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.
neljapäev, 25. august 2016
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, 30. juuli 2016
'Dying too young', or 'not having lived long enough'
Jerry Doyle, who played "Michael Garibaldi" in Babylon 5, died recently.
People often write of famous (and non-famous) people who have recently passed away, that they died too young.
It's all relative.
60 is not too young; half a century ago, it was the average lifespan for many people in the industrialised world. Since occurence of such a lifespan still falls within living memory, then it's not too surprising.
For me, anything less than sixty would elicit a 'shucks, they might have done more great things', and that 'they died [well] before their time'. — When they died, Philip Seymour Hoffman was 46, Prince was 57, Whitney Houston was 48, and her daughter Bobbi Kristina Brown was just 22. The people who were killed at the Orlando shooting were also too young.
The feels are different wrt people over 60 who have continued to be creative. Robin Williams was 63, and it feels to me, like he died too young. David Bowie was 69.
With loved ones who are old, we don't think of them anymore as having died too young, but that they haven't lived long enough. With us. 24.04.2023 Update: More people have died before their time than ever before. Before 2022, many succumbed to the coronavirus, starting with the year 2020. Many of the pandemic-related losses in life were of health causes that could have been delayed, had COVID-19 not introduced its own massive delays in the healthcare systems of all the countries. Before 2020, most of the people who'd passed away, were usually old, so the death of a much younger person always so untimely. On the year of the original publication of this post, two major personalities died: George Michael on 25. and Carrie Fisher on 27. december. Not a lot of time had passed, when Chester Bennington died the next year, on 20.07.2017. Aaron Carter on 5 November 2022. They were all too young to die. Alos, a lovely thank you to the commenter below.
People often write of famous (and non-famous) people who have recently passed away, that they died too young.
It's all relative.
60 is not too young; half a century ago, it was the average lifespan for many people in the industrialised world. Since occurence of such a lifespan still falls within living memory, then it's not too surprising.
For me, anything less than sixty would elicit a 'shucks, they might have done more great things', and that 'they died [well] before their time'. — When they died, Philip Seymour Hoffman was 46, Prince was 57, Whitney Houston was 48, and her daughter Bobbi Kristina Brown was just 22. The people who were killed at the Orlando shooting were also too young.
The feels are different wrt people over 60 who have continued to be creative. Robin Williams was 63, and it feels to me, like he died too young. David Bowie was 69.
With loved ones who are old, we don't think of them anymore as having died too young, but that they haven't lived long enough. With us. 24.04.2023 Update: More people have died before their time than ever before. Before 2022, many succumbed to the coronavirus, starting with the year 2020. Many of the pandemic-related losses in life were of health causes that could have been delayed, had COVID-19 not introduced its own massive delays in the healthcare systems of all the countries. Before 2020, most of the people who'd passed away, were usually old, so the death of a much younger person always so untimely. On the year of the original publication of this post, two major personalities died: George Michael on 25. and Carrie Fisher on 27. december. Not a lot of time had passed, when Chester Bennington died the next year, on 20.07.2017. Aaron Carter on 5 November 2022. They were all too young to die. Alos, a lovely thank you to the commenter below.
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.
teisipäev, 5. juuli 2016
Brexit. Mis edasi?
Disclaimer: Kirjutatud veidi kiiruga, mitte kõik pole faktiliselt tõendatud, ning võib olla suures osas spekulatsioon.
Ühendkuningriik pole Euroopa Liidust lahkumise läbirääkimisi veel alustanudki, kui kõik juba jagavad nahka veel enne seda kui küttima on mindud. Kõik.
Arvan, et muuhulgas olid mängu taga nüüdsed Brexiti suured väikesed toetajad Boris Johnson ja Michael Gove, aga mängutegelasi oli kindlasti veelgi. Sest tooride alus logises juba 2013. aastal, ning Cameron tuli siis ühe USA lennujaama pitsabaaris hiilgavale mõttele võita üldvalimised lubadusega Euroopa Liidu referendumist. Parteipoliitika, noh.
Cameron tegi selle referendumi tegelikult selleks, et konsolideerida konservatiivide parteid, aga lõpupoole, kui valimispäev polnud mitte kaugel enam, lõid omad parteikaaslased Boris Johnson ja Michael Gove Cameronile selga sellega, et hakkasid tõsimeeli toetama lahkumise ehk Brexiti poolt olevat kampaaniat.
Õieti, kui referendumi kõikidele üllatuslikud tulemused lõpuks selgusid, sai Cameron kogu olukorrast lõpuks aru ja esitas lahkumisavalduse. Et formaalselt lahkub ametist oktoobris, mil partei valib peale parlamendi suvevaheaega uue peaministri.
Selle käigu tulemusel sai selgeks, et Londoni endine linnapea Boris Johnson põhimõtteliselt kaotas kogu mängu, sest järgmise peaministrina oleks UK lahkumist vedama pidanud näiteks tema, ning seesama Boris Johnson EL-ist tegelikult lahkuda ei taha.
Kuna Boris Johnson [erinevatel (ülaltoodud) põhjustel] "jäi aiast välja", siis hakkas nüüd juba peale referendumit aktiivset peaministri-kampaaniat tegema Michael Gove, kes on seevastu Brexiti-usklik (sahistatakse lausa, et Gove nö "suskas" omakorda Johnsonile).
Loodetavasti saab järgmiseks peaministriks hoopis Theresa May, kes oli kogu Brexiti-referendumikampaania ajal tagaplaanil, ehk ei teinud ühe või teise argumendi poolt avaldusi. Mitte et uus positsioon May'legi väga meeldiv oleks, aga temast paistab olevat seda meelekindlust, millega see laevuke kuidagimoodi liikuma saada.
Võib võita, et kuna lahkumisreferendumi tulemused osutusid brittide jaoks nii ebameeldivaks, hakkavad nad sellega nüüd kummi venitama.
Kaks aastat lahkumisprotsessi hakkab jooksma alates sellest hetkest, kui uus Briti valitsus on teinud Euroopa Liidule ametlikult teatavaks, et tahab ära minna.
Seni on Ühendkuningriik sees mis sees (ehk siis Euroopa Liidus) ega niipea veel ei lahku.
Euroopa Liidu poliitikute kõrgeim ešelon on muidugi tulivihane, et britid referendumi üldse tegid ja et inglased lahkumise poolt veel ka hääletasid. Lõpuks avastati, et kõikidele teistele EL-i liikmesriikidele ja nende valitud ja määratud poliitikutele jääb väiksemas liidus nii võimu rohkem juurde, kui UK-d enam juures pole. Non Pas?
Seega tahavad mõned EL-i liidrid alustada lahkumisläbirääkimistega nüüd ja kohe, sest nende tõlgendust mööda on Ühendkuningriik oma lahkumisavalduse referendumi näol juba teinud. Õnneks vajutas Merkel pidurit.
Kaugel ei terenda ka uus Šoti referendum Ühendkuningriigist lahkumiseks, sest eelmise referendumi tulemustel jäädi UK-sse vaid seetõttu, et UK on Euroopa Liidu liige. Šotimaa esimene minister Nicola Sturgeon juba peab läbirääkimisi Euroopa Liiduga.
Niipalju siis praeguseks.
Ühendkuningriik pole Euroopa Liidust lahkumise läbirääkimisi veel alustanudki, kui kõik juba jagavad nahka veel enne seda kui küttima on mindud. Kõik.
Mis siis toimus?
Päris alguses oli nii, et tooride seas tegivad kulisside taga mitu erilist isiksust kõvasti kampaaniat, et ise peaminister David Cameroni asemel peaministriks saada.Arvan, et muuhulgas olid mängu taga nüüdsed Brexiti suured väikesed toetajad Boris Johnson ja Michael Gove, aga mängutegelasi oli kindlasti veelgi. Sest tooride alus logises juba 2013. aastal, ning Cameron tuli siis ühe USA lennujaama pitsabaaris hiilgavale mõttele võita üldvalimised lubadusega Euroopa Liidu referendumist. Parteipoliitika, noh.
Cameron tegi selle referendumi tegelikult selleks, et konsolideerida konservatiivide parteid, aga lõpupoole, kui valimispäev polnud mitte kaugel enam, lõid omad parteikaaslased Boris Johnson ja Michael Gove Cameronile selga sellega, et hakkasid tõsimeeli toetama lahkumise ehk Brexiti poolt olevat kampaaniat.
Õieti, kui referendumi kõikidele üllatuslikud tulemused lõpuks selgusid, sai Cameron kogu olukorrast lõpuks aru ja esitas lahkumisavalduse. Et formaalselt lahkub ametist oktoobris, mil partei valib peale parlamendi suvevaheaega uue peaministri.
Selle käigu tulemusel sai selgeks, et Londoni endine linnapea Boris Johnson põhimõtteliselt kaotas kogu mängu, sest järgmise peaministrina oleks UK lahkumist vedama pidanud näiteks tema, ning seesama Boris Johnson EL-ist tegelikult lahkuda ei taha.
Mis nüüd saab?
Järgmine peaminister
Mis järgmisesse (veel) UK peaministrisse puutub, siis peaminister David Cameron jättis Euroopa Liidust lahkumise järgmise peaministri teha, ning Cameroni enda väljakäidud ajaplaani järgi selgub järgmine peaminister alles sügisel oktoobrikuus 2016, kui toorid teevad parteis sisevalimised, sest parlamendi eelmiste valimistulemuste järgi peab järgmine peaminister olema samuti konservatiiv. Alles siis saab uus peaminister teha mingi avalduse, et "noh, et lahkume nüüd," vms.Kuna Boris Johnson [erinevatel (ülaltoodud) põhjustel] "jäi aiast välja", siis hakkas nüüd juba peale referendumit aktiivset peaministri-kampaaniat tegema Michael Gove, kes on seevastu Brexiti-usklik (sahistatakse lausa, et Gove nö "suskas" omakorda Johnsonile).
Loodetavasti saab järgmiseks peaministriks hoopis Theresa May, kes oli kogu Brexiti-referendumikampaania ajal tagaplaanil, ehk ei teinud ühe või teise argumendi poolt avaldusi. Mitte et uus positsioon May'legi väga meeldiv oleks, aga temast paistab olevat seda meelekindlust, millega see laevuke kuidagimoodi liikuma saada.
Võib võita, et kuna lahkumisreferendumi tulemused osutusid brittide jaoks nii ebameeldivaks, hakkavad nad sellega nüüd kummi venitama.
Kaks aastat lahkumisprotsessi hakkab jooksma alates sellest hetkest, kui uus Briti valitsus on teinud Euroopa Liidule ametlikult teatavaks, et tahab ära minna.
Seni on Ühendkuningriik sees mis sees (ehk siis Euroopa Liidus) ega niipea veel ei lahku.
Euroopa Liidu poliitikute kõrgeim ešelon on muidugi tulivihane, et britid referendumi üldse tegid ja et inglased lahkumise poolt veel ka hääletasid. Lõpuks avastati, et kõikidele teistele EL-i liikmesriikidele ja nende valitud ja määratud poliitikutele jääb väiksemas liidus nii võimu rohkem juurde, kui UK-d enam juures pole. Non Pas?
Seega tahavad mõned EL-i liidrid alustada lahkumisläbirääkimistega nüüd ja kohe, sest nende tõlgendust mööda on Ühendkuningriik oma lahkumisavalduse referendumi näol juba teinud. Õnneks vajutas Merkel pidurit.
Võimalikud takistused
Lisaks leiti UK-s mitu seaduseauku lahkumise vastu: Esiteks peab lahkumise kinnitama Briti parlament, ning teiseks peaksid lahkumise kinnitama ka šotlased, sest Šotimaal on nimelt oma parlament. Täiesti võimalik, et järgmine peaminister kuulutab välja hoopis erakorralised üldvalimised.Võimalikud haruarengud
Et ei tekiks mingeid rahutusi Põhja-Iirimaal, võib seal toimuda Iiri Vabariigiga ühinemise referendum.Kaugel ei terenda ka uus Šoti referendum Ühendkuningriigist lahkumiseks, sest eelmise referendumi tulemustel jäädi UK-sse vaid seetõttu, et UK on Euroopa Liidu liige. Šotimaa esimene minister Nicola Sturgeon juba peab läbirääkimisi Euroopa Liiduga.
Niipalju siis praeguseks.
pühapäev, 5. juuni 2016
The WTC Twin Towers to be (re)built in the future?
Published here first in reply to a post on IMDB.
I don't really know what the motivation was for the construction of the current One World Trade Center instead of building the new Twin Towers with only the same exterior design as the original.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One World Trade Center#Current_building does suggest a few things in terms of politics. The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) and state governor Pataki picked what more-or-less became the current design. I don't know why. Larry Silverstein, who owns the site, also favoured a memorial.
The destruction of the original Twin Towers provided designers That major new real estate had to be built anyway to supplant the lost real estate, the designers thus got a chance to build a one much taller tower, with just the same amount of habitable floors and real estate as in one of the original towers.
I personally don't rule out the possibility, that the Twin Towers with the original exterior design would eventually return, but that they would return only after all the six or seven other major buildings and major minor buildings will have been built. The latter also have several dependencies.
This map gives a clue of the stuff that's going on. Here, the new buildings complement existing buildings to the west. Once complete, they all should more-or-less fully surround the old site.
The sortable table here offers the current construction status of all buildings involved on the site. Sort by date of completion, and you'll see how far along the project is going. So far, 3 Word Trade Center is under construction, and will be done in about 2018 or so. Construction of 2WTC is on hold because of a lack of tenants.
I don't really know what the motivation was for the construction of the current One World Trade Center instead of building the new Twin Towers with only the same exterior design as the original.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One World Trade Center#Current_building does suggest a few things in terms of politics. The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) and state governor Pataki picked what more-or-less became the current design. I don't know why. Larry Silverstein, who owns the site, also favoured a memorial.
I personally don't rule out the possibility, that the Twin Towers with the original exterior design would eventually return, but that they would return only after all the six or seven other major buildings and major minor buildings will have been built. The latter also have several dependencies.
This map gives a clue of the stuff that's going on. Here, the new buildings complement existing buildings to the west. Once complete, they all should more-or-less fully surround the old site.
The sortable table here offers the current construction status of all buildings involved on the site. Sort by date of completion, and you'll see how far along the project is going. So far, 3 Word Trade Center is under construction, and will be done in about 2018 or so. Construction of 2WTC is on hold because of a lack of tenants.
Tellimine:
Postitused (Atom)