Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck

[Deledrius]

The way I see it, they have three options (since they won't be able to resist addressing it):

• Actually acknowledge the mistake as a mistake.
• Use the silly fandom explanation retcon about warping space.
• Invent some new retcon explanation that contradicts the one that fans enjoy citing, perhaps even poking fun at it and those fans.

Roughly in order, from idealist to realist in your opinion on the kind of writers working on a film of this size.

[TheNewTeddy]

The largest disagreement I have with him review wise is the one where he ends creaming about how the entire episode was rape.

[AllanO]

That always bothered me about how Han's boast about the Kessel Run was treated in later material.

I only realized the extent of the problem reading this (the script apparently indicatse that Han was obviously making up the 12 parsec thing and everyone knew it made no sense).

Lego Star Wars the Yoda Chronicles I think has a throw away gag about "a parsec is a unit of distance" thrown in there. So at least some material has a basic grasp on how silly.

---

On the theme of this thread: One thing I respectfully disagree with Chuck about, is Data's lack of emotions. He makes a pretty good case that Data does not have "human emotions" rather he has something that plays some of the same functional roles, but then again no non-human has human emotions (Quark does not have human emotions, Troi can't sense them and so on). The way the word emotions is used in the show, it has to mean "functional analogs of emotions" which is why it makes sense to talk about Quark's emotions and so on. However that means for Data to have no emotions he has to have nothing functionally analogous to human emotions (not unimaginable I don't think the computer exhibits such characteristics in its primary functions for example), but the problem is here and there Data does exhibit such equivalents (and like I said Chuck explicates how these equivalents work). So I have a soft spot for Pulaski because I see her as pointing out when Data exhibits those functional equivalents of human emotions he is not supposed to have (since it is clear that in the show they have to be using the term emotions broadly rather than narrowly to avoid saying things like Quark does not have emotions).

[rickgriffin]

I dunno, at worst I think Chuck's explanation of why Data doesn't have emotions is lacking, even if I feel he's on the right track. I disagree with Chuck's assessment in, say, the Matrix movie review, of an AI that could feel an analogue of pleasure at crunching numbers of pi. Not because I think it's impossible, just that I feel he missed a few steps in the explanation and made it sound like an inevitability for machine thought to have emotion-analogues.

My interpretation of the explanation for Data, IMO, is that when we say "emotion" or "feel" when referring to biological beings we're talking about some instant reaction mechanism built into our bodies from so long ago it's not even necessarily in our best interest to keep it all the time, even if it provides us some benefits (such a the emotional feeling of love being useful for creating social bonds between humans). Data, being built from the ground up, has no such mechanisms--except perhaps for a few that don't necessarily "count" as emotions. He had some nebulously defined "desire" for certain things, such as advancement in his career, to see to the safety of his friends and humanity in general, and to become more human-like. But it doesn't come with the other attached "emotions" such as pride, love, fear, anger, relief, pleasure, envy, or obsession; if it's in his best interest he can drop all of those without causing himself distress, it doesn't keep him up at night and he can infinitely compartmentalize those desires without it affecting his performance.

Where this "desire" comes from isn't really explained, save that Suung probably built it into Data somehow (and almost definitely as an emergent property, based on his expectation for Data to "evolve" into his emotions) so that he would be proactive in his relationships, rather than like those androids we see in TOS who just kinda sit around and wait for humans to tell them what to do or numbly go after an explicitly programmed-in goal.

Now whether or not that's still strictly and entirely "emotionless" depends on your definition, but it is clear that Data lacks most innate situational responses that humans do, and his actions can be explained without needing to read in those additional emotions.

[AllanO]

Now whether or not that's still strictly and entirely "emotionless" depends on your definition, but it is clear that Data lacks most innate situational responses that humans do, and his actions can be explained without needing to read in those additional emotions.

But Data has all kinds of complex behavioural responses, that although not human emotions, play similar roles to human emotions do, including being difficult or impossible to suppress and so on. As when he has a need for people to say his name a certain way (by comparison the ship's computer is either going to recognize you are referring to it or not, not judge the quality of your pronunciation), being driven to try and discover what he did wrong when he loses a strategy game at the expense of his other duties (as in Peak Performance, he could not turn that response off that was a problem in the episode), or express his interest as he is processing masses of data (as in Conspiracy).

I think any definition of emotion that includes all the aliens as emotional but Data as not are going to run into trouble, based on my viewing of TNG, no matter how you slice the cantaloupe.

[MyUserName]

That always bothered me about how Han's boast about the Kessel Run was treated in later material.

I only realized the extent of the problem reading this (the script apparently indicatse that Han was obviously making up the 12 parsec thing and everyone knew it made no sense).

Lego Star Wars the Yoda Chronicles I think has a throw away gag about "a parsec is a unit of distance" thrown in there. So at least some material has a basic grasp on how silly.

---

On the theme of this thread: One thing I respectfully disagree with Chuck about, is Data's lack of emotions. He makes a pretty good case that Data does not have "human emotions" rather he has something that plays some of the same functional roles, but then again no non-human has human emotions (Quark does not have human emotions, Troi can't sense them and so on). The way the word emotions is used in the show, it has to mean "functional analogs of emotions" which is why it makes sense to talk about Quark's emotions and so on. However that means for Data to have no emotions he has to have nothing functionally analogous to human emotions (not unimaginable I don't think the computer exhibits such characteristics in its primary functions for example), but the problem is here and there Data does exhibit such equivalents (and like I said Chuck explicates how these equivalents work). So I have a soft spot for Pulaski because I see her as pointing out when Data exhibits those functional equivalents of human emotions he is not supposed to have (since it is clear that in the show they have to be using the term emotions broadly rather than narrowly to avoid saying things like Quark does not have emotions).

In the Han Solo Trilogy (which by the way, is really quite excellent) it's shown how it happened. Basically Han had to go dangerously close to a cluster of black holes to save his girlfriend when her ship was caught in one. Because of time and space being distorted, and engaging hypserspace in that field, a sort of warp effect occurred that ended up cutting the distance he had traveled when he got to kessel.

So he uses that story to show how powerful and fast the falcons hyperdrive is.

[MyUserName]

If I were to disagree with chuck in anything, it would be Star Trek TNG's seventh season. Okay, lets forget about Sub Rosa, I thought the season was wild and very different from much of what came before, and enjoyed the chances they took on many of those scripts.

I'd also disagree with chuck on B5's first season, Maybe its the value of hindsight, but I really love all the little nods to the themes and future plot threads that occur throughout the season.

[RobbyB1982]

I'd also disagree with chuck on B5's first season, Maybe its the value of hindsight, but I really love all the little nods to the themes and future plot threads that occur throughout the season.

Future episodes paying off the groundwork laid by the earlier episodes doesn't really make the earlier episodes better though.

Yeah, the first season is fine as generic sci-fi, but its no where near as good as the later seasons in terms of acting, pacing, editing, etc. A large chunk of that is because JMS did all the writing after a point, and because of the build up to be sure... but the first season was weaker.

Especially the pilot. That is unwatchable.

[SlackerinDeNile]

I'd also disagree with chuck on B5's first season, Maybe its the value of hindsight, but I really love all the little nods to the themes and future plot threads that occur throughout the season.

Future episodes paying off the groundwork laid by the earlier episodes doesn't really make the earlier episodes better though.

Yeah, the first season is fine as generic sci-fi, but its no where near as good as the later seasons in terms of acting, pacing, editing, etc. A large chunk of that is because JMS did all the writing after a point, and because of the build up to be sure... but the first season was weaker.

Especially the pilot. That is unwatchable.

The TNT edit of the pilot is alright in my opinion, I've seen both versions and I agree the 1993 original is bad.

[Sines]

Long time viewer (back in the Youtube days) but never been on a forum. Amusingly, my first major disagreement with Chuck came relatively recently, when I got around to watching the Torchwood Miracle Day review.

Namely, he kept referring the horrors of burning people alive. However, the entire goal of our heroes was to bring back death. Well, burning people to cinders was the only was to bring it back, as far as anyone knew. And it's not like they were burning conscious people alive, they were burning people who, for all intents and purposes, were dead. Best case scenario, it was no different than cremation, and worst case scenario, these people were still conscious and desperately desiring the death our heroes were trying to bring back.

Burning people alive is pretty horrible, but if it actually works, and it does cease their consciousness, then it's really the only solution, I'd think. Of course, if it turns out they're still conscious even after being reduced to cinders, then that's horrible, but Chuck doesn't bring up that possibility to be concerned with. And yes, the system is used for abuse, but that doesn't change that there should be some system to reinstitute death in whatever way was possible.

Granted, I haven't watched the series myself, but I still find it VERY rarely that I disagree with Chuck in any meaningful fashion. I think the only other case where I meaningfully disagree is with 2001. As far as I'm concerned, 2001 is the relaxing version of a Michael Bay movie. Instead of sound and fury signifying nothing, it's peacefulness and special effects signifying nothing. While there is some of it that's good, almost every single scene in the movie goes on twice as long as it should. They say Full Metal Jacket is the best half of a movie ever made, and I kinda feel that way about 2001. Except rather then the first half of a movie being good, it's the first half of every scene. Excepting the scenes with conversations, each scene lasts twice as long as it needs to, and I frequently got bored throughout it.

What I found most disappointing was HAL. His shutdown scene was actually REALLY good, and is probably one of the best moments in cinema on it's own. But so little is done with HAL and the crew that the scene practically IS on it's own. There's barely any more context if you watch the entire act, than if you watch just the single scene. I kinda feel if the movie was about the Jupiter mission, with HALs shutdown being the climax, it could have been a great movie. Instead, this actually interesting plot intrudes in the middle of this excuse plot for special effects.

I know Chuck has a 2001 review on the docket at some point. I really want to see it, because if there is anyone that could convince me otherwise (or at least help me understand what non-pretentious assholes like about the movie) then it would be him. Because right now, I'm confused as hell to why anyone who isn't in it for the craft itself (the movie is good in a technical sense) would like this movie.

As for minor disagreements, I like all the DS9 Ferengi episodes. Even Profit and Lace. They make me chuckle. For some reason I still remember Quarks female name 'Lumba' and it being derived from how he lumbered about. I also like Lawxana more than he does. Not sure what his opinion on Vic was, but I didn't get the idea that he was any more than neutral about him, and I really liked Vic. Though throwing in several longue music numbers in Star Trek was probably not a good idea for most fans, it worked for me.