Tag Archives: Drama

The Last Jedi Thoughts

Two years already since The Force Awakens. How time flies. I know I don’t update this website very much. And there has been some fascinating sci-fi released since then. Ex Machina (see it!) and Alien: Whatever (avoid it!).

I heard a lot of preliminary buzz about The Last Jedi ranging from people squealing that this was the best Star War since The Empire Strikes Back or, alternatively, that this was the worst thing ever. Nowadays, with billions of dollars at stake, and social media a kind of catnip for toxic people, anything popular is curated by some of the worst impulses of the human animal.

But here we are. The technological advancement that has made Twitter and GIF memes possible, also lets us seamlessly make our dreams into simulated reality. When Star Wars arrived in 1977, the special effects pioneered by Lucas’ creative team made a whole new world of make-believe possible. Lucas himself once said that “…a special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing.” We went from that to a bouncing, animated Yoda sword-fighting with Emperor Palpatine in an embarrassingly short span of time.

The appeal of Star Wars wasn’t just the fantasy of cool ships and laser swords and pyu! pyu! It was a story with characters on a mythical journey. Periodically, the flow of StarWars™ product ever since has periodically been isolated from the human story, telling more and more formulaic stories that are about spectacle more than story.

I liked The Last Jedi. As a fan of the series, I probably am willing to like it too much. Similarly, I am likely to be disappointed if it were to burst some canon bubble I carry around in my head which is baggage from previous StarWars™ product. But on its own, it is a singular vision of a fantasy series, and it comes close to being a very good movie. I do think it is its own worst enemy, and there are numerous reasons why it’s not that good of an actual movie. I’ll get to that.

I’m going to separate my opinion on this. Because there really are two parts to having a reaction to this movie. There is the StarWars-y mythology thing, and then there is the way it succeeds or fails as a movie. The Last Jedi, in my opinion, succeeds very well in being StarWars-y mythological thing. But it has much to be desired as a movie. I will extol the virtues of the former, and decry the latter, anon.

::: | ::: | :::

If They Should Buy Wars, Please Let These Wars Stay

The dominion of us Nerds are divided on the Star-Wars-y worthiness of The Last Jedi. I thought it was a triumph of recovering the greatness of the original trilogy, and has done so far more than any other product has done since then.

I think a major problem with the prequels and the subsequent other media from the subsequent era, is that George Lucas essentially wrote Star Wars into a corner. What The Force Awakens began, and what The Last Jedi finalized, was breaking out of these corners. I’ll list here my rundown on the painted corners from which Rian Johnson has thankfully liberated this saga.

The Rule of Two… Who Cares?

In the original era, Darth Vader was referred to as “Dark Lord of the Sith” without further explanation of what that was.¹ The original trilogy had established only that there was a Dark Side and a Light Side, and that Vader was once a Jedi, and the rest was left open. This was expanded somewhat in the subsequent Expanded Universe novels and comics, which explored the idea of “the Sith” as an order like the Jedi. The Phantom Menace introduced the Sith as the baddies directly opposing the Jedi. It established that “there are only two, a master and an apprentice.” It established that the Sith were a secret order, with a sort of self-defeating org-chart with masters pitted against their apprentices who were always plotting to usurp them. These were very specific plot devices for the prequel era.

¹I think this was the comics. I don’t believe that “Sith” was uttered in the original trilogy.

This limitation was the easiest one done away with in the The Last Jedi. Kylo Ren is not a Sith. Snoke is not a Sith. Or at least they do not say he is a Sith anything. And it doesn’t matter. The issue is thankfully dropped and not mentioned again. Hopefully not ever. Let the past go.

Midichlorians and the Force Are… Who Cares?

Once again, The Force Awakens began to get the Force right, and The Last Jedi completes the rehabilitation of the concept. Luke has more than a few scenes in which he goes into detail on what the Force is, expanding on the lessons we got from Obi-Wan and Yoda in the originals. Once and for all, this movie buries the notion that the Force runs only in a bloodline. Other Star Wars stories with multi-generational Jedi and Sith presaged that the universe is completely at the mercy of either genetically gifted wizard-monks who kidnap children, or psychopathic sorcerer-tyrants who kill children. What a depressing prospect. Maybe it is time for the Jedi to go after all.

Luke explicitly says the Force belongs to everyone and that everyone is a part of it. There is not even a hint of the dreaded “M” word.

Slight spoiler here: we learn that Rey is at least neither a Skywalker nor a Kenobi. The theme that the Force comes to anyone, and that a random person from nowhere can in fact be a hero, gets right back to Joseph Campbell’s original mythology. I wanted to stand up and cheer when it became clear that the build-up and fake-out mystery of who Rey is was resolved with a shrug. Much, much better plot point than her being part of a dynasty or someone who was conceived or created or cloned for some kind of destiny set out for her ahead of time.

Snoke is… Who Cares?

One of the corners into which the prequels had painted the story is that Emperor Palpatine, who was almost created as a one-off baddie in Return Of The Jedi after a brief cameo in Empire, becomes the main villain of the whole saga. To his credit, Iain McDiarmid took advantage of the scenery-chewing required and was always entertaining as Palpatine. But the story got pretty stale pretty quickly, with the Jedi playing Wile E. Coyote to Palpatine’s Roadrunner.

There is no background given to us going into this movie for who or what Snoke is. I liked to entertain the theories that he was an old Sith, or some kind of malevolent undead entity. He obviously is introduced as an Emperor stand-in for the soft reboot in The Force Awakens. In the The Last Jedi, the Snoke theories are all pretty much just similarly ignored and the plot drives right past him. It doesn’t matter, and he’s not the main point of the story. Thank the maker.

Everything doesn’t have to tie together. We no longer have to think about grade-school Darth Vader building C-3P0, baby Boba Fett, or Obi-Wan commanding an army of Jango Fett clones. Things are set back to being a vast universe in which our heroes only play a small, but significant, part.

Jedi are No Longer Super Heroes

This is probably one of the changes which is the most controversial. It takes away something which has been extremely popular for StarWars™ product over the last couple of decades: the Jedi as having super powers. This started with The Phantom Menace when we see Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon cut through enemies with no tension, or sense of danger, or anything at stake. We saw them effortlessly make superhuman CGI flips as though they were weightless animation. We saw them using lightsabers as acetylene gear. Thus began the era of animated, ridiculously overpowered Jedi, whether it was Starkiller in The Force Unleashed video game throwing around TIE Fighters, or Anakin and Obi-Wan effortlessly skipping over a lake of lava in the course of an insanely obviously computer-generated lightsaber fight.

Let me stick to that one, as it is commonly cited as one of the highlights of the prequels. The Anakin vs. Obi-Wan fight is to me the height of this ridiculous phenomenon in the live movies: there is no sense that either participant had actually expended physical effort, possessed an inner ear for balance, or was once in any way terrified of the molten rock and heat around them. Only when the plot demands it does Anakin get burned by the lava. Until then, there is no sense that either character is doing anything other than controlling a bloodless avatar in a computer simulation. Neither seems to suffer from the heat or caustic gasses one would be subjected to over a flowing lava stream. The animated series, sad to say, only continued this super-power trend, and made it worse over time.

For what it’s worth, I think the Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, and Darth Maul fight in The Phantom Menace is by far the best fight scene in all the prequels. Every other attempt to create overwhelming (but perfectly coordinated) chaos in every battle scene in every subsequent movie is just CGI cacophony. Obi-Wan facing down General Grievous looks far less convincing than Luke facing down the Rancor.

In The Last Jedi, Luke actively mocks the idea that he can be some savior facing down the First Order with his “laser sword.” We knew then that we weren’t going to get a CGI Luke Skywalker floating up, cutting Imperial Walkers in half, or combining with Rey to double-team Snoke in some massively coordinated melee. I’m sure this rubbed a lot of fans the wrong way based on a lot of the backlash there has been. Luke’s place is thematically consistent with where Obi-Wan was in A New Hope. And it makes Luke’s decisions, both heroic and ill-considered, to have more consequence. Most importantly, it is consistent that Luke Skywalker knows that the legend of heroes will matter much more than what the heroes do themselves.

I agree it would have been fun to have seen a Luke in his prime, kicking some butt. Well, we’ve had years of comics and novels about the further adventures of Luke Skywalker. It’s too bad that all we get with Mark Hamill is the grumbly, bitter Luke. But those movies or TV shows would have had to have been made years ago. So as a torch-passing performance to a new cast, I thought this was an excellent use of Hamill as Luke, and, as cannot be said enough, was thematically consistent as well. That’s all I will say about Luke’s fate. See it for yourself to see the twists.

Luke also addresses another major plot hole the prequels steered us into: namely that the Jedi were failures. Luke points out that the Jedi were fooled and defeated by Darth Sidious. They inadvertently trained Darth Vader. They arguably did as much damage as they did any good in the galaxy at the end of their run. Luke is wary of any power wielded by Force users, which is of course the big lesson that should have been learned by the prequel events.

And it of course fits perfectly with a lesson on human nature. Good and evil at war within a human heart is very much a theme of classical heroes and villains. The Last Jedi wonderfully recasts this entire moral story. It’s taken a long time, but suddenly the moral metaphors in the SW universe mean something to people who may use the Force, but are still human, and neither all-powerful nor invulnerable.

What we really got in The Last Jedi more than anything was a development of the characters of Rey and Kylo Ren. Which is as it should be. The crux of their relationship, including Kylo’s entreaties that they rule the galaxy together, is thematically similar to what we’ve seen before, but it is a different form. I’ll address this more on the issues I have with the movie’s pacing itself, but the scenes with the two of them were very much the climax of the story that was being told here, and the best parts of the movie.

There are fans who would have preferred that the Jedi-as-super-hero trope continue on. If Episode IX were to include a light-saber fight between a bouncing, weightless CGI Maz Kanata, and a bouncing, weightless CGI Snoke, there are fans who would have clapped and shouted and justified it as the best thing ever.

The Universe is More than Just Remixes on What We’ve Seen

The B-story adventure in Canto Bight had some fun parts, although I know a lot of people found it over the top or silly. (I think this is definitely part of what needed fixing with editing or pacing, as I say below.) As for the premise of the expansion of the fictional universe into the territory of casinos and politics and war profiteering, I think it was necessary. After all, the series is based around stories of war. We’ve already seen developments which should be plenty depressing on their own, considering the way that endless war and genocide has been a plot device throughout the series.

I thought the expansion of the universe into some weird tangents was a great choice. It remixed some of our expectations and gave us a moral weight to the actions we saw. We can see that the war affects other people in the galaxy in other ways. And we see that there is a moral dimension to the Force, as we get a sight that even a slave child in the stables has a spark of the Force within him.

A political dimension to the Star Wars universe is also nothing new. The points made about war profiteering may rub some fans the wrong way. I can understand some of the complaints that it wasn’t a point that they would choose. I don’t entirely agree with making war profiteers out to be a villain, either. (In the real world, it’s not such an easy answer.) But then again, I respect the film for having a point of view. This makes this universe more lived-in than just a Jedi vs Sith role-playing game. And thankfully, if we’re going to get political allegories, it wasn’t horrifying Asian stereotype-creatures with names that are puns for American political leaders.

That last bit was maybe a little too cruel on ol’ George. I will give him this: Star Wars was always political. The metaphor of the Death Star was clearly a weapon of mass destruction, and the mechanized Empire was not-even-subtly a stand-in for 20th century fascist regimes, down to Nazi and Japanese-Imperial uniforms. Lucas himself also intended his films to directly point fingers at the USA and the Vietnam war for that matter, made more explicit as a metaphor with the Ewoks in Return of The Jedi. (I, like, many others out there, will fast-forward through all Ewok scenes if I am to re-watch any of ROTJ, anyway.) For that matter, when Ronald Reagan went with the metaphor and analogized the Soviet Union with the Empire, that was hardly out-of-bounds, either. In the 1970s, the Empire was a buzzingly obvious metaphor for evils in the real world.

To keep the Star Wars universe updated while also mining nostalgia, there was always going to need for an overriding political metaphor for the villains which would meet some kind of emotional impact on the audience. World War 2 was very much still in living memory during the original trilogy, although today it is less so. I personally thought that the First Order with their full-on Nazi drag act in The Force Awakens was stretching it a little bit. The world faces dangers from conflicts like Daesh nowadays, or bloody border wars in ethnic conflicts. In this, I thought Kylo Ren was a good successor to Darth Vader. He was wonky, unstable, more full of anger than competence.

I heard another take on the First Order from Mr. Sunday Movies which I do think is interesting. The original Nazis were scary evil and scary competent. The “alt-right” guys in their Nazi T-shirts and bad haircuts are scary in an unbalanced, desperate way. Hux, then, is more of a LARPer of an original Imperial Moff rather than a cool, competent ruler. In that sense, it works.

::: | ::: | :::

So the Mythology is Awesome, But is it Any Good?

In the age of the internet, I’m doing what nobody regularly does. I have a split opinion — a shade of “gray,” if you will, rather than pure black or white. I am firmly on the side of approving of how Rian Johnson handled the mythology of Star Wars, preserving what is awesome about it. And I mean “awesome” in the dictionary meaning of the word.

The movie, The Last Jedi, however, is just not a great movie. I certainly may hold a more critical eye than others, but I’ll be as objective as I can without spoilers. The flaws I find may not bother others, and it may be much more fun for kids. But that doesn’t make it immune from criticizing the things which tax our patience or halt our suspension of disbelief. The original trilogy was insanely popular not because it was a “kid’s movie,” but because it was entertaining for a wide audience on different levels.

Now, this brings up all kinds of objections. People will say, sure, “b-b-but the original had plot holes! So this film has plot holes too, so it’s exactly the same in quality as the first one!” I can say The Empire Strikes Back is a classic that everyone compares every other sci-fi action movie to because it is a master class on pacing and editing. People can reply, “yeah, well, uh, that had flaws, too, and people didn’t like it at the time, either, so… no one can say The Last Jedi isn’t as good!”

There is a role for opinion and then there is a role for taste. But there are objective things that can be measured.

The first problem with the movie which I think most people will notice is simply the running length. At two-and-a-half hours, it’s a lot to sit through. And there are several scenes which don’t really pay off for the story, which I believe would make the movie much more enjoyable had they been excised.

A theme that runs through the movie is failure and redemption. “Let the past go” is something which is important to Luke, as he is trying to excise the legacy of the Jedi’s horrible mistakes.

A chase plot sets the pace and ticking clock that frames the movie’s drama. With this setting and this conflict, different efforts to find a way out of impossible odds meet with degrees of failure or success. The chase parallels Rey’s time on Ach-To with Luke, and eventually these events link up, bringing our characters more and more successes and failures.

The problem with the story here is tone. There is a sense of desperation and a need for characters to risk their lives or to even outright sacrifice them. This is played for tension. But there are also moments where characters clearly need to sacrifice themselves and we can see it coming for quite a while.

Are we supposed to be horrified at the deaths, or ignore them as ships blow up left and right? Should we feel tension when a character seems about to die, or should we feel numbed because of the rate of destruction of everything else? I found myself frustrated when characters would fret about saving a single other character while ships or people are literally being blown to pieces around them. It’s not a spoiler to say, no, of course not everybody dies — we all knew that was going to happen. As if, well, our heroes really, really messed up and got a lot of people killed for no apparent reason.

The tone would definitely be helped if a few scenes were removed or excised altogether. I would have given editors a goal of removing at least half an hour from the movie to make the story flow in a tighter way. Some scenes linger simply because there is a desire to introduce more characters for no good reason. (Or to sell the toys? Such cynical thoughts do cross one’s mind.) Since Captain Phasma is in the trailers, I believe it’s not a spoiler to note that she is in it for a couple of extended sequences. She serves utterly no point other than to have a battle which is completely distracting to the plot. It is also edited in strange ways.

Now, granted, that is my critique of the main chase story. I think that there is a truly great story within this film about the arcs of Luke, Rey, and Kylo Ren. Luke’s final scenes in the film are, I think, some of the best things ever in Star Wars. By contrast, a lot of the prelude to this with the actions with the other characters was, frankly, padding.

I can handle plot holes such as wondering why the bombs in space want to fall downward. We get it: it’s mainly a WW2 metaphor, and whether we are given an explanation or not, we can imagine that there probably is one that we don’t need to be concerned with. I can’t criticize the movie for having physics that doesn’t make sense. That’s always been Star Wars. This is fantasy, not hard sci-fi.

Other plot holes that just speak to bad editing are little more jarring. “Wait, did that person just drag his injured friend two miles? That would take a lot longer, wouldn’t it?”

The movie, as everyone can tell from previews and the trailers, starts at exactly the ending of The Force Awakens. We don’t know, say, how long exactly it took Rey to travel to Ach-To, but even if it is a number of days to pad the events, it’s still not much time. The chase sequence at the beginning of the film has an exact timeline, so we know for a fact that the whole movie seems to take place in a matter of three to four days. (I lost count.) So that does not leave a lot of time for Rey to make the, er, progression, she seems to do. By the end of the movie, it’s still at most a week after Han’s death and her fight with Kylo Ren.

I will gladly praise Daisy Ridley’s charisma in playing Rey, and I think the character is absolutely perfect for what she is. But it’s not hard to make the Mary Sue critique for some of how she was introduced. It’s a minor gripe, as I think a lot of plot holes like can easily be fixed by a simple line or two of exposition. My grip is that this exposition is never offered.

Rey turns out not only to know how to fly the Millennium Falcon, but she’s incredibly good at it? It wouldn’t have hurt to indicate that she had worked as a pilot on Jakku on the weekends. It turns out that she is incredibly competent with her sword and staff and requires no training whatsoever to use a lightsaber competently? It wouldn’t hurt to note that she received specific melee training back on Jakku, for instance. Because if a person can become a Jedi in a matter of days, it sort of takes away from how special it should be.

This is a critique that is more applicable to The Force Awakens, of course. But it’s still relevant to this movie, as we see a lot happen in a very compressed period of time. Ironic, then, that we get some important speeches about the importance of learning from failure. This is hard to do when you go from being a scavenger to hopping around the universe, training as a Jedi, and killing many people, all in less than a month.

::: | ::: | :::

I am disappointed in how it seems the Disney/Marvel machine might be churning these movies out without as much careful editing and pacing as I would like. But this movie may get a lot of guff it doesn’t deserve from people more upset about the necessary re-set of the Jedi mythology. There are a lot of places they can go to from here. They can tell stories without some of the constraints from previous incarnations. Let the past go.

2016: Ructions All The Way Down || Arrival Review

Writing about culture is delicate thing at the end of 2016. Our society is undergoing frantic re-contextualization of what is right or wrong, conservative or liberal, taboo or normalized. Is social media is ultimately a tool for more social democratization or a boon for totalitarians? I suspect the ructions will continue, and we won’t shake this out for some time.

Maybe the received wisdom from cultural curators in the past was just reporting on general trends rather than influencing them. I’d wager that established cultural critics have never been less influential on popular perceptions than they have been in 2016. In the past, I would have thought the influence of internet bloviating twitterati as being over-hyped. This year has proved me wrong. Received wisdom is being overturned with every tick of the news cycle.

I think the pushing aside of the clerisy has been a long time coming.  As a Libertarian who is technically an atheist, I don’t exactly stand athwart social change shouting “stop.” But I’m afraid right now we are in the Stalinist stage of the social media revolution. The marketers, both of the commercial and political species, have legions of marketing and psychological methodologies at hand. The trick nowadays for the would-be power brokers is not to actually be an individual going viral with an original point of view. Clever power brokers at the top now seek to use strategically placed social media as an imitation of authenticity.

One of the insights on the state of all things digital and cultural was provided to me by Ryan Holiday’s book Trust Me, I’m Lying about his work as a PR person deliberately manipulating media blogs. Internet news blogs run on advertising, and advertising runs on clicks. They must get you, the consumer, to click on something, whatever it takes. Thus, the most ridiculously arresting, arousing, or infuriating of headlines will be hyperlinked. The metrics of what works are known by cruel, unfeeling, Darwinian culling. If it harvests a click, it multiplies; if it does not, it withers. It doesn’t matter whether what is being put forward is uplifting, insightful, or important to your actual life. What matters is a boolean consideration: whether or not the user clicks that link.

Media manipulators have used the accumulated knowledge of human nature to figure out what makes us click. Turns out, things that make us angry make us apt to click more than anything else. Yes: puppy videos or celebrity nip-slips are up there, too. But it’s much more profitable, if you are running a web site, to have a headline with a declarative statement that will cause blood pressure to spike one way or the other. This earn clicks. And only clicks matter.

It could be said that advertisers, politicians, and polemical-minded journalists are trolling us. They are much like the fisherman trying out different shiny flies to find which one gets the bass to bite. The troll feeds on its catch, grows larger and smarter, and the cycle continues.

Trolling reverberated throughout the election this year. Electoral anger was made possible by a Democrat Party that sought to suppress democracy in the name of Super Delegates delivering up a candidate neither welcomed nor even widely well-liked by the would-be consumers.

Anger-induced clicks helped with the Bernie backlash against the Clinton product simply being handed to the Democrat constituency by this clerisy. And this anger against the clerisy ultimately helped Trump against everyone else.


American politics are almost light-hearted compared to, say, the Turkish would-be “coup” this summer. This is a story almost completely uncovered in the West. In what’s become a theme this year, the government of Turkey seems to have trolled their own populace. The Islamist President blamed the coup attempt on a bookish Islamist organization his own Islamist party was once allied with. In this way, Erdoğan cemented his hold on the country as a populist Islamist, while also claiming to fight dangerous Islamism. This contradiction is not coincidence. The incoherence is confusing and demoralizing, of course, but that can only help the powers in charge maintain their hold by repressing dissent.

Not so subtly, the Erdoğan regime has claimed that groups of secularist liberal intellectuals are tied in to the “Islamist” coup through links in education. Thus, the current Islamist populist regime has cemented its hold on the country, while claiming to be fighting Islamist terrorists by arresting and removing from positions of power large numbers of non-Islamist secularists. It takes some deliberate concentration for an outsider to follow these events, but the population of Turkey is forced to take it all in stride, and stand compliant in the face of a broadly mendacious official government line. And if the individuals do not like it, they can say goodbye to their jobs, their livelihoods, and in a word repeated quite often: their “honor” in society.

True totalitarianism is not merely living in a society in which official power repeats lies endlessly; that happens often enough everywhere. Under true totalitarianism, one is forced to recite those lies with phony sincerity and a phony smile, which everyone knows is phony, but which is required nonetheless. Totalitarianism demoralizes the individual by humiliating him and emasculating him, forcing him to smile and partake in his own humiliation.

Social Media has proven to be very adept at reinforcing these totalitarian norms by leveraging every pseudo-private space as a vector through which to enforce these pageants of self-negation and submission. In the West, we’re so far only playing games with totalitarianism and hate-clicks; contrarians still have room to mock back. In Turkey, the real thing is playing out for blood and body-counts. It remains to be seen whether the Turkish experience is an anomaly or a prequel for the rest of us.


Of far less importance than matters of Trump or Turkey, is the state of the culture of geekery.

I’m not sure whether it’s purely motivated by money, or part of some social experiment, but the social media hive minds been telling us consumers of geek media that what we really need is for women to kick ass!! in more action/sci-fi/super-hero movies.

I think, for the dollars involved, marketers are determined to fight the fundamental truth that a bunch of action films are power fantasies that boys — testosterone soaked boys — revel in. Female power fantasies — which exist — are often much subtler, personal, and less about punching or using swords. The company line that feminism means we need to see more women kick ass!! is as phony to me as claiming Cinemax soft-core lesbian sex scenes are “empowering” for the gay community. Both seem to me really driven by the consumption habits of a male audience, eager for the visual spectacle of titillating female flesh.

I think the story of 2016 as the year of the Great Gaslighting might best be exemplified in this RedLetterMedia video on the failed Ghostbusters reboot. Consider: a major corporation, worth billions, for the sake of maintaining high-income executive salaries, conducted an ad campaign for Ghostbusters that framed the existing fans of their intellectual property as basement-dwelling misogynists. This is not to defend the small number of misogynists who actually did make their foolishness known, but to point out that Sony marketed their product as a symbol of progressivism and feminism that all well-meaning, right-thinking people should embrace by principle. Whether it’s fraudulent to advertise an awful, unfunny movie as if it were otherwise, is besides my point. It’s about a multi-billion dollar corporation ginning up hatred against a group of people that Sony even explicitly recognizes as powerless and small. The massive corporation played the part of victim for being rejected by its own consumers. This is a level of cynicism really beyond parody.


This is not to claim that there are no legitimate fans of watching women kick ass!! in movies. Geek girls exist, and they are legion, and I love them. I just won’t pretend that these are things that everyone actually wants. I’m in favor of the things that not everyone gets.

I just am aware that geek girls are numerically in a minority, and no sane person goes to, say, ComiCon because it’s a great place to meet girls. I stand for the contrarians, the geeks, the outcasts, and the lovers of insanely nerdy inside references. I fight for the users! There is something to be said for being in the minority, anyway. Who wants to always be in the “most” when the “most” is mostly wrong?

As it is, true nerds have seen their culture appropriated as super-hero, fantasy, and sci-fi movies have taken over movie grosses. As a geek, it’s interesting to watch female starlets play comic book characters. I often think to myself: has she any clue who Emma Frost or the Scarlet Witch are in comic books? And one level further: has she even dated the kind of man who has any idea who those characters are?

Fine enough. Let the nerds and neckbeards have our moment. We geeks suffered through playing right-field in our day, so I am fine with the pretty, chiseled people in movies coming to ComiCon and grovelling at the great otaku temple to win the favor of our dollars and clicks.


Arrival is a science-fiction movie with a female protagonist, and it’s very good science-fiction that satisfies the thinking geek. Nothing felt false to me in the movie, as things so often do in the sci-fi genre these days.

I’ll compare it to the Martian, as far as smart sci-fi goes. I didn’t care much for that movie, even when I wanted to like it. It pulled me out of my suspension of disbelief a little too often with over-acting actors making too many quips and asides that fell flat to me. I liked it for the journey of the protagonist solving problems in a methodical way, providing the base for the rare hard sci-fi big budget movie. I felt I appreciated the Martian more as an idea of a story than the story itself. Which follows, as I heard the book was better.

Arrival, also based on a book I didn’t read, is not quite hard sci-fi, as obviously it involves aliens and fantastical elements. But let the geeks rejoice! This is a movie wherein the two lead characters are scientists. And they act like scientists. And there is honest-to-Xenu drama in watching them figure out the complexity of communicating with aliens. There is no fake-out with people acting like they wouldn’t act in real life, nor needless quips, nor jokes to elicit audience response, nor cheeseball moments. It all felt very true. Even the heart-wrenching sentiments, which are very powerfully evoked by Amy Adams’ character and her very personal loss, are all very pure.

Critics said they hated how the military stymies the scientists when they’re trying to figure out how to communicate with the aliens. But I found it rang true. Forrest Whittaker’s character says “I need to know exactly what you’re going to do before you go in there, because I need to defend it to a room of people trying to protect their jobs.” Sounds like a perfect recitation of the drama of life in a bureaucracy. In my experience, any actual scientist would nod knowingly at that scene. (Yes, that’s how you can recognize the real scientists in the theater: they’re the ones in the lab coats nodding.)

There still is a lot of drama that is milked from characters under danger from other characters pointing weapons at them, but it serves the story progression within context of the plot, not as a plot device to add drama unnecessarily. No jump scares. Sound is used as part of the story, but the alien noises are very deep audio tones, and it worked to hear it in a theater where the room is shaking. No audio is used in lieu of plot. (Take that, JJ Abrams and Lost.)

Yes, the message is a bit hippie-dippie: “we all need to get along!” But if you’re going to criticize human nature and the state of the world along those lines, this is the way to do it.

Arrival is science-fiction at its best. It is transcendent storytelling that bridges the world we know with fantasy, and brings us face to face with things both beautiful and terrible.

Non Trekker Thoughts on Deep Space Nine

Like a lot of my fellow nerds, I have my opinions on Star Trek and Star Wars, and I can make my case for why I like one more than the other. (‘Wars, in my case.) Laying my cards completely on the table here, as someone who does not care about Star Trek lore, nor for the characters or the fictional universe it lives in, I want to say that I come to this with a fairly open mind. Or, at least, a bias only toward indifference and low expectations. So I say with honest enthusiasm that one can pick out at least half the episodes of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (ST:DS9) season six as arguably the best sci-fi/fantasy saga that I have seen on television. It has its definite clunkers in a 26-episode season, which I’ll get to, but first let me offer praise where it is due.

I’ve seen Star Trek, at least in passive viewing, in every iteration. I have never been a full-on fan. Only a channel-hopper. I feel as if I’ve always come across Star Trek The Original Series (TOS) in syndication my whole life, but I could never hold an interest in watching it for more than a few minutes at a time. The dialogue of Star Trek, the delivery, and the plots they serviced, always struck me as either embarrassingly pure cheese, or just eye-rolling. But I don’t dismiss the importance of Star Trek TOS for being a catalyst and incubator for good sci-fi.

I owe it to Star Trek TOS to defend it in two ways. First: it was a kid’s show, and there is no accounting for kid taste. I was rolling my eyes at Star Trek at the same age when I watched Transformers cartoons in the afternoon, which are unwatchable to me as an adult. The second defense I’ll give to Star Trek looking back as an adult – especially after the syndicated series that are now digitally remastered with a few better effects – is that, as an adult with some familiarity with stagecraft, Star Trek TOS looks fantastic.

I mean fantastic in the sense of pure imagination informed by the style of the time: the mid-century, bright-colors of the Technicolor, psychedelic era. I advise anybody to watch random scenes of the TOS, with or without the sound on, and see how those colors pop. Of course the sets look a little cardboard if you cannot suspend your disbelief. But I think the creators of the series were given an open space to play in, and a lot of creative collaboration happened there. This was true for the writers, sure, but also the set-builders, designers, lighting crew, and not to forget wardrobe and hair.

I’m sure the female actors were often hired mostly for their appearance, which is nothing unusual in the churn of TV production of the time. Unlike roles of standing still on cowboy or detective shows at the time, the women got to be costumed in ways that were truly creative. When it comes to sexy sci-fi, the Frank Frezetta stylizations have been primarily influential in the genre, (think Leia’s slave outfit), but that late sixties look on women is one that definitely makes me sweat, and Star Trek was definitely all about it.

The latter movies and The Next Generation-era shows had uninspiring looks in my opinion, with the technicolor pop reduced to muddy earth tones and interiors looked like a corporate Holiday Inn Express built in 1978, re-carpeted in the mid-1980s. Which is what kept me disappointed, even as the directing and production of the latter Star Trek was of a much higher quality than TOS, it just didn’t look to be nearly as much fun.

I had heard the best Star Trek series was reputedly Deep Space Nine, and particularly the later seasons. This happened to be on during much of my own period of post-collegiate television non-viewing-and-eschewing, so these were episodes I never saw saw. Now that they are on Netflix, I made a point to begin watching DS9 starting at season six. What follows are my impressions, from someone who was only passably familiar with the show from incidental viewing here and there.

::|:: The episodes. ::|::

The 13 episodes (half the season) I think make it great are:

601 “A Time to Stand”
602 “Rocks and Shoals”
603 “Sons and Daughters”
604 “Behind the Lines”
605 “Favor the Bold”
606 “Sacrifice of Angels”
609 “Statistical Probabilities”
611 “Waltz”
618 “Inquisition”
619 “In the Pale Moonlight”
626 “Tears of the Prophets”

Good bottle episodes as honorable mentions

612 “Who Mourns for Morn?”
613 “Far Beyond the Stars” (There is much to say about this episode.)

Episodes that I didn’t like are below. I’ll go into more detail.

616 “Change of Heart”
625 “The Sound of Her Voice”

::|:: The Good ::|::

The season starts brilliantly, jumping into story where the main characters are in dire circumstances. The premise of the show is that the space station is on the edge of a wormhole that leads to the distant Gamma Quadrant, which is unknown to the Federation. The Gamma Quadrant is controlled by a vast empire known as the Dominion. The Dominion has allied with the Cardassians, a reptilian humanoid alien race who once held a vast and oppressive empire of their own. To regain former glory, the Cardassian leaders have actually willingly submitted themselves to be subjects of the Dominion. Cardassians have taken over Deep Space Nine, and Captain Sisko and his crew are making raids against the Dominion, planning how to take the station back.

The season starts with this setup, has a handful of great episodes all in a row following this storyline in a logical manner. Characters have arcs, and they act as the characters would act with their own agendas in such a scenario: Sisko is a serious leader, fighting heroically for both Starfleet and for the Bajorans. Bajor is the planet just below Deep Space Nine which was formerly part of the Cardassian empire, and is conquered again by the Cardassian/Dominion alliance at the beginning of the season. The Bajorans have a particularly intense religion, and they consider Sisko a prophet. He fights the Dominion in the first episodes, marooned on a planet with a small crew, and he takes risk at self-sacrifice for the greater good.

Odo is still on the station as head of security. As a member of the Dominion race, he is temporarily stymied in his sense of duty to his friends in the Federation, as he is curious about meeting others like himself. His loyalties are conflicted. He remains ostensibly committed to resisting the Dominion, but also begins shrinking from joining active resistance work with the others. Major Keira, the Bajoran commander, also has an arc in being fiercely opposed to the Cardassians re-conquest of her homeworld, while also having to put on a brave face as though she accepts the situation so as not be removed from her command of the subjected Bajorans. Being out of power would reduce her ability to be an effective resistance fighter. All the while, she faces the conflict in feeling betrayed by Odo, to whom she has romantic feelings, while also being indulged with vacillating kindness and cruelty by the Cardassian general, Dukat.

Like any sci-fi show, the beats are very plot-driven to propel the action. And once the plot gets set in motion, the actors get to do some of their best work of the season in these early episodes, exploring these conflicts within themselves and with one another. When Star Trek works like this, it works well. It tells a story over time, focusing equally on the plot as on the characters and their conflicts. At certain times, the overall plot arc takes a backseat to allow character development. This is television, and specifically fantasy television, at its very best.

::|:: The Plot Devices ::|::

The fictional Dominion is a pretty strong sci-fi concept that drives the plot of this season. Part of that starts with the character of Odo, who was an orphaned member of that species of shapeshifters, who did not know where he came from. His character’s arc was to be raised on the station by a Cardassian scientist, eventually growing up and taking a job as a security officer. He is a brusque, humorless character, who is defensive and bitter about being an oddity as the only member of his species he has ever met thus far. His eventually finding out that he is a lost member of a powerful race that rules much of universe beyond the wormhole presents him with challenges, conflicts, and moral choices.

The main antagonists of the Dominion, (referred to, reverently, as the “Founders” by their loyal subjects), are mysterious, mostly in the background of the action. They are rarely seen for what they are, and are fully vague as to their full motivations and capabilities. The Dominion clone the minions who administer their empire. They use the Jem’Hadar, a race of reptilian humanoid warriors they have cloned in batches, as soldiers. The Dominion also clone their civil administrators from another race of creatures, the Vorta, who are the obsequious, but clever officers of their empire.

I find this use of clones as a threat to the main protagonists to be much better conceived from start to finish than anything the Star Wars Prequels did by shoe-horning clones into the storyline just because of a throw-away line from the first movie. How much better would the prequels have been if Attack of the Clones involved the Jedi and Republic forces fighting a Dominion invasion? Which in turn led to the rise of a mechanized, fascistic Galactic Empire after the Jedi were wiped out? I would even settle for Dr. Who’s Sontarans as an improvement on the prequels.

In addition to the character conflicts and shades of darkness, two elements I think the latter DS9 seemed to incorporate from a Star Warsian perspective (is that a thing?): [1] the presence of religion, and [2] a grittiness to the fictional setting in which the series takes place.

The Bajoran religion drives a subplot for much of the B-story in season six, eventually culminating in the cliffhanger. The religion feels a bit like suburban Buddhism-lite to me, with not as much at stake as they insist there is within the dialogue. But it’s a fictional play, and I enjoyed the story that can plainly be seen as an analog for religions in human history. Besides which, they seem to worship the aliens who live in the wormhole as gods, so there is a consistency within this universe that their religion does touch something which is tangible, and is essential to the arc.

DS9 went a fair way in having distinct looks for the space station, the Klingons, the Cardassians, the Jem’Hadar, and the various imaginary species and travelers in the universe. Design differences were subtle, but effective. Of all the shows, it maintains a constant balance of different characters playing different nations. (I’m using “nations” to describe the allegory inherent in ST:DS9, whether you want to call that species, planets, races, religions, etc.) I’m thinking of the complexity there must have been behind the scenes to maintain a flow of characters with distinctive looks. The makeup, the costuming, the set building, the lighting, the acting, all coordinated to make this universe believable. I’d throw the Bajorans in, too, except that it must have been much easier to only need a small prosthetic nose ridge applied for a scene compared to an entire lizard head or Klingon face plate.

The late 90s had some very compelling TV series between ST:DS9 and Babylon 5 (B5). Sci-Fi gets a reputation as derivative distractions for a man-boy fan base who are social misfits. Which, hey, [1] I’ve seen some SyFy shows, and maybe that critique is a little on the nose, and, [2] if those are the worst of my vices, I’ll take the hit. Compared to the cheaply produced game shows, variety shows, and “reality” shows that dominate TV nowadays, DS9 and B5 were a Bayreuth festival compared to a Punch-and-Judy level of storytelling on broadcast TV these days.

::|:: The Performances ::|::

Let me give a lot of credit to the actors in DS9, in major and minor roles, both. Given the cult popularity of shows like these, the actors get all kinds of fame and adoration. But in terms of appreciating the role of stagecraft, there was something very enjoyable about watching the actors deliver their lines under what must have been brutal prosthetics and uncomfortable costumes. All the Cardassian characters, particularly the defector-former-spy Garak, all are played to perfection as characters with obvious conflicts within them. Doing that under lizard makeup is all the more impressive. Even the Klingon characters, which is usually a green light for actors to chew scenery like a pack of meth-addled beavers, are played with some subtlety.

As I confess I already fall on the “Wars” side of the Star Trek/Wars fan loyalty: consider this high-praise coming from me that I believe there is easily much more enjoyable sci-fi content in season six of DS9 than in all the Star Wars prequels. What DS9 got right was to use these actors correctly. The use of actors with props, prosthetics, a little bit of choreography, and good dialogue, is infinitely more enjoyable than relying on CGI creations and digital matte backgrounds, no matter how pretty they may be. The Star Wars prequels had great looking ideas in them, and nothing in Star Trek is as beautiful as, say, the creation of the world of Naboo in the Phantom Menace. But as cool looking as the sleek starfighters, Gungan underworld city, and Coruscant all were, they were pretty creations that lie flat without interesting characters to hold on to.

Ewan MacGregor and Avery Brooks are both Shakesperean actors capable of rattling the walls with their performances. I enjoy nearly every moment of Brooks on screen, even when he is beavering away at that scenery, as he often does in DS9. This is opposed to MacGregor’s often flat, wince-inducing dialogue with (pretty) CGI creations in the prequels. In the contrast between them, I don’t blame the quality of the actors for why one works more than the other.

One of the most famous props in theater is Yorrick’s skull. Hamlet’s speech is Shakespeare poetry at its best, and the stage directions are minimal, leaving the personification of the character to be fullfilled by the actor playing the part. Hamlet picks up the skull of the old jester Yorrick, muses on life and death and the fate of all living things, and ties it back to the central theme of the play. Every good production of Hamlet has actors and directors finding nuances in this scene. They modify their body language and their delivery, cadence, and rhythm of the lines. The excitement here isn’t from CGI or backing music, or even from just the lines themselves, but with how the actor melds the words and actions to transmit emotion from the stage.

A lot of movies nowadays make up for bad scripts, bad acting, and uninspired direction by pounding the audience’s senses until their brains are tenderized. Explosions, CGI, quick cuts, nauseating camera angles, all are the equivalent of dangling keys in front of your audience to keep them distracted. Cheaper productions have the choice to either attempt these gimmicks poorly, or to actually rely on low-key props and acting and dialogue to keep the audience engaged. If the props look ridiculous, or the lines are excessively dull, or the actors as charming as lead, such a setting will expose all the weakest parts of the conception.

Sci-Fi and fantasy, when they take themselves too seriously, can be really bad. When they skillfully use clever props, sets, and prosthetics, they can provide actors a setting in which to raise the level of their performance to something transcendent by giving an open space in a world with only imagination as the limit.

::|:: The Bad ::|::

Okay, it’s not all good. Much of what I find problematic and bad with the season seems to tie in to the fact that there are 26(!) episodes for this single season. A show like this, made today, would probably be half that, at most, and would be better for it. (Although I doubt it could be made on commercial television.)

I am not saying I actively disliked all other episodes, but in my opinion, there were too many, and it stretched the season thin. But commercial television has always had the requirement to crank out product to sell time, and nowadays it’s just easier to fill commercial TV time with space-filling, time-killing, “reality” side-shows. Quality narratives, if they exist, are left to the gated communities of cable, Netflix, Amazon, etc.

There were a lot of self-contained bottle episodes, each of which could have been the basis for an entire series arc by themselves. I’m sure that “Far Beyond the Stars” gets praise for its “alt” world setting, which sort of breaks the fourth wall, indicating that the series is – or just maybe could be – the work of a science fiction writer in the 1950s, played by Avery Brooks, fighting for his right to tell his stories of a distant space station with a black captain against oppression from a racist society. I’m sure a lot of Star Trek fans probably didn’t like it, as it sort of impeached some of the fantasy of the show’s premise. I’m also sure that lots of non Star Trek fans probably can appreciate this for what it is, and I definitely got a kick of watching the ensemble cast get to play characters in another, more realistic setting, and really stretch their legs a bit. I won’t get into it here, but it’s highly recommended viewing, in my opinion, for people who even specifically dislike sci-fi or Star Trek in particular, just to see a really well-done teleplay. It directly addresses some of the roots of sci-fi fantasy, and the roots of that fantasy from writers churning away for pulp publications back in the day, pushing the boundaries of imagination, and pushing against societal injustice, small-mindedness, and human tyranny, simply by imagining that things can be different. This episode is one of the greatest homages to the culture of Science Fiction ever.

Anyway, there were things in this season that I didn’t like. What would Star Trek discussions be without gripes and complaints? I’ll run it from the things that irked me the least to the things that irked me the most.

First, they introduced the character of Vic, a character who exists in the holodeck as a rat-pack style Las Vegas lounge singer. He becomes a regular character by breaking the normal rules of the holodeck in that he knows he is actually an AI hologram. He also is sentient in that he is not just a single program that runs, but remembers things from each instance that the program is run. This allows him to interact with the characters. Creatively, Vic’s lounge gives the characters a chance to have drinks and commiserate with one another in the service of plot and character development in a different setting. This doesn’t irk me by itself. It’s fun and clever for what it is, I guess. But I feel like it’s a tonal shift, and a distraction from the rest of the show. It erodes some of the show’s immersive nature. Ostensibly, Star Trek takes place in the future, but it’s not literally the future; it’s a fantasy setting. Star Trek, from what I’ve seen, unfortunately, does this in every iteration: suddenly bringing our present day smack dab into the narrative, either showing 25th century people with a plot-servicing interest in “retro” 20th century culture, or through time travel or space hibernation or the like. In these episodes, the crew interacts with actual contemporary people. I would prefer the show stay on course to tell the story it is telling without doing this, even when it can be done cleverly.

And, yes, I realize “Beyond the Stars” might be liable to the same critique – and for that reason I do not put it on the list as essential for the season arc – but it does frame the setting of the show, allowing the actors to play different characters. It was not necessary to the plot that Sisko would have visions that he is a character of a 1950s. My assumption is that the show-runners demanded that there be some scenes still “within” the Star Trek universe in a bottle episode that is outside the continuity.

Part of Vic’s character arc involves giving romantic advice to the crew. This felt a little bit too patronizing to the fans. The romance between Odo and Keira is handled through Vic acting as Odo’s Cyrano, and definitely didn’t hold me at all. I consider sci-fi to be bad when I stop seeing the characters and instead see the actors, and I feel sympathy for them having to deliver very lame lines. And Nana Visitor and René Auberjonois are both very good actors who have very good scenes with one another throughout the season, which is all the more impressive as both are using prosthetic makeup.

The part of the romance which I find to be too much fan service is Odo’s setup of being bad with women, and needing Vic’s advice to “just talk to her” to woo Keira. This comes a little too close to bad advice given to men in “Manic Pixie Dream Girl” tropes. “Hey, she may be giving you signals that she is not interested, but the solution is just to stalk her relentlessly.” This is definitely bad advice for awkward males. And, further, it changes the characterization of Odo’s and Keira’s relationship, which up until then seemed to be handled in a little more realistic, adult manner.

There are two episodes that involve time travel in the season. Time travel and alternate universes are where I throw down my gauntlet and say this is where I stay on the Star Warsian side of the divide in fandom. Time Travel is a plot device in every iteration of Star Trek, and it usually dissipates any interest I have developed in the narrative at that point.

Time travel or alternate universes as plot points of a sci-fi show erode my suspension of disbelief unless the show is entirely based around time travel. So, I give a pass to Doctor Who, Sliders, Quantum Leap, etc., as shows which use time travel as their entire framing device from which the fictional universe flows. I find it difficult to follow sci-fi universes which go to lengths to establish certain consistency and believability while tossing in that, oh, they also happen to travel in time or alternate dimensions for some reason. Star Trek is space fantasy – although of a different kind than Star Wars – so while it can’t be held to the requirements of hard sci-fi, it should at least be consistent to the universe in which it lives.

The next thing I have a gripe about is when characters act contrary to either pre-established rules, or contrary to their stated role. Captain Sisko is promoted to being one of the key officers in the military, responsible for leading presumably millions of soldiers. I find it is contrary to belief that he suddenly decides to take charge of a minor side mission that detracts from the command of fleet activities, or one that subjects himself to grave danger. He is supposedly one of the top commanders whose life is too important to risk for mundane tasks. Those mundane tasks become plot points in standalone episodes, though, which need to get made in 26-episode seasons.

I get why this happens in stories. The lead actor is playing a hero character, and we expect to see the actor do interesting, heroic things. However, it comes more at the service of putting out 26 episodes, rather than remaining consistent with 13 tight episodes.

One of the best episodes of the season deals with Sisko making hard ethical choices that invoke a conflict within him and with other characters. (619, “In the Pale Moonlight.”) Will he fake evidence in order to provoke the Romulans to join the war against the Dominion, or will he decide not to do so on ethical grounds? What I liked about this episode is that, for all the very lofty abstractions that Star Trek plots dabble with, this actually approaches the realistic and ugly choices that are made by diplomats in times of war when lives and the fates of nations, (or planets, I guess) are at stake. This is a key episode for the rest of the season, and is low-key drama with the action all offscreen, and it is a masterpiece.

The episode 625, “The Sound of Her Voice” on the other hand, told a story which I thought detracted from the characterization of Sisko thus far. The arc of the story is that he and the crew of the spaceship the Defiant are following a distress signal which takes them away from otherwise important duty at a tremendous risk to themselves. The story itself is interesting, but I thought the setup was a little bit insulting to the intelligence of the fans who are following along thus far. It makes sense when the characters put themselves at risk in service of the story arc, but less so when it’s a side story away from that arc, putting everyone else in Starfleet in danger because this crew of important persons may get themselves killed. My disbelief just was not suspended.

Lastly, the biggest disappointment to me involves a death of a character which wasted an opportunity to tell a better story. This is a spoiler alert for those who haven’t seen it.

Similar to the way the way the other episode I referenced seemed to have characters act contrary to the way they were written, “Change of Heart” did so even in a worse way. The story of the episode is that Worf must make a choice either to save the life of a secret operative defecting from the Cardassians, or save his injured wife, Jadzia. Worf is presented as being absolutely dedicated to duty, as is Jadzia, and that they are completely willing to risk their lives for their joint mission. That is, at least, how the episode’s dialogue is written. However, when it comes down to it, Worf’s love for Jadzia overpowers Worf’s sense of duty to the Federation, and he saves Jadzia, and the Cardassian informant dies.

I hate this episode for any number of reasons. For one, it sort of destroys the suspension of disbelief we are expected to have that the war is very serious matter, and that these characters are expected to put duty above their own lives or the lives of their comrades, as happens in real war. The heart-wrenching reality of martial duty means that a soldier often has to put duty higher than any individual life, whether his own or his very closest companions. That’s part of what makes war a particularly horrible thing, and also something with a sense of glory in the aspect that horrible sacrifices are made that would never be made in the course of normal life. The Klingons are written to live for glory and war, and to embrace death in war as something particularly glorious, and Worf’s character continuously reinforces that view.

Well, yeah, and all that got completely flushed away by a plot device. Now, it could have been a plot device that punched a hole, say, in the glory of war, and exposed instead that something like a Klingon enthusiasm for war is a delusion. They didn’t go that route with the story, either. The characters experienced no real development. Worf had an important mission to complete, and he failed, and someone died. This didn’t, for instance, have a visible effect on Worf’s career. There was discussion that it would, but by the next episode, things are back to normal. This was a story with a major series of events, resulting in a death, explicating on the relationship between Jadzia and Worf, yet it did not have any real consequences for the characters, as they ended up exactly where they were whether the events occurred or not.

The topper for me, though — and this is the spoiler — is Jadzia dies in the last episode of the season, anyway. The drama of that last episode, which I did like, by the way, is that Jadzia is left safe at the station while the rest of the characters join a massive, risky attack on the Dominion. The twist is that the main characters survive the battle, as you would suspect that they would in a show like this, but the one person supposedly out of the action is killed in a set of circumstances involving Cardassian General Dukat getting aboard the station. (It’s an involved plot that wraps up many of the storylines of the season, involving the Bajoran religion, the wormhole, etc., a worthy plot development of its own.)

My first thought was immediate loss of my suspension of disbelief. Already being aware that there were 26 episodes in this season, I assumed that schedule must have been grueling. It didn’t take much googling to find an interview with Terry Farrell to find out that she was tired of the shooting schedule and quit, and the death was shoe-horned into the story.

I cannot help but think of how much better it would have been if the character had actually died in episode 616. She would have died a military death, and Worf would have made a choice to follow his duty which would have cost him everything else in his life. This could have been a death which had reverberating consequences for the character, and yet would have been consistent with the character the way he was portrayed earlier. Again, I have no problem with the way that Jadzia was killed off. It’s really just the episode 616 which I dislike.

Star Trek and Star Wars are fantasy universes that inform one another, especially with fan competition. Like Microsoft and Apple, they have factions who care for one side more than the other, and they freely seem to borrow good ideas from one another in competition for eyeballs on the screen. It’s plain to me that what bored me to indifference about much of “Star Trek: The Next Generation” was changed in DS9. Specifically, there was a lack of conflict among the characters initially in several Star Trek iterations, which DS9 eschewed. The characters are very much in conflict, sometimes having motivations at cross purposes. For a show needing to aim toward a relatively kid-friendly timeslot, DS9 dealt with war and issues of genocide, with characters drawn as good and evil, but with shades of grey on each side, with openings for finding sympathy even for the villains.