ENT - Stigma

[Beastro]

As to T'pol and her strain, T'pol's blind acceptance of how she is being hit is in-character for Vulcans in Enterprise. If you want to look at it through a retrospective lens, T'pol is breaking because of it. Because seasons 3 and 4 show that T'pol is really feeling the strain of the disease, even becoming a drug addict to cope, to the point that in season 4's Home, she's acting so angrily that her mother is wondering what's wrong with her. That's Manny Coto fixing the divot, but it shows that normally, Vulcans respond a bit less angrily to injustices done to them, and just sort of blindly accept it, which would show why a Romulan-corrupted government could mislead them for so long. The Vulcan trilogy fixed T'pol to an extent, as well as the Vulcans, and she acted a lot healthier from that point on, even joking to the crew, whereas before she would act a bit rude to them.

This really shouldn't have been done to the Vulcans in the first place with this episode, but it could show that a normally passive people keep on following the example of 'grinning and bearing it' to their breaking points. T'Les, T'pol's mother, after all, left Academia and joined the 'Syrannite Cult' due to the pressure of it all.

You're making me picture the Vulcans as British and Kipling's The Beginings to revovle around "When the Vulcans began to hate".

[RobbyB1982]

Could this episode be worst one in entire Enterprise. At least it seems to me worst one based on ones that Chuck has reviewed so far. At least Chuck made MtG reference with that "Citadel of the Nicol Bolas" that warms my heart as former MtG player.

Chuck gave his score of 0 to the episode A Night in Sickbay.

A score of zero is awarded to episodes which are not only the absolute worst of their respective series, but do the entire franchise a disservice by being associated with it.

He also gave a score of 1 to the episodes Dear Doctor, Shadows of P'gem, Bounty, and These Are The Voyages. Yes, the final episode of the series.

A score of 1 is awarded to an episode so bad that it does the entire franchise a disservice by being associated with it, but is not the worst episode, period, of its respective show. A merely "appallingly bad" or garden-variety racist or sexist episode will usually get a 2; it takes extreme incompetence on the part of the production crew to lose that last point.

Other 2's were Unexpected,Terra Nova, Two Days And Two Nights, and Carpenter Street.

If you want a quick reference for his other scores, tvtropes stays on top of it pretty well.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/SFDebris

[FaxModem1]

As to T'pol and her strain, T'pol's blind acceptance of how she is being hit is in-character for Vulcans in Enterprise. If you want to look at it through a retrospective lens, T'pol is breaking because of it. Because seasons 3 and 4 show that T'pol is really feeling the strain of the disease, even becoming a drug addict to cope, to the point that in season 4's Home, she's acting so angrily that her mother is wondering what's wrong with her. That's Manny Coto fixing the divot, but it shows that normally, Vulcans respond a bit less angrily to injustices done to them, and just sort of blindly accept it, which would show why a Romulan-corrupted government could mislead them for so long. The Vulcan trilogy fixed T'pol to an extent, as well as the Vulcans, and she acted a lot healthier from that point on, even joking to the crew, whereas before she would act a bit rude to them.

This really shouldn't have been done to the Vulcans in the first place with this episode, but it could show that a normally passive people keep on following the example of 'grinning and bearing it' to their breaking points. T'Les, T'pol's mother, after all, left Academia and joined the 'Syrannite Cult' due to the pressure of it all.

You're making me picture the Vulcans as British and Kipling's The Beginings to revovle around "When the Vulcans began to hate".

Well, that did seem to be V'las's plan regarding fighting the Andorians and wiping out the Syrranites.

[9ansean]

Could this episode be worst one in entire Enterprise. At least it seems to me worst one based on ones that Chuck has reviewed so far. At least Chuck made MtG reference with that "Citadel of the Nicol Bolas" that warms my heart as former MtG player.

Chuck gave his score of 0 to the episode A Night in Sickbay.

A score of zero is awarded to episodes which are not only the absolute worst of their respective series, but do the entire franchise a disservice by being associated with it.

He also gave a score of 1 to the episodes Dear Doctor, Shadows of P'gem, Bounty, and These Are The Voyages. Yes, the final episode of the series.

A score of 1 is awarded to an episode so bad that it does the entire franchise a disservice by being associated with it, but is not the worst episode, period, of its respective show. A merely "appallingly bad" or garden-variety racist or sexist episode will usually get a 2; it takes extreme incompetence on the part of the production crew to lose that last point.

Other 2's were Unexpected,Terra Nova, Two Days And Two Nights, and Carpenter Street.

If you want a quick reference for his other scores, tvtropes stays on top of it pretty well.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/SFDebris

I've deliberately avoided seeing most of the episodes of all Star Trek series commonly sited as the worse. My only exception (so far) were in the case of Spock's Brain and Threshold both sounding like they'd be bad in way that's hilarious. AND BOY HOWDY that did NOT DISAPPOINT! Just the though being a fly on the wall watching the rehearsals of either one fascinates me. What were the actors saying between takes? Was there ANY sign they were struggling to play this straight?

Pretty much everyone 0-2 star review of Chuck's of seen now (not counting the movies). Some of them seem like the might be amusing, but I'm not sure if anything 1 star review of an Enterprise episode made them seem fun and frankly watching the Night in Sickbay review, was almost painful in itself. Fun to laugh at sure, but not much fun to witness.

[Deledrius]

A score of zero is awarded to episodes which are not only the absolute worst of their respective series, but do the entire franchise a disservice by being associated with it.

It's obviously too soon to be able to make the determination (the worst may be behind, or it may be ahead -- there's a cheery thought), but I wonder what Discovery's will be. I think "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad" is tentatively holding that spot.

[Yukaphile]

Was super impressed with Chuck bringing up an abortion argument that I can agree with. Hell, I've skirted this line before. If my wife was raped, I'd really want her to terminate, but she might not want to. Or if it's a young girl not even of legal age, I'd prefer if she aborted, but if it's not mine, you can't do that. This reminds me that he is still the same man who said you gotta have a degree of sensitivity when it comes to people's bodies, not treating them as just mules for DNA.

Firing quarters at the poor, lol! I could see some assholes wanting to do just that, for the sadistic joy. LOL! And oh he won't let go of the Valakians. I can't blame him.

Oh boy... I can see why Chuck finds this so embarrassing, like he did with "The Outcast..." and it's only getting worse as the review progresses. I think the only reason they made the Vulcans like this is that they wanted the HIV victim to be T'Pol, probably giddily snickering at the idea of her having sex or whatever. They were pigs.

YES! THE RETURN OF THE RICK BERMAN AND BRANNON BRAGA SKITS! ^_^

You know, tbh, I can't get mad at the idea of a faction of militant Vulcans too. But I bet they executed it poorly, huh?

I was wondering if Chuck was gonna bring up how dated this was.

"Control your woman, Phlox!"

But yeah, this just reminds me why Enterprise sucks, for people wanting to reevaluate it simply because STD/DISCO is so bad. No, they're just doing the same thing, pointless retcons that retroactively hurt the previous lore. Which one was I talking about in my last sentence, Enterprise or DISCO? You, the viewers, decide! See? That's how easy it is.

[Riedquat]

The problem with Chuck''s outrage here is that Bigots always view themselves as the ones thinking logically and us as the ones blinded by emotion.

Any position concerning morals and ethics and values is ultimately an emotional one. And because they're the things that make life worth living they're the most important ones - beyond even the necessities for survival (what's the point of surviving otherwise?) Logic is only of any use in working out how to get to what your ultimately emotional or sentimental feelings say is worth having.

Some people don't like that because they believe they are rationally correct, or that it has no absolute means of differentiating between angels and demons, to which all I can say is, yep, that's the universe for you.

[Yukaphile]

It's still inconsistent to the way Vulcans are previously. And isn't that a bit of a strawman?

[abki]

The problem with Chuck''s outrage here is that Bigots always view themselves as the ones thinking logically and us as the ones blinded by emotion.

Any position concerning morals and ethics and values is ultimately an emotional one. And because they're the things that make life worth living they're the most important ones - beyond even the necessities for survival (what's the point of surviving otherwise?) Logic is only of any use in working out how to get to what your ultimately emotional or sentimental feelings say is worth having.

Some people don't like that because they believe they are rationally correct, or that it has no absolute means of differentiating between angels and demons, to which all I can say is, yep, that's the universe for you.

I disagree that any position concerning morals and ethics and values is ultimately an emotional one; it's more to do with the underlying reward function of the individual. I would say you're right in that it's typically tied with emotion in the specific case of humans, but I don't believe that it has to be so.

The most obvious example would be the thought experiment of the Paperclip maximizer: an intelligent machine told to create paper clips, which eventually converts the entire universe into paperclips. Clearly the paperclip maximizer is intelligent (it's smart enough to figure out interstellar travel, how to deal with those pesky lifeforms interrupting it's paperclip manufacturing, etc...) and it obviously values making paperclips (it's "morality" is that anything is acceptable so long as it is to make paperclips). BUT the maximizer has no emotions. It's values are undeniably arbitrary, but they are not emotional ones (well, unless you want to call "# of paperclips made" an emotion ).

[9ansean]

The problem with Chuck''s outrage here is that Bigots always view themselves as the ones thinking logically and us as the ones blinded by emotion.

Any position concerning morals and ethics and values is ultimately an emotional one. And because they're the things that make life worth living they're the most important ones - beyond even the necessities for survival (what's the point of surviving otherwise?) Logic is only of any use in working out how to get to what your ultimately emotional or sentimental feelings say is worth having.

Some people don't like that because they believe they are rationally correct, or that it has no absolute means of differentiating between angels and demons, to which all I can say is, yep, that's the universe for you.

I disagree that any position concerning morals and ethics and values is ultimately an emotional one; it's more to do with the underlying reward function of the individual. I would say you're right in that it's typically tied with emotion in the specific case of humans, but I don't believe that it has to be so.

The most obvious example would be the thought experiment of the Paperclip maximizer: an intelligent machine told to create paper clips, which eventually converts the entire universe into paperclips. Clearly the paperclip maximizer is intelligent (it's smart enough to figure out interstellar travel, how to deal with those pesky lifeforms interrupting it's paperclip manufacturing, etc...) and it obviously values making paperclips (it's "morality" is that anything is acceptable so long as it is to make paperclips). BUT the maximizer has no emotions. It's values are undeniably arbitrary, but they are not emotional ones (well, unless you want to call "# of paperclips made" an emotion ).

As I recall, the review of The Most Toys illustrated how even an emotionless being like Data could still reach conclusion about the right course of action based on person evaluation of action and consequences.