shrewd.buddha

This episode had another one of those scenes where all the agents show up, guns drawn, at the suspect's work place. From a distance of half a block away, they make eye contact and yell "FBI!" - as if that would immobilize the suspect or protect any of the innocent people around him. Then the suspect, of course, runs - and *all* of the agents holster their guns and run after him. ... but he has plenty of distance and time to get to his vehicle and drive away (tho he is stopped). This SWAT-like approach appeared very poorly thought out and executed.

I am completely over television shows where co-workers constantly refer to one another as family ... but are always, constantly, surprised by every. single. thing. that comes up in one another's life. And they never, ever, tell one another anything of significance (until after the fact).

Just watched the finale and can now leave this show and its mind-numbing attacks on logic behind me. Most of the illogical has already been noted. These are the ones that bugged me (but I fear the rant could be endless): Giorgiou continually referring to the Control AI as 'Leland'. The excessive hand-to-hand combat with an AI entity that could not be harmed was bad enough. But Giorgiou kept making it seem as it she was working out some personal vendetta against someone who no longer existed: Leland was a victim of the AI - he's not there anymore. The Control AI being completely contained in Leland's body and the entire AI fleet shutting down when that body was destroyed. Why did the AI want to engage in mixed martial arts instead of infecting Discovery's computer systems to find the precious Sphere data? Serak, Amanda and Spock never mentioning Michael again would just make them seem weird. Michael grew up on Vulcan, graduated, joined Starfleet, served on two starships and was a major part of the Klingon war: this would have left all types of evidence behind and many different groups of people would remember her and her parents. And lastly, I don't get what the writers were attempting with the Red Signals: Starfleet witnessed seven signals and created a map of them. The Klingons saw one or more signals. Spock also created a map that was a near match to Startfleet's map. Maps show you where things are - they are not prophesies or predictions. After the appearance of the seven signals, another signal appears - but they never say that it matches a location on the map. They say they don't know where the signals will appear. So why does everyone think these are the same signals and there will be seven of them?!? Only Spock's dreams of seven signals could be interpreted as a prediction - actual sightings are not predictions. If you saw seven lights in the sky, you could point to where they were. If another light appeared in another location, wouldn't you say "Hey, there's another light similar to the seven I saw previously."? And did the writers realize that the signal at Terralysium would have had to occurred thousands of years before the incident ... because the light from the signal would have taken that long to reach our galaxy ... because light can only travel at the speed of light?

Basically, the above.. How can the writers forget the abilities of Discovery's spore drive when they overemphasized it at the beginning of the season? (It would take a warp drive ship hundreds of years to get there.) There was no reason they should have had a one hour time limit before Control arrived - - except for the fact that the plot demanded it. Another glaring plot hole: The Red Angel suit must be used by Burnham because of its DNA coding? They are building a suit from scratch. They are not using an existing suit. How can a personalized DNA security setting be part of the design in order for it to work?!? My phone has a fingerprint reader for security - but it was't built specifically for my fingerprint. Gah.. Why does Michael insist that going to the future in a one-way trip? It may be a one-way trip for the Discovery if the Sphere data cannot be detached. (And no one is worried that the Sphere data has taken control of Discovery.) But if Michael is going to be stuck because of the time travel suit's plot-convenient limitations, that's not an issue: with Discovery there, and all the other tech (because there is no evil AI), Michael can easily build another one-way time travel suit in just a few hours. She knows where to find more time stones. And really, why would anyone be so sure that Michael could never, ever figure out a way to return? The showrunners and writers seem to focus all their efforts on the emotional angst scenes of the show: the good-byes, deaths, funerals, trying to put Giorgiou in as many scenes as possible, having every guest star (but not crew members) give Stamets and Culber relationship advice, bringing Sarek and Amanda out of nowhere for good-byes... As others have said multiple times, the writing on this show falls far, far below the level of the other departments: special effects, set design, costuming, soundtrack, acting, etc.

The Red Angel and the Red Signals are not related? ..but the Red Angel gave Spock visions of the future. And from that Spock drew a map of the Red Signals.. (A map no one has bothered to use.) It does make sense now that Section 31 would be obsessed with finding the Red Angel since it was their project .. but the Red Signals are not the Red Angel, so ..? How did Michael not remember the Red Angel suit? From the flashbacks, it appeared that the suit was basically sitting in their living quarters - her Mom went straight from putting Michael in the closet to strapping into the suit. Michael would have seen most of what her parents were working on. And now we learn that Michael never saw the dead bodies of her parents. (?) It was very obvious that Leland did not answer Michael when she asked if her father was also still alive. Are they saving that for the next season where everything is again centered around Michael? Did the evil AI come from the future with Mommy Burnham or did it originate in the past? Is this like a Terminator situation where both parties are trying to change the past to help bring about their preferred future? And isn't Mommy Burnham only creating 804 alternative futures? (what I learned from Avengers: End Game - whatever happened cannot un-happen) Mommy Burnham seems to be trying to create a timeline where the evil AI does not kill all life - but is also watching Michael grow and saving her life occasionally? She will change the past to keep Michael alive, but she didn't bother to alter circumstances to stop Michael from instigating a war with the Klingons? A war that cost many, many lives ... just not Michael's life? Why say "I watched you die a hundred times" as if she was now focused on "the big picture"? She got trapped because she is still intervening to save Michael. Isn't Mommy Burnham supposed to save Michael by changing the past - not directly appearing and shooting her with healing(?) beams? Why didn't the Angel personally save young Michael from the Vulcan sand spider - why 'undo' Michael's death by going back to wake up baby Spock? Some consistency would be nice. STD is a visually impressive mess. It is as if the writers are trying to make every story element fit together whether it makes sense or not.

Watching STD takes a lot of effort: there is the normal sci-fi suspension of belief - and then there is the extra suspension of belief needed for STD's science and logic: Why would Stamets, working on the spore drive issue, need to work in the same room as Burnham and Spock? Why would Stamets' spore drive widget be connected to the power for the entire room? Isn't a mine field supposed to be dangerous because you can't see them? These mines looked pretty visible. Why wasn't Discovery firing on any of them? Why is Hugh still on Discovery? They are not on a five year mission or far from space stations. He should be on leave and under observation for PTSD. Are the Red Sphere, the Red Angel, the Evil AI running Section 31 and the computer virus from the time-altered-probe supposed to be connected? It all seems very convoluted. Another issue with Stamets: he was going to leave Discovery - but the entire ship, with the spinning saucer disks, is built around the spore drive, which is completely useless without Stamets. (To be fair, the spore drive is also useless whenever it interferes with the plot.) I was disappointed that STD only gave Ariam a backstory in the episode where she was killed off. Is that the only way we are going to find out more about the rest of the bridge crew? Surely they could spare us some of Burnham's repetitive childhood flashbacks to focus on some of the other crew members.

It is no surprise that the Red Angel - Starfleet's highest priority - is all about Michael in some way. Why did the Talosians need to bargain for Michael's memory of the 'irreparable' psychological damage done to Spock as a child? They had Spock's memory of it, so what's the difference? It was odd that Michael was apologizing for the incident as if some secret had been revealed - -but it was no secret to Spock. It appeared as if the Talosians' illusions are more than illusions if they can cause the transporters to function as if actual objects are being moved. If Vina's beautiful appearance is just an illusion, does that mean she actually feels old, disheveled and scarred? Not sure what will happen with Hugh and Stamets, but the trope of "lovers who can never be together" has been done to death on television. By some type of magic, Hugh's memories and personality have been transferred twice: once to the mycelial network and then to a freshly grown body back in our world. He is truly not the same person as before because the original Hugh died and was buried(?). I don't understand how 23rd century science can recreate memories from DNA and transfer memories from one body to another (Ash/Voq) - but for some reason cannot revive a body that has only been dead for a few minutes.

I actually expected someone to be killed on Discovery ... and everyone would be okay with having saved Tilly but losing a dozen or so red-shirts. The monologue-ing - by everyone - in this episode was very annoying. It makes them all sound like pretentious wannabe philosophers. Ash was just walking around in his stylish black outfit and black badge for everyone to see. Hugh was recreated from DNA scratch, so his scars are gone ... but he somehow retains his memories? Do the writers not understand how memories are created? And how did the mycelial transporter pod manage to give Hugh such a nice haircut?

This is bad .. we have only gotten to the 3rd episode of the season and I am already suffering from major Burnham burnout: The Red Signals are now Starfleet's primary priority. Who discovers the phenomenon is connected to her very own brother's childhood nightmares (by invasion of privacy)?: Michael. Who may be responsible for Spock's mental breakdown?: Michael. Who is Ash Tyler's secret girlfriend, causing L'Rell's leadership and the Klingon truce to be threatened?: Michael. When Tilly starts seeing a spore ghost, who is her best friend and roommate that initiates figuring out the cause?: Michael. Who does Amanda, Spock's mom, seek out to help with this reality's Search for Spock?: you know who. I like the actress, so it is a shame that the showrunners are so determined to force Burnham such to be an integral part of everything. In TOS, the character of Captain Kirk was certainly a scene hog, but he wasn't the actual cause of major events (like the Klingon war). Is L'Rell a completely different color than in season 1? She looks completely different to me. Starfleet's Section 31 has decided to put its trust in a cannibalistic, mass murdering, xenophobic displaced emperor - and an actual Klingon spy who had a forced human personality transplant? Those characters should have ended with season 1. It feels as if any excuse is acceptable to keep fan favorite actors.

Late to the game - we are binging now .. .. but yes, this episode had a lot of head-scratching decisions and a lot of 'magic' science. But the special effects are very impressive for a show on a streaming service. I did not understand why these people did not have electricity or realize that they had been transplanted. They came from a town and time on Earth where technology existed. They had electronics in the church basement. They would have some idea of astronomy. It is not as if they would have had to invent and develop these concepts from scratch. Why would Pike need to explain a transporter to a guy who understands and works with technology from our time? Did every transplanted person lose their memory of 21st century technology? Why did Pike want to turn off the colony's space beacon message, especially if he wasn't going to help? Were they not just like we are now - sending messages out into space to see if anyone else is out there? Why wouldn't the small number of people who knew the truth be allowed to leave? And more importantly, what part of this transplanted colony was part of the planet's natural order? These human transplants are going to displace and interfere with whatever species would have evolved on the planet. They are basically an invasive species that will eventually dominate and pollute an environment they were not supposed to have existed in. I also did not understand the over-emphasis on the church and the merging of all known religions. Was there a representative of every religion in the transplanted town? In contrast, it did not seem as if any other cultures or languages were merged. I felt bad for the guy who knew the truth, but was basically asked to maintain the current level of ignorance. His lot in life ts to be like Newton, Galileo and other intellectuals who were persecuted by religious leaders for pursuing scientific reasoning and contradicting their fiction.

Exactly. And Holden had seen the serial killer 'pleasure himself' with the shoes. Holden was correct in saying "it's not you", but he was wrong by not offering more of an explanation. The girlfriend was with him when he bought the shoes. Had she seen his interest in them and gotten the wrong impression? I wonder if anyone who has to investigate violent murder cases involving sex or fetishes gone too far ever manages to successfully compartmentalize that stuff.

Same here. This third season felt two-thirds less fun and had two-thirds less wrestling. I can see that most of the cast might not be willing or able to do the stunts - but maybe they could hire a few athletic actors (they do exist). The only dog-piles this season were the abundance of Issues with a capital 'I'. Season one was able to strike a better balance of realism and entertainment. Sam's ignorant sexism was appalling yet also amusing since he wasn't a total asshole. This season had bulimia, the holocaust , the killing fields, homophobia, motherhood vs career, hate crimes and more. Bash and Rhonda have a mutually beneficial partnership (she originally planned to marry a complete stranger). I hope they will eventually work things out and become friends. Was Bash's hair supposed to be a metaphor for how out of control his personal life was becoming? It ws pretty crazy by the end of the season. When Debbie offered Ruth the chance to direct, I expected Ruth to have an epiphany that writing and directing were her true calling. Guess not. Since we only see snippets of their lives it was hard to tell, but it seemed as if Ruth really wasn't pursing acting during her stay in Vegas. At least Sheila, her roommate, was taking acting classes. It sucks for Ruth, but you think she would have learned by now that Hollywood is a rigged game. And is Ruth supposed to be a bad actor, an unlucky actor, or a actor who chases the wrong parts?

I agree that some movies manage to hit the right balance of fun and substance: such as most of the Marvel movies. But for me, Star Wars doesn't feel fun anymore. It feels exhausting, controversial and divisive. Perhaps that is the result of overzealous and opposing fan bases. Maybe the overload of social media commentary is to blame. Every teaser trailer is followed by an avalanche of news articles and video commentaries. It actually feels like politics, not entertainment. This might be a minority opinion, but it happens to be mine: Star Wars comes with too much baggage now.

All this constant 'teasing' feels like 'baiting' to me - like a desperate attempt to create buzz and interest, even if it means courting controversy with things such as Dark Rey, the return of the Emperor, etc. Everything feels like some coordinated marketing ploy and it is turning me off. Almost every aspect of the movie is being teased and leaked: Luke's force ghost, the Knights of Ren, Palpatine, Princess Lei's involvement ... The entertainment news feeds are littered with such items every week. Ever since Star Wars became Disney-fied, everything about it feels like the result of corporate mandates and creation by committee. The idea of escapism appears to be lost on them. They seem to think Star Wars needs social relevance, popular actors and pop culture references. Can any great or satisfying story/movie emerge from a corporation whose main goal is maximum profit? The success of the first Star Wars movie was a fluke, not a calculated outcome. JJ Abrams is good at creating exciting premises, but not so good at conclusions, so I remain doubtful this movie can stick the landing. ..end rant..

Why only 9 episodes for season 2? That seemed odd and somewhat abrupt when I was expecting some followup to some of the stories. Mindhunter is a good show .. but a weird combination of true criminals and fictionalized FBI agents. Since we only get small glimpses of the characters and cases, many of them seem open to different interpretations. The Atlanta mothers, Tench's wife and son, Wendy's girlfriend, Holden's girlfriend - they all feel compromised by having just a few defining moments of screen time. Sometimes it is hard to tell if the showrunners have some method to their madness or if it is unintentional sloppiness that leads to misinterpretations by the audience.

I'm afraid this will be a "wait and see" movie for me. I would be happy if the reviews are positive but this franchise seems to have gone the way of Predator and Alien(s): failed attempts at recapturing former glory. I feel the Terminator story could continue in interesting ways but the movies can't let go of trying to bring back Schwarzenegger, so everything bogs down into a convoluted, timey-wimey inexplicable mess..

Wendy came off pretty harsh. Where is the evidence of Dr. Carr's extensive education in psychology? I understood that Wendy was very lonely - the phantom laundry room cat - but it seemed as if she jumped at the first lesbian she came across in VA. Dating a bartender never seemed like a realistic fit, just considering the hours, lifestyle, etc. Holden is oblivious to many things but he was correct about Bill not being of much help in Atlanta. Bill has a difficult situation but his part time appearances are not helping his wife or the FBI. Bill's blowup at Holden could have been avoided if Bill had given him the same trust he gave Wendy Carr. It was basically a jerk move to unload on Holden in an outburst. Holden shouldn't be expected to be a mind reader. The bureaucracy, politics and personal agendas in Atlanta are frustrating but interesting to watch. I would prefer the show lean more into those type of things instead of Bill and Wendy's manufactured personal dramas. I can understand that the showrunners want to give their main characters dramatic scenes but some of it feels forced.

I am sort of tolerating the storyline of Tench's son Brian being a potential serial killer. It feels a bit too melodramatic, bringing the very thing Tench is investigating into his own family life. What are the odds? It wouldn't seem so 'on the nose' if maybe it was a neighbor's son that Bill became involved with. As for Brian: it seems as if the key to helping him would be to get him to open up and explain himself. What exactly was he thinking/feeling when the child was killed? Why didn't he get help or tell his parents? Brian is clearly distraught and upset. But the showrunners appear to want go for the potential horror story angle with Brian being unnaturally quiet and creepy. As for bad parents creating bad adults: there are so many parents who have children they never planned to have ... and seem to think that parenting just happens by nature ... and appear to let public school, television and other children do most of their babysitting. It's a crap-shoot, but not everyone becomes a criminal. I tend to think that young children naively expect their parents to make them their highest priority. I think a child would feel abandoned to a certain degree by a divorced parent who chooses to live somewhere else or start another family which will take up the majority of their time. Basically, young children crave stability and security both physically and emotionally - and parents tend to screw that up a lot. (Even tho that's sort of how life goes..)

My impression of that scene was that the rest of the team members were surprised, and begrudgingly impressed, that Agent Smith had something relevant to add. Plus, he had some historical, psychological insights. I had thought they would try to dump him from the team after the tape incident.

Yes. It seems as if the new FBI director recognizes that Holden is reckless but has a talent that the team needs. Holden needs to be pointed in the right direction and monitored. My impression of Holden interviewing the Atlanta prisoners was that he was bored and not at all impressed with their pedestrian, haphazard killings. He seems to want to interview the serial killer superstars who are intellectual and use elaborate schemes ... and people like Manson.

I was disappointed as well - and dreading this development since season 1 with the focus on the son's adoption and social issues. For me, it teeters the show towards typical soap opera. On shows like 'Criminal Minds', at some point every main character has to have some personal drama connected to a serial killer - or it is revealed they had worked undercover as a spy, had been tortured, etc. Very over-the-top melodrama. I hope this show does not go that route. I did like how Dr Carr and Agent Smith got a reality check by getting out of the office and trying an interview for themselves. The idea of pulling out a questionnaire and getting the killers to get right to answering seems pretty naive. But it also seems as if the interviews are never quite the same in what type of information is being gathered ... which I believe is due to the showrunners not wanting to bore the audience. It seems as if it would be very useful to get the childhood history from every killer. It looks as if physical and emotional childhood abuse is a key factor in producing serial killers.

While Holden certainly has his own issues, I felt that Shepard tripped over his own feet: the mole he planted in the BSU (Smith?) was the cause of his downfall. Smith was the one who lied to the oversight committee (Holden never directly lied). Then Smith sent the tape to them without telling anyone. Smith felt he was being morally correct, but did not have the courage to admit sending the tape. Lying is a big no-no when it comes to the FBI (ask Martha Stewart). Shepard wanted to keep the FBI in the black-and-white era: changing all those dirty words in the reports. The world was changing and passing him by. I like the show a lot, but had not bothered with the first season because I had thought it was just another serial killer show, ala 'Criminal Minds'. (We have since binged season 1.) I like the more realistic, yet historical fiction, approach. Although it can become confusing with what the showrunners decide to change for their own purposes versus actual events.

I catch this show occasionally .. but, ugh .. what a load of tropes it is. This episode featured over-the-top reiterations of being a BFF, friends being there for one another, and friends needing to trust one another. I suppose at a certain age, the friendship thing becomes sort of an obsession (the CW target audience age?). I think a version of this scene was repeated about three times: Jax comforts Pillar in their room. Jax tells Pillar that she will 'figure this thing out, no matter what'. Then Jax leaves or falls asleep or something so Pillar can once again disappear. It's the future - yet people can't be located any better than in our current time? Pillar is supposedly the arrogant (confident?) type who doesn't understand that it is considered rude to talk about yourself as being beautiful and smarter than others. Yet we don't see much evidence of Pillar being very smart. (Probably because the show is obligated to have Jax save the day, every day.) Would not a truly smart person understand that creating more friends than enemies (intentionally or not) is the smart move? Nitpicking this show is so easy it seems unfair - - and Pandora is clearly not aimed for people like myself. Maybe eons ago I would have thought this was the best show, ever.

Just saw this and enjoyed it - for what it was - but it was difficult not to be distracted by the Dad's incompetence and the fact that he seemed to have just lived on, and exhausted, this own parents' estate. So, at some point the Dad was an aspiring artist (slacker?) and drew on the back of the very valuable stock certificate (he only had one?). Later, while actively looking for the stock certificate, the Dad throws the drawing into the trash .. but Mary Poppins orchestrates things so that the youngest son finds the drawing and keeps it ... then cuts it up(?) to patch the kite. Thus, Mary Poppins has known where the stock certificate has been the entire time, but chose to let things play out on their own, to the point of the family moving out of the house, with only minutes to the midnight deadline. Really, Mary?!? In the original movie, Mary had more conversations and confrontations with the original Dad. It was apparent that her mission was to help the Dad be a better parent - maybe more so than being a nanny to the children. In this movie, Mary just stands back and does not interact with the Dad and his sister very often. (And did they feel obligated to have the sister Jane, return - to the point of making Michael a widow?) It seemed like plotting and character development took a backseat to the huge musical productions and big name stars. There were not any really catchy tunes in the movie - and most of them, while clever, felt overdone. I was impressed with the cast's ability to deliver all the lyrics while dancing. Lots of rehearsing and retakes, I guess..

It is hard not to compare this to the first season - and not to be skeptical since the original showrunners are not involved. 'The Terror' had a lot going for it, being a historical mystery with actual people being represented by some very good actors. Knowing that everyone was doomed from the start and watching as the noose slowly tightened, while everyone ignored good advice from better captains and the local natives, was the reason for the fascination. The supernatural element was not that big a factor. While this first episode seemed well made, it did not feel as if it had any great hook to it. Instead of historical fiction, it is complete fiction within a time period. It seems as if the supernatural element of the vengeful spirit is the main element of the story - and we are not left with any doubt that things are happening because of the supernatural. The Perl Harbor attack and the Internment camps do create an oppressive atmosphere but at this point it is difficult to tell where any of it may be going. We will continue to watch .. and hope for the best ..