Turned it off 15 minutes in. Reminded me of the same low level of value as Terra Nova.

I found myself not disliking this episode as much as most of this Doctor's other adventures mainly because it had moments of genius in an overall stew of "meh'..for example:

Dalek - "Ex-"

Rory - "Eggs?"

Also loved the codependancy aspect of the Daleks but was very confused about something else? When exactly did the Daleks become the Borg? Did I miss when they started assimilating people? Also...wasn't Skaro destroyed? (I guess it was revealed that it wasn't in non-canon Who though!)

Why mess with something that isn't broken?

The Phantom Stranger worked best when we didn't know his origin for sure. I think he had like 3 or 4  different ones that were never really confirmed but all of them were MUCH better and more interesting than the one stated in this issue 0.

The art is poor. Given his new origin he doesn't look swarthy or Middle Eastern or bearded...

Having the Spectre born out of this horrible issue is an affront to his character as well.

The Blackest Night issue of Phantom Stranger was so incredibly awesome that reading this issue felt like a rough draft from someone who had no idea what the character was about.

In a word: STUPID.

FYI - "Straczynski maintains that Paramount, the studio which produced Deep Space Nine was aware of Babylon 5 as early as 1989. He claims that when he was shopping B5 around to various studios he gave Paramount a series bible as well as plot breakdowns for the first season of the show and other background materials. He maintains that Paramount used these materials to help create Deep Space Nine. Straczynski says that he declined to sue in order to put the past behind them and allow both shows to go forward without the taint of a legal sturggle."

I love both DS9 and Babylon 5.

I loved Voyager during the first couple of seasons. Mainly becuase I thought that DS9 was so boring. Sixteen years later they've swapped. Voyager to me was the biggest letdown and best example of how a formula can get way too tired too quickly and beaten into the ground. Sure Voyager had some bright spots but it was pure drivel mostly (Just ask Beltran).

DS9 is rich and even though it's a ripoff of Babylon 5, it is one of the best next to Next Gen of where Star Trek can go. Sure at times it's way to soapy but it certainly got better with age. (Especially after the original Dax was killed off). The final season is one of my faves and I think the jury is still out as to whether Worf needed to be brought on at all (as Dorn is a horrible actor).

Delete
 

I loved Voyager during the first couple of seasons. Mainly becuase I thought that DS9 was so boring. Sixteen years later they've swapped. Voyager to me was the biggest letdown and best example of how a formula can get way too tired too quickly and beaten into the ground. Sure Voyager had some bright spots but it was pure drivel mostly (Just ask Beltran).

DS9 is rich and even though it's a ripoff of Babylon 5, it is one of the best next to Next Gen of where Star Trek can go. Sure at times it's way to soapy but it certainly got better with age. (Especially after the original Dax was killed off). The final season is one of my faves and I think the jury is still out as to whether Worf needed to be brought on at all (as Dorn is a horrible actor).

Delete
 

Chervil I love the direction your going but I kind of disagree on your assessment of Star Trek.

IMHO Trek is about grand adventure second. I believe Roddenberry wanted to examine the Human condition now by placing it in the future and displaying the direction that Humanity COULD go in and the adventures that may come up in the wonder and mystery that is the unknown of space.

Star Wars is Lucas' version of Flash Gordon. Period.

I love both franchises truly.

That list of 10 best ST eps....

How can it NOT have City on the Edge of Forever or Devil in the Dark on it?

I think I read alot into what STAR TREK is about and I'm sure that Roddenberry wanted more than that "wagon train" genre. I say I'm sure because I've seen and heard interviews with him.

Suffice it to say that I get defensive around THE MOTION PICTURE because I have very fond memories of seeing it when I was 10 and after seeing all things STAR TREK, that picture resonates for me as very much what I believe Rodenberry's "vision" to be about and what film theory books say about science-fiction in general: that it's designed to make us question AND look forward to the future. I think THE MOTION PICTURE does that...albeit at a slow pace. ;)

Anyone wanna bash THE CAGE? Cuz I love that one too!  :)

Not that Wise was trying to compete but I remember being awed (as a ten year old) by the opening scene of THE MOTION PICTURE. The Klingon ship that the camera flys over and spins around was pretty damn cool.....to me.