
After WWII, the Soviet war loot (aka contributions) from Germany — including a number of German scientists — allowed the Soviet Union to keep up technological parity to some extent until about mid-to-late 1970s, when self-imposed isolation (and some export restrictions) allowed the split between the West and the Soviet sphere to became more visible.
'Common-mold' products would be more widespread. People would certainly splurge less, and concentrate more on essentials, such as food, medicine, clothes and maintentance of creature comforts. Interestingly, lots of manufacturing would not have been moved to China.
Of important note is, that in 1996, many companies that were supposed to rely on redundant tech, had not made any, or had not finished deploying backup contingencies that were done during the onset of Y2K. If the ID4 situation had happened on 9/11 instead, the U.S. and many other countries would have been better-prepared to recover. (As it happened, many companies continued running on 9/11, because their tech infrastructure switched to using backup locations.)
Presumably, there would very likely be a holdout of people who would never use alien-based tech, and they would even try to maintain and improve native technologies. The Amish might probably be an example of that. So I wouldn't be surprised, if many of the common people would have chosen to only keep [consumer] tech from 1996 and somewhat before. Nowadays in the real world, there are people who make this a lifestyle choice to live like people once did in 1950s, 1960s, and 1980s even.
Locations that were not as affected by alien attacks, would be burdened with supplying food and medicine and everything else. There would be rationing until after production rates would have recovered to sufficient levels.
The state of refugees and internally displaced persons would be something akin to what Syrians and Iraqis are experiencing.
And then there's the question of what happened to some of the aliens that crashed. The trailer and the War of 1996 website suggest that some concentrated in Congo.
Update: The IDR website does get occasional updates, so the story along the timeline evolves.
As with any movie website, The War of 1996 site uses the latest technologies; so, compared to most other sites, it's obviously one of those that have actual system requirements with regard to hardware and sofware. More about that is detailed in a post in my technology-oriented blog.
pühapäev, 21. juuni 2015
How we remember a movie
In reply to this post on IMDb
I've never seen the original Jurassic Park film at the cinema, so I think I finally saw it on tv once. But then seeing that film turned out to be such a non-event, that I probably forgot that I ever saw it whole, and so mostly remember getting to see it in parts in my old home. It's as if seeing the original did not make any impression on me. Except "It's a UNIX system! I know this!".
I kinda think that this may be related to how one watches films, and whether it's alone or with someone, and then also where and in which setting. When I see a particular film or documentary at home, then I take the time to watch it, and invest the necessary mental resources to think along.
Another interesting point is whether I've consumed any similar [visual] content on the same day: Of the two movies I might have seen in a day, which one of these will I remember seeing? Will I remember one or the other, or the one I saw later?
I've never seen the original Jurassic Park film at the cinema, so I think I finally saw it on tv once. But then seeing that film turned out to be such a non-event, that I probably forgot that I ever saw it whole, and so mostly remember getting to see it in parts in my old home. It's as if seeing the original did not make any impression on me. Except "It's a UNIX system! I know this!".
I kinda think that this may be related to how one watches films, and whether it's alone or with someone, and then also where and in which setting. When I see a particular film or documentary at home, then I take the time to watch it, and invest the necessary mental resources to think along.
Another interesting point is whether I've consumed any similar [visual] content on the same day: Of the two movies I might have seen in a day, which one of these will I remember seeing? Will I remember one or the other, or the one I saw later?
kolmapäev, 10. juuli 2013
Independence Day and the gays
This is in reply to a forum post on IMDb.
There was Capt. Jimmy Wilder (Harry Connick, Jr.), a fighter pilot and best buddy of Hiller (Will Smith). Wilder is used as this "fun sidekick", but is never directly said to be gay, despite sometimes unintentionally creating or getting into gay situations, including his on-screen mannerisms that suggested gayness. Because of the ambiguity around Wilder's sexuality, the gays can take it that Wilder was gay, and straight people can argue that he wasn't, and that he was just comic relief.
Yet the characterization of Wilder showed him as gay to the best of my mind, then two years into Don't Ask Don't Tell (at which time I didn't know anything about), so he was the non-offensive gay character to me, despite all the ambiguity.
The end result is that I remember that for a very long time this was the only big sci-fi blockbuster that featured gays in a positive light in the military, or anywhere at all in the movie space of the genre. Wilder was then killed, and Smith was outraged. And that was that.
In conclusion, the scene between Wilder and Hiller of the proposal that wasn't was one of the cutest in the movie.
There was Capt. Jimmy Wilder (Harry Connick, Jr.), a fighter pilot and best buddy of Hiller (Will Smith). Wilder is used as this "fun sidekick", but is never directly said to be gay, despite sometimes unintentionally creating or getting into gay situations, including his on-screen mannerisms that suggested gayness. Because of the ambiguity around Wilder's sexuality, the gays can take it that Wilder was gay, and straight people can argue that he wasn't, and that he was just comic relief.
Yet the characterization of Wilder showed him as gay to the best of my mind, then two years into Don't Ask Don't Tell (at which time I didn't know anything about), so he was the non-offensive gay character to me, despite all the ambiguity.
The end result is that I remember that for a very long time this was the only big sci-fi blockbuster that featured gays in a positive light in the military, or anywhere at all in the movie space of the genre. Wilder was then killed, and Smith was outraged. And that was that.
In conclusion, the scene between Wilder and Hiller of the proposal that wasn't was one of the cutest in the movie.
kolmapäev, 26. juuni 2013
Independence Day 2. What might have happened in-between
This was in reply to a similar post in IMDb, a post which speculated on what might have happened in the 15-odd years on Earth since the events set in "Independence Day" (1996). Because IMDb forums for a movie or personality are cleaned up from time to time, I've decided to simultaneously publish this here along with the reply on IMDb.
Disclaimer: This blogpost does not contain spoilers to the movie, because I am not aware of its actual content.
My favourite ideas revolve around relations between humans and surviving aliens from the first war.
Of the surviving party (parties), there would be at least two or three 'factions', put this way:
* Those that want to destroy humanity and much of Earth and reconnect with whatever future mothership comes. These would be fighters and their ilk (the alien hard-liners);
* Those who somehow automagically decide that humans are worth something, too, and the Earth preserving.
* And maybe those that kinda-sorta like Earth, but not humans, only that they can't do much about it. The undecided (?).
It's possible that maybe one of the city-ships somehow survived to the point that it's established a state-like territory on its own, but that the ship itself is unable to become airborne. Maybe there are more than one and each has formed a different faction and attitude towards Earth and humanity.
Then the structure of the alien society: What was it like before, during, and after the invasion?
Then the very serious problems around whether and how to integrate surviving aliens into society (à la "Alien Nation", but it wouldn't work out like that anyway) — Because if we're better than them, then we can't just kill them all off. I'm aware it's very pacifist and stuff.
And then about how humans treat or mistreat the surviving aliens — look at Guantánamo; and would there even be trials? Does the whole species need to be convicted, or just the ones who set the agenda? How do you find out the surviving alien leaders (given that they all seem to look alike), and whether there are any, if the social structure and ways of communication are so different?
It's likely that humans and (former) invaders would mostly feel mutually repelled by one another and keep up some form of segregation ("District 9"). Would be interesting to know if that's in the new movie.
Then all the issues wrt biocontamination. Organic as they all are, there must be observable changes in Earth's nature. Did the first strikes also hit nuclear plants and was there any fallout and thus any possibility of a nuclear winter? Then I'd imagine the use of cars with internal combustion engines has perhaps lessened alot first due to destruction of major population centres and because of new technology.
The idea of a third and fourth species is also very intersting, given that a large explosion in space can be noticed by a civilization with at least similar advancement.
Oh, the "Pocahontas" scenario of two kindred spirits meeting one another would never work. No, no. But I wouldn't rule out several accidental hybrids. There's a possibility that if some alien surviors managed to form a workable faction within the confines of their previous social structure, then they might have made several experiments with human survivors until releasing one or more, or even a group of human-alien hybrids. And I suppose those in turn would have very dangerous properties. Maybe alien-human infiltrators.
Then what has happened to different human societies on Earth. Suppose some states rebuild and develop military technology, but at the cost of freedom. Some countries decide to keep individual freedoms, but maybe or maybe not risk being less secure. Or countries who decide not to adopt alien technologies and develop native technologies (Not Invented Here syndrome), or countries that don't want to sacrifice freedoms and develop slower and on their own pace compared to those that might sacrifice freedoms and might want to adopt all the latest alien tech.
Disclaimer: This blogpost does not contain spoilers to the movie, because I am not aware of its actual content.
My favourite ideas revolve around relations between humans and surviving aliens from the first war.
Of the surviving party (parties), there would be at least two or three 'factions', put this way:
* Those that want to destroy humanity and much of Earth and reconnect with whatever future mothership comes. These would be fighters and their ilk (the alien hard-liners);
* Those who somehow automagically decide that humans are worth something, too, and the Earth preserving.
* And maybe those that kinda-sorta like Earth, but not humans, only that they can't do much about it. The undecided (?).
It's possible that maybe one of the city-ships somehow survived to the point that it's established a state-like territory on its own, but that the ship itself is unable to become airborne. Maybe there are more than one and each has formed a different faction and attitude towards Earth and humanity.
Then the structure of the alien society: What was it like before, during, and after the invasion?
Then the very serious problems around whether and how to integrate surviving aliens into society (à la "Alien Nation", but it wouldn't work out like that anyway) — Because if we're better than them, then we can't just kill them all off. I'm aware it's very pacifist and stuff.
And then about how humans treat or mistreat the surviving aliens — look at Guantánamo; and would there even be trials? Does the whole species need to be convicted, or just the ones who set the agenda? How do you find out the surviving alien leaders (given that they all seem to look alike), and whether there are any, if the social structure and ways of communication are so different?
It's likely that humans and (former) invaders would mostly feel mutually repelled by one another and keep up some form of segregation ("District 9"). Would be interesting to know if that's in the new movie.
Then all the issues wrt biocontamination. Organic as they all are, there must be observable changes in Earth's nature. Did the first strikes also hit nuclear plants and was there any fallout and thus any possibility of a nuclear winter? Then I'd imagine the use of cars with internal combustion engines has perhaps lessened alot first due to destruction of major population centres and because of new technology.
The idea of a third and fourth species is also very intersting, given that a large explosion in space can be noticed by a civilization with at least similar advancement.
Oh, the "Pocahontas" scenario of two kindred spirits meeting one another would never work. No, no. But I wouldn't rule out several accidental hybrids. There's a possibility that if some alien surviors managed to form a workable faction within the confines of their previous social structure, then they might have made several experiments with human survivors until releasing one or more, or even a group of human-alien hybrids. And I suppose those in turn would have very dangerous properties. Maybe alien-human infiltrators.
Then what has happened to different human societies on Earth. Suppose some states rebuild and develop military technology, but at the cost of freedom. Some countries decide to keep individual freedoms, but maybe or maybe not risk being less secure. Or countries who decide not to adopt alien technologies and develop native technologies (Not Invented Here syndrome), or countries that don't want to sacrifice freedoms and develop slower and on their own pace compared to those that might sacrifice freedoms and might want to adopt all the latest alien tech.
Tellimine:
Postitused (Atom)