NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you remember the episode name?

No but I just now found it on the web:
Body And Soul: "While in the Delta Flyer The Doctor, Harry Kim and Seven of Nine come under attack for transporting a hologram through Lokirrim space - an act which is strictly forbidden. To hide the doctor, Seven of Nine downloads him into her cybernetic implants shortly before they are taken to a Lokirrim holding cell. On board Voyager, Tuvok enters Pon Farr."

Trek series love episodes that require characters to act unusually, and that comes to the forefront here. The theme works pretty well, as Ryan does a nice take on the Doctor. The storyline becomes secondary to the fun.
http://www.dvdmg.com/voyagerseason7.shtml

Wait... what? Brent Spiner is a better actor than Patrick Stewart?

Sorry, I was thinking just in terms of TNG not in terms of everything they ever did.

My friend and I have a really apt analogy for the acting in TNG. Patrick Stewart is like a really dominant marathon runner. For most of the show, he's pacing himself. He acts well, but doesn't really exert himself. This allows the other actors in the show to put together intermittent episodes of tremendous acting. Brent Spiner, LeVar Burton, heck, even Thomas Frakes occasionally had really great episodes. Eventually, though, Patrick Stewart notices that the rest of the runners are passing him. That's when he busts out an episode like "Tapestry" or "Inner Light". He sprints right by them back into the lead, and shows them just who exactly they're on screen with.
"Number one, that's Johnathan Frakes, not Thomas Frakes."

"Of course sir..."

Otherwise, more or less. Patrick Stewart is a truly wonderful actor, and I really wish I had an opportunity to see some of his stage performances.

I guess my 'problem' is that TNG was far from the first thing I saw Patrick Stewart in, and I've always been impressed. He's variable in TNG - always good, sometimes great... but that's only a fraction of his acting.

I've seen Brent Spiner in a few other things.... ID4 and Phenomenon, I believe... and he's ok for a person who does that for a living...
Brent Spiner is a better actor I think than some give him credit for. He makes the material he's given much better seeming than it really is, especially given the absolute shittiness of it for Data in recent years.
I guess I don't remember. Looking it up now. Anyway, for all of Voyager's faults, I think Voyager had the nicest overall ship of all the Star Trek series.

It was sleek, compact, elegant, had the ability to land and a high cruise speed and endurance.
Well, I dunno...I do like me an Intrepid-class ship, but the Galaxy-class...the Galaxy-class starship has a special place in my heart.

Stupid Berman blowing up the Enterprise...http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-cry.gif

"Number one, that's Johnathan Frakes, not Thomas Frakes."
"Jonathan", with no H in the first syllable!

"Jonathan", with no H in the first syllable!

Abupbup! No ruining the joke!

One thing that keeps annoying me, though, is why is Star Trek so ultra-anthropocentric? Every single "alien" species is humans with pointy ears, humans with a ribbed nose, or humans with a bumpy forehead. I can understand it as makeup reasons for the TOS, made on a lunch budget with little technology, but why did they have to carry this bigotry into even the new species of the later series, which clearly could do better? And what's the deal with every civilization (except for Borg and Q) having a barely altered 20th century Caucasian society as their structure, makeup cost being no excuse here?
I doubt it takes all that much imagination to at least consider the possibility that intelligence and hominid shape, as strange as it seems, might be possible one without another.

Is there some in-universe explanation for this, like some ancient species spraying intelligent hominids all over the galaxy a million years ago, or is it just... not sure what?

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Humanoid

The explaination you're looking for is in the TNG episode "The Chase" in season 6. It basically finishes with a holographic projection of a humanoid species, the first humanoid species, some 4 billion years ago, exploring the galaxy and finding nothing like them, so they seeded numerous planets with the beginnings of life with a genetic code that would result in humanoid life developing in some way from it. The Klingon's and the Cardassians did not like this result, but the Romulans and Picard were quite cool with it.

The one where 7 of 9 got the doctor's programing in her was the best acting in Star Trek history. :D

7 of 9 got the Doctor in her? that sounds so dirty ;)

but yeah, that's an awesome episode :P

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Humanoid

The explaination you're looking for is in the TNG episode "The Chase" in season 6. It basically finishes with a holographic projection of a humanoid species, the first humanoid species, some 4 billion years ago, exploring the galaxy and finding nothing like them, so they seeded numerous planets with the beginnings of life with a genetic code that would result in humanoid life developing in some way from it. The Klingon's and the Cardassians did not like this result, but the Romulans and Picard were quite cool with it.

Interesting note...the actress who played the hologram in "The Chase", Salome Jens, would go on to play the Female Changeling in DS9, seasons 3 through 7.

There have been a few in-universe clues as to why there is such a preponderence of human-oid shapes... they showed it to be a natural evolutionary result of parallel evolution, in an episode of Voyager (where the crew encounter what Hadrosaurs would look like, if they'd 'evolved')... which makes a certain kind of sense - if you assume a 6-point-skeletal structure (as we have). Bipedal allows two manipulative limbs which will be adapted accordingly. omnivores tend to find it easier to adapt to niches, so most lifeforms should show fairly omnivore-ish features... in our case, that's forward facing eyes, etc), and there is advantage to an fully upright-ish stance in terms of omnivorousness, also - and in terms of predator survivability.
That's exactly what is called anthropocentrism. While 4 limbs do make some sense as the minimum number for two propulsive and two manipulative limbs, one should keep in mind it's the physical flaws which led to the development of intelligence, not vice versa.

However, there are multiple ways to place these limbs, and all four limbs could be versatile, giving both speed and manipulative capabilities.
Plus, I'm sure a symmetrical three-limbed species could make as good or better case for their shape too - how an eye, an ear and a nostril on either side provided a 360 view, requiring a lot of brain to process, and the strong tetrahedron frame allowed for the development of such large brain; then, how the difficulty of using two limbs on one object stimulated socialization.

Besides these fundamentals, there are clear disadvantages in hominids. It's hard to make a case against an eye in the back; we have to use rear-view mirrors for the lack of it. A split bone nose is insensitive and vulnerable; three nostrils in the center and on sides make more sense. A two-gender system with only one reproductive gender halves the available reproduction rate, and can be seen as a failure. Even with such a system, milk-feeding is only one of the ways; alternate systems seen in different animals are often better.

But while most of that fits into making makeup easier, all species sharing a similar social structure specific to the XX century Whites (families, almost universal patriarchy with slightly advancing feminism, etc) has no such excuse, especially in the light of alternatives observed even in human society.


Also, there's one slightly contradictory moment to the common origin explanation... Some species makeup seems to be showing non-hominid origin; sometimes, even reptile-like.


And the nature of Star Trek storytelling lends itself to stories where it's not hard to place yourself in the role of the alien - which is easier, the more human-like the alien is.
I'd say it's way too easy already - it would be better if they made the viewer accept respect for other species despite they are different, rather than because they are so human-like.

Also, there's one slightly contradictory moment to the common origin explanation... Some species makeup seems to be showing non-hominid origin; sometimes, even reptile-like.

Is this the common origin argument given in the TNG episode "The Chase"? Because the point there was that humanoid life was going to evolve from something on the planets seeded - that was the point. They would be similiar enough (humanoid) to have things in common, but they would be diverse enough to have their own uniqueness (like Betazoids evolving from frogs and Klingon's evolving from monsters).

Interesting note...the actress who played the hologram in "The Chase", Salome Jens, would go on to play the Female Changeling in DS9, seasons 3 through 7.

That she most surely did.

Brent Spiner is a better actor I think than some give him credit for. He makes the material he's given much better seeming than it really is, especially given the absolute shittiness of it for Data in recent years.


QFT.

This is especially noticeable in episodes where Spiner plays roles that aren't Data per se. Consider the 7th season episode where the Enterprise started to transform into a city, and Data was "possessed" by various people. Any one of those performances was worth noting, and he totally carried the episode himself.

In fact, when you consider the variety of characters he's played over the years, he's pretty impressive. I think the 2nd season Episode in which he was possessed by the dead scientist who was in love with is assistant was the trigger. He pulled it off despite the weak writing, and I think that's what led to other, similar situations later in the series.

So far, I've watched a bit of it...

I must say, it isn't halfway as bad as I expected - at least DS9. AIUI, it's the best series, and I quite like the premise of being less pink-cloud utopian and somewhat darker and more realistic.



One thing that keeps annoying me, though, is why is Star Trek so ultra-anthropocentric? Every single "alien" species is humans with pointy ears, humans with a ribbed nose, or humans with a bumpy forehead. I can understand it as makeup reasons for the TOS, made on a lunch budget with little technology, but why did they have to carry this bigotry into even the new species of the later series, which clearly could do better? And what's the deal with every civilization (except for Borg and Q) having a barely altered 20th century Caucasian society as their structure, makeup cost being no excuse here?
I doubt it takes all that much imagination to at least consider the possibility that intelligence and hominid shape, as strange as it seems, might be possible one without another.


Is there some in-universe explanation for this, like some ancient species spraying intelligent hominids all over the galaxy a million years ago, or is it just... not sure what?

intersting. I wonder who had a higher percentage of non-humanoid, sentient aliens per series.

TOS had alot of em...
the "Horta from Devil" in the dark
Trelane's parents could be considered non humanoid since their original forms are balls of light "Squire of Gothos".
The witches of the Episode "Catspaw" (their humanoid forms were disguises, their real forms looked more like the old fashioned puppets. not humanoid)
The Companion from "Metamorphosis"
The Killer in "Wolf in the Fold" was an incorpeal entity
The Vampiric cloud in "Obsession"
Melkotians in "Spectre of the Gun"
The Medusians in "Is there no Beauty?"
The "Lights of Zetar"
The Being in "Day of the Dove"

of course, I'm counting it if they show the aliens in their true form even if briefly or if stated that they were not humanoid.

the only TNG episodes I saw with non-humanoid Sentients was Farpoint and the one where Picard was possessed by alien entities but that was because I didn't watch to many TNG episodes.

Voyager had those macroviruses, but it's unknown if they were sentient.

QFT.

This is especially noticeable in episodes where Spiner plays roles that aren't Data per se. Consider the 7th season episode where the Enterprise started to transform into a city, and Data was "possessed" by various people. Any one of those performances was worth noting, and he totally carried the episode himself.

In fact, when you consider the variety of characters he's played over the years, he's pretty impressive. I think the 2nd season Episode in which he was possessed by the dead scientist who was in love with is assistant was the trigger. He pulled it off despite the weak writing, and I think that's what led to other, similar situations later in the series.

Indeed. He's really good at stuff like that. I really liked that "Masks" episode and was annoyed to see it rated so lowly by Ex Astris Scientia(a site I find absolutely amazing for Star Trek.)

TOS had alot of em...
You're forgetting the salt-sucker monster (who shape-shifted into a humanoid disguise but is revealed at the end) from the very first episode!

You're forgetting the salt-sucker monster (who shape-shifted into a humanoid disguise but is revealed at the end) from the very first episode!

ah, but that was a Humanoid creature. a human shaped entity.

the witches in Catspaw turned into feathered worm like things when they were dying, even tho for most of the episode they were 'human'.

That's why I didn't count the Gamemasters of Trisklion because they admitted they were humanoid "Like Kirk" before they evolved out of their bodies...

Dude. Giant space amoeba? Come on!

QFT.

This is especially noticeable in episodes where Spiner plays roles that aren't Data per se. Consider the 7th season episode where the Enterprise started to transform into a city, and Data was "possessed" by various people. Any one of those performances was worth noting, and he totally carried the episode himself.

In fact, when you consider the variety of characters he's played over the years, he's pretty impressive. I think the 2nd season Episode in which he was possessed by the dead scientist who was in love with is assistant was the trigger. He pulled it off despite the weak writing, and I think that's what led to other, similar situations later in the series.

He's also got a very nice singing voice. I personally think he is one of the most underrated talented actors ever to graze hollywood.

His ability to play a mad scientist, an evil scheming villain, and an innocent little android all in the same scene is quite remarkable.

And did anyone see the "cowboy" episode of TNG (I forget it's name) where Data's image accidentally gets uploaded into the holodeck while Worf, Troi and Alexander are playing a cowboy program, and Data becomes every character in the program? Seeing him in drag at the end of the episode was great.

I WISH I liked Star Trek because I like nerdy things. But I watched some original Star Trek and found it boring.
In other news old-Shatner is awesome

Is there some in-universe explanation for this, like some ancient species spraying intelligent hominids all over the galaxy a million years ago, or is it just... not sure what?

yes. iirc

I think its an ok programme, don't like some of the ones where they get all "meaningful" and deep.

I'm not a major expert on the show, so I've got little to add on the major debates, except to say I find this parody (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=QYbs8mdfyBE) to be genius.

Spock: "Stop. Pressing those buttons is highly illogical"
"I bet you say that to all the girls"

However, there are multiple ways to place these limbs, and all four limbs could be versatile, giving both speed and manipulative capabilities.
Plus, I'm sure a symmetrical three-limbed species could make as good or better case for their shape too


Odd numbers of limbs tend to be limited by the effectiveness of asymmetry. From a cellular-division point of view, rough symmetry is important - it's most efficient, and msot efficient to encode. Also - a third or fifth limb either has to beasymmetrically placed, creating an unblanced product, or it has to be placed in a non-versatile position - in front of, behind, or 'on top of' the entity - all of which limit the adaptability of the limb.

- how an eye, an ear and a nostril on either side provided a 360 view, requiring a lot of brain to process, and the strong tetrahedron frame allowed for the development of such large brain; then, how the difficulty of using two limbs on one object stimulated socialization.

Besides these fundamentals, there are clear disadvantages in hominids. It's hard to make a case against an eye in the back; we have to use rear-view mirrors for the lack of it.


Nope - there's a really good case for no third eye, actually - perception based on binocular vision relies on merging images. In order to make a creature have functional vision from two eyes in front and one behind, for example - would require either a loss of binocular vision, or a loss of ability to focus on details.... or twice as much brain capacity usage, to deal with two different sets of inputs.


A split bone nose is insensitive and vulnerable; three nostrils in the center and on sides make more sense.


Maybe on a desert planet.


A two-gender system with only one reproductive gender halves the available reproduction rate, and can be seen as a failure.


Our species isn't evolved to have half the population incapable of bearing young - that's an artifact of 'civilisation'. If our species functioned as it's evolution dictated, maybe nine-tenths of the population would be producing young.


Even with such a system, milk-feeding is only one of the ways; alternate systems seen in different animals are often better.


Milk-feeding is versatile.


But while most of that fits into making makeup easier, all species sharing a similar social structure specific to the XX century Whites (families, almost universal patriarchy with slightly advancing feminism, etc) has no such excuse, especially in the light of alternatives observed even in human society.


All species don't share that structure.

There is a strong argument for anthropomorphic aliens - especially if you allow for a shared root, or allow for similar environments. The human structure ISN'T the pinnacle of evolution (because such a thing would be a nonsense) but it IS an evolutionarily successful form anyway, because it kind of 'opts out' of evolution. We are a fantastically adaptable design- which means there's no need to survive (of the fittest). One way to look at it - is that, in terms of evolution, we actually fail hard. But it's that very failure that enables us - maybe even channels us - to succeed as an 'intelligent' race.

And did anyone see the "cowboy" episode of TNG (I forget it's name) where Data's image accidentally gets uploaded into the holodeck while Worf, Troi and Alexander are playing a cowboy program, and Data becomes every character in the program? Seeing him in drag at the end of the episode was great.

A Fistful of Datas.

GnI: You're just being incredibly anthropocentric here. Sure, it makes sense to a human that the symmetry should be two-way and not one-way[none] or three-way or four-way, and so do all other human specifications. But so does the way it's made make sense to any other species.

---



Anyway, I wanted to mention... I've just watched STDS9-513. And - wow. I thought of ST as a commie-leftie show in general. But in DS9-513, Captain Sisko beats even the famous Jack Bauer.
Let me chew it up for those who haven't seen it.

In 513, Sisko is hunting one of the members of a rebel group that disrupts peace in a certain DMZ. At one point, he realizes that rebel is better than he is, and he'll never catch him the normal way. So what does he do? He threatens the rebel with attacking a planet in DMZ that rebel is fighting for with special bioweapons that will destroy most life on it and make it inhabitable forever.

And then, he doesn't even argue that he's being serious and finds it justified and will totally do it, and all that. He just fucking fires those planet-killing weapons. And they don't blow up halfway or turn out to be fake, like Jack Bauer's threats to kill the suspect's family do. They hit and devastate the planet. He gets the rebel to surrender then.

I mean, whoa. When Jack Bauer tortures a suspect, everyone makes a big deal out of it. When Jack Bauer threatens to kill the suspect's family, everyone freaks out, even though he's using blanks and staging and has no intention of possibly actually doing it. But when Captain Sisko permanently poisons an entire inhabited planet? No one gives a damn... well, a couple people give him the looks, but that's it. Go on, cap. We're feds, it's what we are here to do!

While DS9 is darker than the rest of ST, I've never thought it to be THAT hardcore. A pity it doesn't live up to that in all episodes, but sometimes, it just makes 24 look like a kiddie show. Wow.

GnI: You're just being incredibly anthropocentric here. Sure, it makes sense to a human that the symmetry should be two-way and not one-way[none] or three-way or four-way, and so do all other human specifications. But so does the way it's made make sense to any other species.

---



Anyway, I wanted to mention... I've just watched STDS9-513. And - wow. I thought of ST as a commie-leftie show in general. But in DS9-513, Captain Sisko beats even the famous Jack Bauer.
Let me chew it up for those who haven't seen it.

In 513, Sisko is hunting one of the members of a rebel group that disrupts peace in a certain DMZ. At one point, he realizes that rebel is better than he is, and he'll never catch him the normal way. So what does he do? He threatens the rebel with attacking a planet in DMZ that rebel is fighting for with special bioweapons that will destroy most life on it and make it inhabitable forever.

And then, he doesn't even argue that he's being serious and finds it justified and will totally do it, and all that. He just fucking fires those planet-killing weapons. And they don't blow up halfway or turn out to be fake, like Jack Bauer's threats to kill the suspect's family do. They hit and devastate the planet. He gets the rebel to surrender then.

I mean, whoa. When Jack Bauer tortures a suspect, everyone makes a big deal out of it. When Jack Bauer threatens to kill the suspect's family, everyone freaks out, even though he's using blanks and staging and has no intention of possibly actually doing it. But when Captain Sisko permanently poisons an entire inhabited planet? No one gives a damn... well, a couple people give him the looks, but that's it. Go on, cap. We're feds, it's what we are here to do!

While DS9 is darker than the rest of ST, I've never thought it to be THAT hardcore. A pity it doesn't live up to that in all episodes, but sometimes, it just makes 24 look like a kiddie show. Wow.
"You hit me! Picard never hit me!"
"I'm not Picard!"

'nough said.

GnI: You're just being incredibly anthropocentric here. Sure, it makes sense to a human that the symmetry should be two-way and not one-way[none] or three-way or four-way, and so do all other human specifications. But so does the way it's made make sense to any other species.

---



Anyway, I wanted to mention... I've just watched STDS9-513. And - wow. I thought of ST as a commie-leftie show in general. But in DS9-513, Captain Sisko beats even the famous Jack Bauer.
Let me chew it up for those who haven't seen it.

In 513, Sisko is hunting one of the members of a rebel group that disrupts peace in a certain DMZ. At one point, he realizes that rebel is better than he is, and he'll never catch him the normal way. So what does he do? He threatens the rebel with attacking a planet in DMZ that rebel is fighting for with special bioweapons that will destroy most life on it and make it inhabitable forever.

And then, he doesn't even argue that he's being serious and finds it justified and will totally do it, and all that. He just fucking fires those planet-killing weapons. And they don't blow up halfway or turn out to be fake, like Jack Bauer's threats to kill the suspect's family do. They hit and devastate the planet. He gets the rebel to surrender then.

I mean, whoa. When Jack Bauer tortures a suspect, everyone makes a big deal out of it. When Jack Bauer threatens to kill the suspect's family, everyone freaks out, even though he's using blanks and staging and has no intention of possibly actually doing it. But when Captain Sisko permanently poisons an entire inhabited planet? No one gives a damn... well, a couple people give him the looks, but that's it. Go on, cap. We're feds, it's what we are here to do!

While DS9 is darker than the rest of ST, I've never thought it to be THAT hardcore. A pity it doesn't live up to that in all episodes, but sometimes, it just makes 24 look like a kiddie show. Wow.

If you liked that episode, you are going to absolutely fall in love with "In the Pale Moonlight", season 6, episode 19. Seriously.

DS9 was the best of the treks.

I have no idea who Kirk or Spork are.Kirk is brother to Candace, promoter of sensationalist delusional bullshit.
Spork is brother to Amalfi, promoter of The Great Imbalance.

*snip*

Whoa...talk about a gravedig.

"You hit me! Picard never hit me!"
"I'm not Picard!"

'nough said.

...I found it amusing that Q never came back to DS9. Some Captains make for easier sport than others, it seems. :tongue:

The original TV show was pretty good. (better than all the movies) I managed to buy all 3 seasons for just under $100. (used)