Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck

[TrueMetis]

His interpretation of Harry Kim is somewhat tiresome for me. He exaggerates Harry's flaws and ignores his positive far more than any other character IMO. Though I suppose that could just be my own bias's in play. Regardless I generally feel like skipping over his Harry Kim bits at this point.

[RobbyB1982]

While I think it's perfectly fine, I'm not really big on Yesterday's Enterprise at all and, conversely, I'd probably have given Relics a 10 personally.

I dunno. I gotta agree with Chuck on that one. Relics is a nice episode and its up there... but it's always pushed to the top of lists purely on nostalgia for having Scotty in there. If you have no attachment to the original series or just don't add in that factor at all... if you'd taken the exact same episode and had Welshy in there instead.... it suddenly becomes only okay.

It's a nice character piece... but at the end of the day its a character piece about a guest star that assumes you know that character already.

Similarly the DS9 episode that brings back some old Klingons for a final outing. It's elevated by the fact they got back those old actors and a solid story, but subtract the history from it and it's not outstanding.

I do disagree with him a smidge on Yesterday's Enterprise though. That also gets inflated a bit cause Tasha, but...

[nebagram]

While I think it's perfectly fine, I'm not really big on Yesterday's Enterprise at all and, conversely, I'd probably have given Relics a 10 personally.

I dunno. I gotta agree with Chuck on that one. Relics is a nice episode and its up there... but it's always pushed to the top of lists purely on nostalgia for having Scotty in there. If you have no attachment to the original series or just don't add in that factor at all... if you'd taken the exact same episode and had Welshy in there instead.... it suddenly becomes only okay.

It's a nice character piece... but at the end of the day its a character piece about a guest star that assumes you know that character already.

Yeah, but... It's kinda like the difference between the 30th anniversary episodes on DS9 and Voyager. As Chuck has said, Tribble-ations was an absolute love letter to the fans the way it's supposed to be done, whereas Flashback is 'here's a Tuvok story, and look! Sulu's here too!'. Relics is very much in the former category, and IMHO succeeds because of it.

[RobbyB1982]

Yeah, but... It's kinda like the difference between the 30th anniversary episodes on DS9 and Voyager. As Chuck has said, Tribble-ations was an absolute love letter to the fans the way it's supposed to be done, whereas Flashback is 'here's a Tuvok story, and look! Sulu's here too!'. Relics is very much in the former category, and IMHO succeeds because of it.

Oh I'm not arguing that. it's absolutely a love letter. The actual story of the episode itself, the actual drama and conflict, is only like a 6. The whole episode is "hey look it's Scotty!" and it does that super well. And it gets points for that. But the *story*, the problem of the episode, the stakes of the episode are pretty nonexistant. The drama, the comedy... aren't absolute best of the best worthy of a 10.

It's a very average episode that warrants a bump of a couple points because its Scotty and its handled well. Maaaaybe give it a 9 rather than the 8 Chuck gave it if you have a ton of attachment to the original series, but it's just not a 10. It's not Inner Light or Best of Both Worlds or All Good Things,

It can absolutely be a fan favorite without also being one of the best episodes. Chuck similarly gave the Tribbles episode a 9 and that's one of the best known iconic episodes and part of the fun is that it's low stakes and a comedy piece.

[SlackerinDeNile]

His interpretation of Harry Kim is somewhat tiresome for me. He exaggerates Harry's flaws and ignores his positive far more than any other character IMO. Though I suppose that could just be my own bias's in play. Regardless I generally feel like skipping over his Harry Kim bits at this point.

I agree with you there, I mean, Harry is a mess of a character but he didn't bother me as much as Captain Archer did throughout most of Enterprise.

I think I'm also slightly less high on Farscape than Chuck is.

It's interesting you should say that, it seems to have a very 'love it or hate it' reception among us sci-fi and space opera geeks.
I like it as much as Chuck does but there are many elements of it I don't like such as some of the characters, how loud and over the top it could get, the constantly shifting tone, from wacky humour to razor sharp edginess, often in the same episode.


I disagree with some of Chuck's views on individual episodes of shows, particularly Deep Space Nine, some episodes that he highly reveres I really like, but not to the same extent he does and some episodes he doesn't like or thinks are okay I think are really good, like Second Skin.

I'm a lot less high on Doctor Who than Chuck is, or the rest of this message board, which is funny because I actually live in the UK and understand it's characters and sense of humour. I don't dislike the show, I enjoy the revival, particularly the Tennant years but there are so many bad episodes and story arcs that I just feel don't pay off or go nowhere. The 'classic' series isn't much more than guilty pleasure in my opinion, it hasn't aged well and most of the acting and writing throughout it isn't very good. Some episodes and serials do really stand out though such as the one featuring the origin of the Daleks.

[Rocketboy1313]

He was far too kind to Doctor Who's "The End of Time". I consider it to be a bloated, poorly plotted, over acted, dumpster fire made all the worse for being the final for what remains the most popular of the modern Doctors.

I compare the death of 10 to the death of 9 and it suffers CONSIDERABLY. 10 dies whining that it has to end, 9 dies happy for having been.

[Imperator-zor]

Also I rather liked North Star.

Zor

[SuccubusYuri]

Setting aside anime, where I'm in so deep I can name studios on sight and thus, just assume different positions from Chuck.

I'd say the one thing is Naomi. I can completely see the possibility of a species evolving for long gestation and short childhood (provided Ensign Wildman doesn't have a 9-months-pregnant belly for two years straight). And even if not, taking Chuck's logic in the other direction, what possible evolutionary advantage is being in diapers for six years, if we match her childhood to her gestation? It's just never bothered me.

[TrueMetis]

Setting aside anime, where I'm in so deep I can name studios on sight and thus, just assume different positions from Chuck.

I'd say the one thing is Naomi. I can completely see the possibility of a species evolving for long gestation and short childhood (provided Ensign Wildman doesn't have a 9-months-pregnant belly for two years straight). And even if not, taking Chuck's logic in the other direction, what possible evolutionary advantage is being in diapers for six years, if we match her childhood to her gestation? It's just never bothered me.

Elephants have a 2 year gestation, are weaned in 3 months, reach sexual maturity in 9 years for female and 15 for males, and live 60-70 years.

So Naomi's growth never seemed that odd to me.

[bronnt]

Elephants have a 2 year gestation, are weaned in 3 months, reach sexual maturity in 9 years for female and 15 for males, and live 60-70 years.

So Naomi's growth never seemed that odd to me.

Agreed. Lots of mammalian species actually do have longer gestations balanced against shorter infancies-whales, for instance. Though it's probably worth pointing out that humans take a relatively long time to reach maturity compared to other mammals I'm not a biologist but the need to develop language and social skills probably requires more development.

The only issue is the soap-opera aging issue: When the character is 3 years old, she's played by a 10 year old actress, and doesn't look any younger than 8. So she aged up that point very quickly, and then they locked in the same actress to play her for the next 3 years and she nearly stops aging, even though you would assume that rapid aging would continue until sexual maturity.