When 'Slippery Slope' Isn't a Fallacy

Casual logicians often parrot the assertion that "Slippery Slope" is a logical fallacy. It must be... they read it on the Internet. However, repeating what you've read doesn't substitute for thought and proper application, and a Slippery Slope is only a logical fallacy under specific circumstances; those being when the conclusion doesn't follow from the facts. As a fallacy, I'd say it's a special case of non-sequitur (disguised by a series of weak links instead of an immediately stated conclusion that doesn't fit the facts).

At other times, it's no fallacy at all; and that's when the chain of events to the conclusion do follow from the premise... and moreso, when the conclusion is actually demonstrated.

For instance, look at this faulty description of a "Slippery Slope" argument:

"If we allow gay marriage, the next thing we know, people will want to marry their dogs, or their cats, or what about their pigs?"

The problem here is that those -- exactly -- do in fact happen. Here's one website that describes twelve cases: marriage to dogs, cats, horses, cows, goats, a dolphin, and even frogs. You can google more on your own.

Those who employ this particular example are engaging in a more egregious example of their own: the "Suppressed Evidence" fallacy. Because the hard evidence doesn't support their own conclusions, they simply choose to pretend that it doesn't exist. They reject objective reality and substitute their own.

This segues nicely into the topic of dysphoria, which takes us to this article in the National Post:

Becoming disabled by choice, not chance: 'Transabled' people feel like impostors in their fully working bodies

Here we have examples of people who now claim to be "trans-abled"; and who then have elective surgery performed, or mutilate their own bodies, to better fit their self-image of being disabled... lame, blind, etc.

This is a type of delusion: somatic, which is a delusion that the person has some physical defect or general medical condition.

Other examples are those of people who claim to be trans-species, or trans-age.

To be clear, such people are mentally ill. Keep in mind that calling this a "delusion" has nothing to do with fear or hatred. There is no emotion in the recognition of facts. A delusion is readily defined: As phrased by Wikipedia, "a delusion is a mistaken belief that is held with strong conviction even when presented with superior evidence to the contrary."

Superior evidence could include the following:

• You have a full set of working limbs; therefore you are not a paraplegic.
• You are a human, right down to the DNA; therefore you are not a cat.
• You have an X and a Y chromosome; therefore you are not a woman.

Delusions are often harmless. A person with delusional disorder can be high-functioning; holding down a job, paying bills, socializing normally (except for their sometimes quirky idosyncracies). They shouldn't persecuted, because persecuting someone makes you a dick. But being free from persecution doesn't mean they're not still delusional. Nor does it mean that it is "the right thing" to force other, non-delusional, people to enable their dysfunction. I'd say "the right thing" is self-evident: to help them over their difficulties, if possible.

No, I'm not a psychiatrist. You don't have to be a psychiatrist to recognize dysfunction when you see it, or to employ logic, or to to recognize the difference between a person's claims about their "identity" and the overwhelming physical evidence to the contrary. And as psychiatrists go, I think you'd have to be a pretty damned poor one to ignore that evidence yourself. And let's look at those claims, please... although every strand of DNA in a body shows the person to be one thing, this is discarded in favor of a pattern of behavior. Get that? Rather than conclude that the pattern of behavior is the issue, the conclusion is that every cell of every organ in the body is wrong. That's not even rational.

And while there are cases where hormonal imbalances exist, and other organs play a part; the conclusion drawn by enablist psychiatry is that the behavior is the deciding factor. Once this decision is made even once, and because the initial step itself ignores overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it's not possible to justify a distinction between one kind of dysphoria (which is "ok") and other kinds (that are not). Hence, the slippery slope is real, and we do see people marrying their pets, and we do see people cutting off their limbs, and we do see medical professionals who stepped onto that slope not merely rationalizing mutilation and bestiality; but performing mutilations themselves; and we do see people who want this "normalized".

A "Slippery Slope" is not a fallacy when it's the news.

Junk Science Alert

I haven't posted about junk science for a while, so I went looking for some... and I found it! An English author, Graham Hancock, has written a couple of books -- "Fingerprints of the Gods: The Evidence of Earth’s Lost Civilization" and "Magicians of the Gods: The Forgotten Wisdom of Earth’s Lost Civilization" -- in which he attempts to fill Erich von Daniken's shoes.

Fortunately for me, I don't have to debunk these, as Skeptic magazine is doing a fine job. So I'm just going to lay this link down here for your perusal:

CONJURING UP A LOST CIVILIZATION: 

An Analysis of the Claims Made by Graham Hancock in Magicians of the Gods

BY MARC J. DEFANT

Göbekli Tepe (megalithic site in Turkey)
Photo by Rolfcosar via Wikimedia Commons

"But he hasn't got anything on!"

My favorite author of all time is Hans Christian Andersen (and it pained me to see "The Little Mermaid" bastardized by Disney). 

As evidence of his prophetic genius, I present for your consideration "The Emperor's New Clothes", a story of a multitude of "wise" people who proclaimed the existence of things not in evidence and spouted utter bullshit in the face of plain and obvious truths, simply because it served their vanity to do so. 

And though these views were popularly accepted by an easily manipulated public, eventually a younger generation saw the truth... that despite the impassioned claims of those who thought themselves enlightened and learned, there was in fact nothing there. 

I leave it to you to ponder the applicability of this morality tale.

A Cure for Hiccoughs

Hiccoughs (aka "hiccups") are funny, but can be embarrassing and annoying. Most of the folk cures for it (scaring the victim, breathing in a bag, drinking water, etc.) are obtrusive and do not work.

Here's a cure I developed many years ago. It's simple, it's imperceptible to those around you... and thus far, it's always worked. There are a few steps, but they're easy, easy, easy.

1. Close your mouth. Make sure that your upper teeth are touching the lowers, but do not clench your teeth. Simply close your jaw and your lips.
2. Place the tip of your tongue against your upper teeth where they meet the gum.
3. Flatten out the front of your tongue against the roof of your mouth so that your tongue is touching the roof of your mouth and all of your upper teeth. It doesn't hurt to suck in the back of your tongue just a little. This should be comfortable. Do not press hard.
4. Breathe in and out a few times through your nose. Do it naturally. Don't force your breath, and do not hold your breath either at the exhale or the inhale. Just let the air flow in and out.

That's pretty much it. It usually takes about three or four breaths for the hiccoughs to disappear, but you may have to do it a little longer if your timing was unfortunate and you had a nice big "HIC" early in the process. Again, do not force, clench or press. This should be totally relaxed and natural. I used to have frequent hiccoughs, but for years I've simply held my mouth that way when not talking or eating, and I rarely if ever get them any more.

I could go out on a limb and give you some theory as to why this works, but it would be bullshit. The fact is, I have no idea why it works. It just does; and not just for me. So far it's worked on practically everyone I've shown it to. I was in a pharmacy one day, and met a little girl, about 10 years old, and her mother. The girl had chronic hiccoughs. I coached her through this exercise, and they disappeared, at least for the remainder of their visit. And if they ever came back, this is such a simple, easily remembered exercise that she could always apply it again. Her mother was flabbergasted. Maybe it was just my coaching technique, but "Mom" asked me if I was some kind of hypnotist. Nope... just observant.

--==//oOo\\==--

Since you've gotten this far, here's a bonus "cure", for gag reflex, particularly effective for denture wearers.

Blow your nose.

That's it. When you feel your gag reflex, close your mouth and snort. If you're congested, you'll probably want a tissue or handkerchief, but most of the time a good sharp exhale through the nose will cause the gag reflex to instantly abate.

Again, I don't know why this works. It just does.

I finally got The Joke.

A few days ago, I threw out a joke about sponsoring cats. It was a parody of the old Sally Struthers sponsor-a-child-in-Africa charity drive. What I didn't expect was that people would actually want to sponsor a cat. "Their" cat. In my home. A cat which they cannot love, pet, cuddle or hold. A cat which they can enjoy only vicariously, from afar, through the photos that they'd expect to receive. And yet, I got several takers.

My reaction was a resounding "WTF!"

I wrote a blog post, and told my son about it. His reaction was, "what's wrong with that?" The husband of an online friend thought likewise.

And I realized that the world has literally gone mad. It's not people's willingness to pay for my cats' food that floors me... it's that absurdity has been normalized.

It's as if this isn't the universe I was born in. It's as if I'm caught in some sort of "Flashpoint" where a new universe spins off with every joke I tell. It's absurd, but it would explain why every single parody product I've ever imagined (and there are dozens of them) is now actually sold as a serious product. Given my experience, I'm debating whether I should be holding on to this "Flashpoint" joke on the slim possibility that it isn't a joke.

It's now my conviction that Poe's Law is mis-stated. It's not that a parody of extreme views is indistinguishable from the views themselves; it's that extreme views cannot be parodied, because the views cannot be made more ridiculous than they already are. The best you can do is faithfully re-state the views and let the audience decide which side of the theater they're going to sit in.

Furthermore, I've now concluded that the only person in real life or fiction who's ever understood this completely is...

(drum roll)... 

By Source, Fair use, Link

The Joker. 

Yeah. The Batman villain.

For decades, the Joker has teased Batman with the idea that there is some "joke" that motivates his murderous rampage. Whatever it is, it's hilarious, but he's never actually stated it, not even in "The Killing Joke". Every other character concludes that he's batshit crazy, a chaotic element; and they lock him up in an insane asylum, melt down the key to slag, and pray to God in Heaven that he doesn't escape... again.

But now I know the Joke. And it's funny.

Not only that, it makes the Joker the sanest person in the DC Universe... or this one, for that matter.

The Joker isn't a murderous psychopath. He never has been.

He's a parody of one.

---

BTW, if you haven't figured it out, this is a joke. Without a disclaimer, I'm pretty sure this post will put me on somebody's watchlist. Hell, it might happen with a disclaimer. But to the extent that it's a serious explanation for the Joker's motivation... think about it.

(Almost) All Superheroes are Orphans

My son and I were discussing the dearth of superheroes with parents in the DC Universe. We do a schtick where Batman is being all self-pitying and the other heroes admit that they're all orphans, too; and it didn't reduce them to brooding psychopaths. And since the trend in comics is toward social justice, I figured, why don't they just go all in and stop pussy-footing around?

FLASH: Hey, Batman. 

BATMAN: Flash. Where've you been? 

FLASH: Oh, I've been scouring the Multiverse, looking for superheroes who aren't orphans. 

BATMAN: Let me guess... you didn't find any. 

FLASH: Well, I found this guy. 

NEW GUY: Hello. 

BATMAN: You have parents? 

NEW GUY: Oh, yeah. Mom AND Dad! 

BATMAN: And they're not dead? 

NEW GUY: Nope! Safe and sound. 

BATMAN: But they're evil or something, right? 

NEW GUY: Uhm, no... they're pretty great, actually. They really love me and support everything I'm doing! I don't know how I'd get along without them. Came pretty close one time, though... 

FLASH: Oh, this is a good story! 

BATMAN: (glares) 

NEW GUY: Well, this one time my parents took me to the movies, and then a petty crook pulled a gun on us in a back alley! I thought we were goners! But I pushed Mom and Dad out of the way at the last minute. The crook ran away. I was only eight years old, but I decided then and there that I'd devote my life to making it so that guys like that wouldn't have to stoop to a life of crime. 

BATMAN: So your powers are... what, exactly? 

NEW GUY: Well, I'm rich. I fight crime by building shelters for the homeless, and by giving away money. 

BATMAN: You said this guy was a superhero. 

FLASH: In all fairness, he builds a lot of shelters. 

NEW GUY: I give away a lot of money, too. 

FLASH: Yeah, there's that. 

BATMAN: But... criminals... 

NEW GUY: The "bad guys" usually just turn out to be needy. I remember my first case. There was this nightclub comic. He was having a really bad night. Looked like he was preoccupied, and it was messing up his act. So I bought him a drink and asked him what was wrong. Turns out his wife was pregnant and he was desperate. And when a guy gets desperate like that there's no telling what sort of trouble he might get into. So I gave him ten grand on the spot. Oh, man, was he grateful! It was like a huge weight had been lifted off of him! And it showed in his act! His timing picked up, his delivery improved... he had the crowd in stitches. Went on to become the biggest name in show biz. There are a lot of comics in the world, but this guy is THE Joker! Named his kid after me! 

BATMAN: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHH!!!

Sponsored Cats

How can you turn down that face? Seriously!

One of my cats has had a litter of kittens, and they're now old enough to unload drown find loving homes for.

I spent some time at work today doing just that, without much success. Apparently, the world is filled with cat haters.

As the rejections mounted up, my "sales pitch" became more aggressive. For instance:

"Each cat is free to a good home... or you can have all three for 30% off."

"Dog owner? No problem! These kittens are delicious!"

Finally, having simply given up in my mind, I tried this one:

"For just pennies a day, you can sponsor a cat in my home. In return for your donation, you will receive a picture of 'your' cat along with its name, birthday, and other vital statistics; video updates sent to your smart phone; and your cat will write to you once a month. What better way to 'own' a cat without having the fuss and bother of feeding it, cleaning up after it, or risking exposure to potentially dangerous allergens?"

I swear to God in Heaven above, I did NOT expect that to work.

I got three takers right off the bat.

WTF?!?

THIS is Star Trek!

For a change, I'm not going to do spoilers. I simply want to say that this episode of Star Trek Continues is not just Star Trek... it's quintessential Star Trek.

It has numerous well-incorporated call-backs to the original series, excellent guest stars, and a superb script by award winning author Robert J. Sawyer. As you watch it, note that they are making a continuation of a 1960's TV series. The goal here is to mimic the look and feel of that original series, while doing it subliminally better. Pay particular attention to planet surfaces (esp. the distant horizon) and the effects in space... they're updated without taking you out of the established universe.

The allusions to events in the original series are so nuanced that at one point I had to ask myself... "wait a minute? Was she there? Did she do that?" Re-watching the original episode itself, I answered, "Damned if she didn't!"

This is brilliantly done. I wait for the conclusion with bated breath.

Sci-Fi Progress Report

In a moment of curiosity, I thought I'd check in on Rotten Tomatoes and see how The Orville and Star Trek: Discovery are faring today.

For The Orville, the critic score has dropped, but the audience score is higher than before. As I mentioned before, this discrepancy is massive, and cannot simply be explained by taste. Clearly, the broader audience here likes the show, and the critics are either clueless or biased.

Notice the poster. This is an ensemble show, and it's reflected here.

For Star Trek Discovery, the audience score has climbed a little bit. It's still a disappointing 59%, made more disappointing when you realize that the audience for this show is pre-disposed toward liking it, to the point of having paid a subscription to CBS All Access. Despite this, they're not nearly as impressed with the show as the paid critics.

Also, notice the poster. This show has no ensemble dynamic, and it's reflected here. Unlike every Trek of the past, this is purely a vehicle for one character... a character which, judging by the vast majority of fan reviews, doesn't earn the spotlight. One who, as earlier noted, began as -- and remains -- a Mary Sue.

--==//oOo\\==--

One thing puzzles me. Despite this piece of guidance from Rotten Tomatoes:

...and despite the fact that Star Trek Discovery has received 3,912 reviews as of this writing, you have to know to drill down to the season 1 page to see those reviews. You won't find them on the main page, where the superficially impressive "want to see" icon is used instead of the more disappointing 59% rating from those who have actually seen it.

This artificially makes the show look more popular among viewers than it actually is. The Orville has a larger potential audience but a much worse timeslot. Nevertheless, with a similar number of reviews (4,285) the audience score of 92% is prominently featured on The Orville's main page.  There doesn't seem to be anywhere on The Orville's main page to actually post a rating. I'm not saying there's something untoward, here... but I am pointing out something obviously inconsistent and strange about the way RottenTomatoes.com presents the two shows.

As for me, if I had to pay for The Orville and got Star Trek Discovery for free, I'd still watch The Orville. The same can't be said the other way 'round. This is my last month of CBS All Access.

Blade Runner 2049: Some Good, Some Bad

As usual, I don't care about SPOILERS. Read at your own risk. You've been warned.

I watched Blade Runner 2049 last weekend. It's a mixed bag. I could rave about the things I like -- Edward James Olmos' return, some clear nods to fans-in-the-know (like Olmos' origami sheep, or the alternate-universe continued success of Atari) -- but gushy reviews are boring ones. In Blade Runner fashion, bring on the dystopia. Let's see the bad, the boring, the indifferent.

I'll start by saying I liked most of it except Jared Leto. I thought his character was idiotic.

To clarify: I think that they were trying to use Leto to bring to his role some of the poetry of Rutger Hauer's performance in the original. Only, Hauer's performance brought something significant and new to the character. He showed us that the replicants were not merely desperate killing machines. Leto's character is pointless. So much so that I don't remember one damned line he said. He's quirky for the sake of being quirky. If half of his scenes were simply cut -- not re-written, not replaced -- it would improve the final film immensely. All of his scenes are too slowly paced. I would never want this as action-adventure; but I want conversation to occur at a pace that doesn't leave me feeling like Barry Allen.

As for the rest of it, I liked it, with a nit to pick here and there. One of the things that made Blade Runner a cult classic was the uncertainty of whether Deckard was a replicant. Well, that's off the table. I don't mean the issue is resolved, despite Ridley Scott's insistence that Deckard is a replicant. I mean, they just don't address it... at all... and we don't care about it... at all. And truth be told, the events that play out indicate that he isn't. So whatever you believe about Deckard, just keep believing it. But I think they did successfully transfer a similar form of that  uncertainty to Ryan Gosling's character ('K'); and they execute that particular head-fake pretty well. Blurring the lines between what's real and what isn't is signature Philip K Dick, so I'm pleased with not having seen the obvious-in-retrospect.

It's 30 years on, but visually, it's the same incessant rain, the same giant billboards, the same crowded squalor, the same flying cars limited to the same cops. And somehow they managed to carry that rainy feeling to Las Vegas in the form of a persistent dust cloud sans wind. Take your choice... constant grit or constant rain. Empty sky is for utopias. The visual message is that change and growth are not happening here. It's stagnant future, very little removed from that which was imagined in 1982.

Nothing much changes in 30 years.

As a vision of the future, Blade Runner and its sequel are set way too close to the present, but beyond that, the world they paint is just weird. They presumably have supra-light interstellar travel, as they talk of battles in distant star systems. They have off-world colonies. But that tech doesn't appear to have brought home much of value. In the original, we were left to assume that the City had just built up over the years. Here, we see that they just abandoned the whole damned modern world and left the old buildings to rot. Look at Dresden... Berlin... Coventry... that's not how humans rebuild. And they side-step the persistent nature of a surveillance society with a little lip-service about a global blackout that had erased... well... everything. Except what it didn't. As a software developer myself, I realize that there is no difference to a computer between programs and data, and I shudder to think of the scope of re-writing all of the software in existence. If you will, imagine the task of getting any computer to run when everything down to the bootloader is deleted by an EMP. But this was a special magic blackout that deletes data and leaves the software. But if Star Trek can have magic gravity, I suppose I can suspend disbelief for this logical fallacy.

Joi. You can look, but not touch.

One thing new that their tech has bought is personal company. Shell out the dough and you can buy a holographic personal assistant. Think "the Siri I wish I had". "Joi" can be anyone you want her to be, except a flesh-and-blood woman. And in one of the most uncomfortable-in-a-guiltily-good-way sex scenes ever put on-screen, she manages to find a temporary loophole around that little limitation. A little more moolah will get you an "emanator" (a mobile emitter). Late in the show we're still left with that signature question, "How much of this is real? If the simulation is good enough, is there even a difference?"

As for the acting, I have no complaints, except Leto. He takes the place of Tyrell from the original film. If there's one character in the whole story who should be grounded, and know the difference between reality and simulation, it's him. Despite putting on the fatherly mentor façade for his creations, Tyrell was insightful and could convincingly hold down a nuts-and-bolts technical conversation. Leto's character, Wallace, didn't project anything even approaching competence. What grounding he might have had was undermined by filtering his entire reality through software. And then they chose to put the most execrable yet forgettable dialog in his mouth. In the end Wallace was nothing but yet another delusional little god wanna-be, as cliché as they come. The saving grace of this is watching Harrison Ford's wtf facial expressions as Deckard tries to decipher Leto's crypto-speak.

Then again, it's in one of Leto's scenes that we have the high note, which is the biggest spoiler. Rachael's return. Granted, I've only seen the film once, but I was looking hard at this, and the CGI'd "Rachael 2.0" (Sean Young) was picture-perfect. Perhaps this has something to do with her slightly surreal performance in the original film, but this is one case where there's not even a hint of the "uncanny valley". And even the one detail they "got wrong" was crucial to Deckard's reaction. Great job on that one.

A Few More Thoughts on The Orville/Trek

There are a number of thoughts and observations I didn't get into my reviews of The Orville and Star Trek: Discovery, so I'm just going to put them here, in no real structure. I may add to it from time to time.

The Orville

• The Moclan race, of which Lt. Commander Bortus is a member, self-identifies as "all-male". However, genetically, that can't be true, as these "males" lay eggs, which is definitive of female biology. Nevertheless, however they are classified, they are certainly homosexual. This makes their complete lack of a sense of humor ironic. As the most decidedly gay member of the crew, Bortus nevertheless plays "the straight man" in any joke in which he's involved. I hope they meant to do that.
• The bright and spacious interior of Union ships, complete with house plants, are not a mere matter of aesthetics. The intent is to avoid the risks of psychological stress that come from long exposure to cramped environments that lack personal space. Because of these risks, submarine crews are given regular psychological screening. In other words, it's a logical design feature.
• Episode 4, If the Stars Should Appear, was as good as any episode of classic Trek. The surprise appearance of uncredited guest star Liam Neeson was a treat, and the appearance of the stars, accompanied by the quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson, was genuinely awe-inspiring. "If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how would men believe and adore; and preserve for many generations the remembrance of the city of God which had been shown!" 
• Again, from Episode 4: "BOOM, BITCH!" is just perfect. Bortus' reaction is as well.
• The Orville is episodic TV. It is a series, not a serial.  As such, story arcs are not continuous. You will be dropped hints until a story is ripe for the telling, but that story is not developed over many episodes. Nevertheless, when you receive that hint, it does not follow that it was a missed opportunity, or that they dropped the topic. Rather, it's a teaser that you will be visiting the topic later in the season. An episode of a series stands alone; and episode of a serial does not. To illustrate... go watch a mid-third-season episode of Lost and you'll know what the title actually means. It is the difference between an anthology of short stories and a novel. This is a major difference in kind that appears to be throwing off critics who seem to expect topics to drag on and on. 

Star Trek: Discovery

• I dislike the tendency of writers (both here and in classic Trek) to have Vulcans and those trained by Vulcans give answers with excessive specificity. That's why when Michael predicts the arrival of the storm down to the second, it's a more egregious failure than had she said, "about one and a quarter hours".  For instance, I've seen Spock give an estimate of ship disappearances which, when calculated, indicates a period of every 27 years, 126 days, 6 hours, 57 minutes, and 10 seconds, though it's nigh impossible that ships even approached the area with such exacting regularity. Such specificity is impossible to verify, and is both illusory and meaningless. 
• It is The Orville that is produced by Seth MacFarlane, creator of Family Guy, which is noted for its formulaic overabundance of "cut to flashback" scenes. However, The Orville is devoid of such scenes, while ST:D is filled with them. Now that's funny.
• The producers of ST:D have declared that the Klingons are allegorical of the Trump administration. Yet it is the Federation officer Michael Burnham that displays more of the characteristics popularly attributed to him. She is fearful of alien incursions and highly aggressive in her reaction to the mere possibility of such a thing. She believes that displays of aggression are necessary to maintain Federation security.
• The Klingons, on the other hand, are strict isolationists who fear the incursions of the Federation. These are fears that are fully justified by the actions of Michael Burnham. If the Federation were to strictly adhere to its principles of non-interference, then they would leave the Klingons to themselves. They might stop to consider that the presence of an ancient and important Klingon artifact in "Federation space" gives great weight to the Klingon claim of priority in this star system. This brings to mind the questions, "Who is the bad guy here? Why is the Federation intent on imposing its values on another civilization? Is this really an optimistic vision of the future?" See the next section.
• Though in the two-part pilot, Burnham swears that emotions do not factor into her decisions, her face and body language betray her. Who does she think she's kidding?
• Major kudos to actress Sonequa Martin-Green for portraying Burnham's overconfidence and arrogance in the pilot. She brought a positive swagger to her body language that persisted until her incarceration. 
• The writers missed an amazing opportunity in the pilot. They should have named the white Klingon "Chang", and simply had Burnham successfully put his eye out, thus setting the stage for the eye-patched character we met in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. He would be about the right age.
• I've heard some say that they think the show is setting up for an appearance by Spock. That may be the case; however, in the original timeline, Spock and Sarek had not spoken for 18 years. In 50 years of Star Trek, we never heard so much as a whisper of Michael's existence. It logically follows, then, that their paths may simply never cross. There is no evidence whatsoever that they have.
• The USS Enterprise and other Constitution class vessels are already in service by this time. It is possible that we will catch cameos of other known characters, such as Robert April or Christopher Pike, or Captain Stephen Garrovick of the USS Farragut. Again, we have no evidence of it, but there is nothing to preclude it, and some good fan service reasons to do so.

Yeah, that's him, all right!

ST:Discovery EPISODE 3: 

• I think the "varmint" is the Galaxy's biggest Tardigrade. In fact, I'm very close to 100% certain of it.
• The Top Secret Project reveal is mid-1970s Doctor Who-level ludicrous. Instant travel across interstellar distances using fungal spores that permeate the Universe? Seriously? Perhaps we could scare up some midichlorians while we're at it.

SPECULATION (Star Trek: Discovery)

I don't think this isn't the Prime Universe at all. I'm not saying it's the Mirror Universe, but it appears to be an alternate universe that has the potential to evolve in very similar fashion. Observe:

• The aforementioned protectionist stance of the Klingons, and the fact that of the races mentioned as having been diminished by the Federation, humanity is not mentioned.
• The fact that Klingons gather their dead; something they don't typically do in the Prime Universe.
• The Klingon ships don't resemble those of the Prime Universe. HOWEVER, the Klingon sarcophagus ship does look as though it could have inspired the design of the Mirror Universe Klingon ships.
• The what-the-fuckedness of Captain Lorca in both attitude and outlook, as well as the aggressive say-hello-by-opening-fire attitude of the Vulcans. Vulcans.
• The metallic fabric in the uniforms; a hallmark of the Mirror Universe, but of no variant previously seen in the Prime Universe or the Kelvin Universe.
• Technology not previously seen in the Prime Universe. 

A fondness for metallic accents

Now, keep in mind that I don't think that the writers or producers in any way intend for this to resemble the Mirror Universe, and they'd probably be offended by the suggestion. I'm just saying it does. And this is sort of an inevitable thing when you get folks in charge of production that have a burning need to be "different". Toss out what came before, and there are really only a few ways to go. So in Captain Lorca they've gone dark, gritty, creepy, aggressive, authoritarian, and lacking in respect for law or common sense judgement. In Burnham they have the most untrustworthy graduate of the Vulcan Science Academy in its history.

At this point there's no hope of reconciling ST:D with Prime Universe canon. Period. It must take place in an alternate universe. And at this point it looks as though it could easily lead to a nascent Terran Empire. All that's necessary is a bloody war (already seen), a slight turn to aggressiveness (already seen) a few misplaced quarks (already seen), and the Butterfly Effect. All the elements are there.

Renegades: The Requiem

I really dread writing what I have to write here, because I'm about to discuss a film that I not only helped fund, but which is produced by a lot of people whose work I have enjoyed and respected over the years. I want to see this crew succeed.

Let's drop some names: Nichelle Nichols. Walter Koenig. Terry Farrell. Robert Beltran. Gary Graham. Tim Russ. Bruce Young. Cirroc Lofton. Aron Eisenberg. There are a lot more.

And the name of the film is Renegades: The Requiem. It is the sequel to Star Trek: Renegades.

Originally, this started out as a Star Trek fan production, but in the wake of the CBS/Paramount crackdown on fan films, they dropped the Star Trek connection and decided to re-frame it as its own thing. So far it's been released to donors. I don't know when the full release will be accessible to the public, but when it is, I expect it to be pay-per-view or on-demand at Atomic Network. Part 1 is there now.

I really, really, really want to like this film. The fact that it started as a fan production makes me want to give it a good bit of leeway. The fact that it is not only staffed and acted by professionals, but that it aspires to anchor a new on-demand streaming service forces me to judge it by a somewhat higher standard. Sadly, whether it be because the budget was stretched too far, or for some other reason, the costumes suffered. That's understandable. Unfortunately, I can find no excuses for the acting or the script. I think you may already see where this review is going to go.

Let's start with the cheap shot. First impressions. It's not possible to adequately convey how vitally important the costuming is in a show like this. Get it right, and you can put the characters anywhere. Get it wrong, and no amount of CGI or chroma-key is going to make it look right. Your costume is your most intimate practical connection to your fictional world. And these are execrable. I really don't have another way to say this. Refer to the screenshot. Poor Tim Russ is wearing a tunic that looks for all the world as if it had simply been put on backwards. Puckered seams, bad gathers, foam padding... it's like bad cosplay. Koenig's is no better. And lest you wonder, it's the same for just about anyone wearing a Confederation uniform. Corin Nemec's leaves him looking like Dana Carvey as the turtle guy. The civilian costumes fare better simply because they don't have to follow a standard, and many of them could be assembled from actual carefully-chosen street togs, or simply weren't recognizably Star Trek enough to be replaced on short notice. Again, this is probably a time and budget thing, but it is unfortunate. It's made all the more puzzling because the Renegades-style Star Fleet uniforms were already significantly different enough from existing designs that they could have simply removed the comm-badge insignia.

A good bit of the time and budget had to have gone into the re-design and re-rendering of all of the external space shots. Every ship had to be replaced with a new non-Trek Confederation design. I have no complaints about any of that. I think they did a fine job of it. Then again, I'm probably in a minority when I say that I don't care much about the ships and the FX. I know a lot of people go bonkers over the details of ship classes and designations, but it's the story and the people that hold a show together for me. Still, this is extremely well done.

The space scenes are as spacey as they need to be.

I also really don't care to go too deeply into the script in this review. If you've ever played any sort of tabletop RPG, you're familiar with the plot summary: baddies are wearing badges, so nobody official can be trusted. A team of ne'er-do-wells has been recruited to work under the table to do what has to be done and save the Confederation. Sacrifices will be made. It's a pretty familiar formula, so I really can't geek out over it for its cleverness or originality. Since they're telling a standard quest in space, success of the production depends on the execution more than the plot.

I will say, though, that there's a lot of just standing around and talking in some scenes. See the screen capture, above. It's every bit as exciting as you might imagine standing around talking with your hands at your sides would be. A bit more attention to detail... not in the scripting, but in the filming... could have fixed that. Real people do things while they talk. Sharing some tea would be more natural and visually stimulating. I know there's this great background shot, but it only takes a few seconds to establish the location and walk off the green screen and into a park. The same thing applies to a conversation aboard a space station. Having some age on me myself, I know there is nothing old people like better than standing around shouting at each other from across a large room with no furniture.

The production team had a few hard decisions to make, and I don't think they were aggressive enough in their choices. Once you decide that you're not going to be Star Trek, it's time to get rid of the baggage. You know that the character names have got to be changed, so change them. The Treknobabble has to go, so replace it. Trek references need to be excised. Cut them out. Given that the original script was a bit of a darker departure from usual Trek fare should have made the transition not too difficult, story-wise.

They didn't go that far. In that same scene I've illustrated above, "The Admiral" is meeting with "Jacob Sisko" (Cirroc Lofton) and "Commander Kovok" (Tim Russ) (of course, these are totally not "Jake Sisko" and "Tuvok" - wink, wink).  Andorians become whatever-they-are-now through the simple expedient of removing their antennae. And some other characters have behavior that's only explicable through a connection to their Star Trek counterparts. Again, this is a difficult call, because they're continuing a story that they started as Trek.

In script-writing, details are important. Dialogue is important. It really shouldn't sound stilted or forced; and for all that is holy, it can't sound like it is "dialogue". Bad dialogue results in deterioration of the fourth wall, taking you out of the story. It reveals an actor on camera acting. Now you're no longer watching the action; you're watching the screen. You're not seeing the Admiral talking to a renegade captain; you're seeing Walter Koenig deliver his scripted lines. The last thing you want to do is catch an actor acting. If you're still not clear on what this means in practice, you have only to watch this film. You will catch everyone acting. Even the seasoned professionals.

pant, pant, pant.

Often, the acting that you catch them at is just plain weird. And it reminds me of something. As a kid, I caught more than a few hognose snakes. These little critters, when captured, decide to play dead. And for a hognose snake, that means turning onto its back, opening its mouth, and sticking its tongue out. If you then flip it back onto its belly, it refuses to act like an actual dead snake would. Instead, it will flip itself back onto its back. It has a certain conception of what "dead snake" looks like, and will act that way every single time, even when it makes absolutely no sense. Something similar is going on in this movie.

Let's all watch the captain pant.

For instance, it seems as though someone decided that in a moment of tension it's dramatic for a captain to be out of breath. So Captain Singh (Adrienne Wilkinson) is out of breath during a tense moment. She's sitting in a chair. She has been the whole time, moving nary a muscle but her neck and mouth. But she acts like she just lifted a refrigerator. The same is true of Captain Alvarez (Corin Nemec). Sitting in a chair, as captains do; but panting like a marathon runner. Meanwhile, the bridge crew are sitting and standing at their stations, cool and professional. Sure, their ships have been hit, but it doesn't explain the level of exertion exhibited by these two characters, especially when the other actors are more reasonably controlled. There are other 'pre-programmed actions' that occur multiple times, as if there were only one conceivable way of conveying resolution, for example. When that happens with so many experienced actors, you pretty much have to toss it at the director's feet. Sorry, Tim Russ. I don't know what happened between Star Trek: Renegades and The Requiem, but the acting and direction in the first episode was superior.

Wilkinson in particular is suffering from an egregious case of trying-too-hard-to-be-a-badass. Every motion is overtly controlled, as if she were constantly engaged in isometric exercises. This is the telltale sign of planned actions. When we see this in CGI characters, we label it "the uncanny valley". We know it's not real. Wilkinson would be so much better if she just loosened it up and let her movements and facial expressions come naturally. And as for Admiral Armstrong, I have no idea why actor Bruce Young decided to use a stilted, snobbish British accent that's a century out of fashion even in our own time. Maybe that's just how they speak in his corner of Illinois and he's been putting us on for all these years. Frankly I wish someone had talked him out of it, just as I wish someone had dubbed over Tom Hardy in The Dark Knight Rises. And there's a cantina scene that's just painful to watch although the alien design and makeup are admirably done. There are a few jokes, and every one of them falls flat.

The dude on the left is Bevus. He's a butthead. Get it?

Anyway, as I said, I spent money on this. I truly wanted it to be successful, so all this beating up on it is intended as purely constructive criticism. And God help me, I'll probably spend money on the next one, too; hoping that they bring the writing, acting, and costuming up to the standards of the set design, SFX, and make-up. But I can be hopeful for the future and disappointed in the present at the same time. And I am.

Star Trek: Dystopia

It's really not my intent to turn this into a Star Trek blog, but we just happen to have hit the motherload in the last couple of weeks. Following the previous release of The Orville, on Saturday, the folks at Atomic Network released Renegades: The Requiem after a long wait; and Star Trek: Discovery was released the following night. So I have at least one more review after this one.

This one's for Star Trek: Discovery, and I'm kind of feeling as though I should wait until the next couple of episodes have aired, because I don't think any of us have really seen the show at all even though the first two episodes have aired. On second thought, damn the torpedoes: full speed ahead.

But first, a word from our spoilers.

Spoiler Alert: In my discussion here, I'm going to discuss details. This means spoilers. If you think such things "ruin the surprise", then you should go somewhere else. Don't read this. I'm also going to not only discuss the show itself, but also what other people have been saying about it, so if your sensibilities are fragile, don't read this. This is not a safe space. Seriously, go away. Or don't. And in all seriousness, if you just LOVE this show, you're going to HATE this review for all the reasons you've already imagined, so you might as well just skip it.

I'll give you my summary first.  ST:D is fine science fiction. I like it. I don't think it's especially good Star Trek.  And again, at this I have to limit this statement to the pilot, for reasons that should be very clear.

Able to spot tracks in the sand through thick cloud cover.

ST:D is fine science fiction. It's cinematic, it's grandiose, it's gritty, it's dark. It's pretty much what we all expected it was going to be in terms of production values. It's also the heir to the official Star Trek kingdom, so it gets to use all of the accompanying trappings.

But while it's what we expected, it's not really what we were promised. We were told that the show would respect canon, and it doesn't; not really. We were told that it takes place in the Prime Universe, and it doesn't; not really. And yet I watched with hopes that the creators were far more clever than they let on, and managed to cleverly maintain canon. They weren't, and didn't. This is clearly a reboot, straddling the line between the "Prime" (original) timeline and the "Kelvin" (J.J. Abrams reboot) timeline.

What I'm about to write might cause you to question my statement that I like it as science fiction; but I assure you, I do, and I'll tell you why. In the meantime, let's cast those doubts.

In this pilot, they kill almost everybody. They kill the captain. They kill the admiral. They kill the bad guy. They kill an entire fleet. That last one's not entirely true... they left the fleet in ruins to be "heralds of Klingon superiority". You basically get two speaking characters who survive into the series: a congenital coward and a mutineer. The writers spend two hours asking you to become emotionally involved with characters, all of which make a series of bad choices, and then kill them off. That's not a big issue if this were a feature film. In a film you can do that sort of thing. Boom! Finality. No problem. And judged that way, this is just fine. But it's not a feature film. It's a pilot of a television series. And judged that way, it's a lot of wasted time. This is time that could have been used to establish much more than one main character and a sidekick. I almost wish they had released this first bit as a feature film, in theaters, so that it is surely distinct from the rest of the series. As for the Discovery, we have yet to establish the ship, its crew, its captain, etc.; except in previews. All of that stuff is habitat. Ecosystem. The show isn't about them. It's about one person. And that one person is a Mary Sue.

More Vulcan than a Vulcan

The definition of what is or is not a Mary Sue may be arguable, but the character of Michael Burnham (played by Sonequa Martin-Green) hits all the sweet spots. For that matter, she's Mary Sue and Tragic Hero rolled into one. That's a real trick, because they're not terribly compatible, and they fight for dominance. She has a tragic backstory, which gives her something to overcome. Orphaned as a very young girl in the last Klingon attack before their withdrawal, Burnham is rescued by Vulcan ambassador Sarek (father of Spock, who is never mentioned), who immediately implants her with a portion of his own katra (akin to a soul) -- something he never shared with his own son. He then makes her his ward instead of turning her over to Human caretakers as logic would dictate. Mary Sues are irresistibly attractive (not necessarily in a sexual way), and this is an early indication of her Mary Sue-ness. Burnham thus becomes the first Human to graduate the Vulcan Training Center and the Vulcan Science Academy. In flashback we see her dropped off aboard the starship Shenzhou to be met by Captain Philippa Georgiou (Michelle Yeoh). In this encounter Burnham displays a demeanor more Vulcan that Sarek's own. After a few vague disparaging remarks about the ship she's asked by Captain Georgiou if the ship is not up to Burnham's standards. Burnham states, "I have no standards when it comes to this ship. It has always been my intention to join the Vulcan Expeditionary Group". We know she's very smart because Georgiou tells us so.

Despite having arrived as a civilian, Burnham receives a commission off-camera at some point in the seven years of her residency aboard ship, and rises to First Officer. Unfortunately, during that time she does not manage to shake the air of snobbish disdain for her fellow creatures that one usually encounters in poorly home-schooled children with limited social interaction and no friends. In one scene she literally shoulders the Science Officer away from his station because she knows she can do a better job. And that's a hallmark of her character: no matter what your job is, she knows she can do a better job, even if that job is being the captain.

To the people who are as in love with this character as the writers would like them to be, here's a reminder: the very first calculation she makes in episode one is wrong. Her decisions go downhill from there.

Our crew's first mystery is an unknown artifact within an asteroid field. Since the ship's sensors cannot get clear readings, Burnham bravely volunteers to do a fly-by in a thruster suit despite dangerously high levels of radiation from the nearby binary stars. The captain agrees to a reconnaissance of short duration and issues unambiguous orders to do a fly-by only. About eight minutes into this task, Burnham disobeys orders by setting foot on the artifact, which promptly disgorges a Klingon warrior of great bulk, which Burnham promptly kills (by accident, of course). This sets into motion a sequence of events that quickly leads the Federation into open warfare.

In short order we're treated to Burnham being able to get a clear connection to Ambassador Sarek on a private channel though communications are disrupted; Burnham demanding that the Federation fire first; Burnham being openly insubordinate to her captain; Burnham physically assaulting her captain; Burnham issuing orders countermanding those of the captain; and Burnham getting her ass locked in the brig for mutiny.

Now, all of this might have you shaking your head, saying that this couldn't possibly be a Mary Sue... Mary Sues aren't that stupid. But Tragic Heroes are. Besides, Burnham does all of this because she's actually smarter than everyone. And only she can save them all. You the audience can see that of course she must be right! If only they would just listen to her! But they lock up the mutineer instead. And this is her second tragic backstory. Because the show that we're watching -- this two-hour movie disguised as two episodes -- is not even part of the series. It's a prequel: it's backstory for the series, which starts in episode three with the arrival of the Discovery. But we're not done.

Star Chamber, Federation style

While in the brig, she displays her unique specialness by conducting an eloquent telepathic conversation with Sarek over a distance of many light-years. Although she is imprisoned, and although a Klingon weapon blast has left her surrounded by airless void, Burnham manages to 'logic' the ship's computer into assisting her escape by appealing to its "ethical protocols". Even computers love Mary Sues. And upon rejoining her curiously unsurprised captain on the bridge, the two of them hatch a plan to capture the Klingon Bad Guy. Of course, it goes horribly awry, culminating in the death of the captain and the martyrdom of the Klingon Bad Guy. The episode ends with Burnham facing a horribly clichėd shadowy tribunal, complete with darkened faceless judges and her standing in a lone pool of light. In her final plea she shamelessly bullshits the judges by telling them that since she was a child she dreamed of furthering the noble purpose of Starfleet, etc. etc., although we know she aspired to the Vulcan Expeditionary Group. She is then sentenced to life in prison.

--==//oOo\\==--

In short (too late!) this is just about the worst character you can possibly write. But I still say it's bloody good science fiction as a movie, because it ends by subverting the Mary Sue trope and having her fail miserably at everything of import that she attempts. With her final speech, the audience is rewarded with the knowledge that she is reaping the just consequences of her own hubris and actions.

Oh, if only they had left it there! The sweet justice of it! And if only they had done it on purpose! But this is not a movie, it's a television series, and it comes with previews of things to come. We know that she has a whole new arc coming with this tragic backstory, and Mary Sue will not let the Tragic Hero win. She will be shuttled onto the Discovery, where she will be set free, as she is Far Too Smart and Far Too Important to serve the life sentence that was decreed by the legal system. We are handed the unsolicited hope that she will Mary Sue her way to eventual exoneration. As if we needed that.

Trek, it ain't. I could pick all kinds of nits, all day long. In watching the show, they come rapid-fire, at a rate of about one per minute, from the tech to the iconography to previously unevidenced alien superpowers to a blatant disdain for basic real-world physics; so I'm not even going to bother here. I might make a list for my own enjoyment later. But something that won't be on the list is what the Klingons look like. They look different here. They've looked different before. Big woop.

--==//oOo\\==--

Watching this, it became clear to me why CBS came down so hard on Axanar. Like ST:D, Axanar portrays the events of a Federation/Klingon war, and in the same specific time period. Whereas ST:D breaks canon in major respects (attempting as it does to please all people by verbally claiming both Kelvin and Prime canonization while actually rebooting the whole franchise), Axanar is clearly respectful of Prime canon. And frankly, it looks to me as though Axanar has the better take on this particular period of Federation history, irrespective of timeline. Axanar is a clear threat and competitor to ST:D. Sadly for CBS, I'd rather see Axanar. Seriously, I'd rather see CBS just distribute Axanar and confiscate the damned profits than watch the thing they themselves created.

Of course, I'm not one of the fans that they give a shit about. I watched Star Trek for the first time on September 8th, 1966. I've been a faithful fan until now. But now I'm faced with a new lead actor who flatly doesn't care about longtime fans. Insulting the people who pay your rent for you is hardly a way to break the ice.

I'm also unconcerned with the smattering of trolls who have made sexist and/or racist comments about the show. If they're doing so, they're probably not long-time Star Trek fans, as the people who are well-versed in IDIC have spent their lives aspiring to the 23rd century inclusiveness envisioned by Gene Roddenberry. To those of us who grew up on Star Trek, these complaints are non-issues, as the society of the United Federation of Planets would have long since discarded such outmoded notions. You could put an aboriginal Tellarite in charge and it would be fine with me. In point of fact, there is nothing in this script that even hints at the sex or race (other than Human) of the lead character, Michael Burnham. You could have cast anyone in the part without changing a word other than perhaps a pronoun. It's as asexual and aracial a part as can be written. Unfortunately, it's also a badly written character. I wish that last part weren't true. But I've watched both parts twice now, and it was more tedious the second time through. Meanwhile, I can watch Prelude to Axanar, or even The Orville, multiple times and still smile. It's pretty sad when a comedy parody out-Treks "the real thing".

---

Images copyright CBS/Paramount/whoever's asserting the copyright this week. Used without permission in accordance with Fair Use for the purpose of editorial comment.

About "The Orville"

If you haven't heard, The Orville is Seth MacFarlane's alternative to "Star Trek".

Spoiler Alert: In my discussion here, I'm going to discuss details. This means spoilers. If you think such things "ruin the surprise", then you somewhere else. Don't read this. I'm also going to not only discuss the show itself, but also what other people have been saying about it, so if your sensibilities are fragile, don't read this. This is not a safe space. Seriously, go away. Or don't.

If you haven't seen the show already, I suggest you do, as my critique assumes that you have. Here's a link.

Let's start off by noting the elephant in the room... this show has got the critics scratching their heads. It has only a 20% rating from professional critics on RottenTomatoes, yet has an 88% approval rating from the actual viewers. That is to say, only 12% of the viewers agree with the critics. That's not a tiny discrepancy, and it's not explained as a matter of mere taste.

The number one officially admitted reason for such a poor critical showing is that the critics claim not to know "what the show wants to be". Is it a comedy? Is it action/adventure? Is it sci-fi? These same critics have no identity crisis at all when it comes to movies like Spider-Man: Homecoming (92%) and Guardians of the Galaxy (91%). I'm not claiming that "The Orville" is up to the level of these heavily funded blockbuster feature films. I'm simply pointing out that the critics have no problem identifying a lighthearted sci-fi action/adventure when they want to. I would go so far as to say, after due consideration, that this particular critique is a manufactured mask for more political and commercial concerns that the critics share among themselves.

As the product of a genre, The Orville has much in common with Galaxy Quest as well as the films I mentioned. On television, however, it's practically sui generis. And it's something for which television viewers have obviously been clamoring, as evidenced by that astonishing gulf between what the critics tell the viewers to think of it and what the viewers report of their own experience.

MacFarlane himself has never kept it a secret that what he wanted to do was produce Trek. And in particular, he wanted to ditch the dark and gritty, yet increasingly bland pablum that Trek had become, and go back to the utopian future that it depicted when Gene Roddenberry was at the helm.

The best of sci-fi is produced when ordinary people are placed in extraordinary circumstances. In this series, MacFarlane has taken the classic Star Trek format, given it a Next Generation look and feel, and populated it with people who would not be out of place in 2017. The wisecracks and social commentary, when they come, are grounded in the present, just as they were grounded in the 1960s in the original series.

That said, we've had three episodes to peruse so far. Let's take a look. The episode descriptions are taken from Wikipedia:

S01E01 - "Old Wounds". 25th-century space pilot Ed Mercer divorces his wife Kelly Grayson after he catches her cheating on him. A year later, he accepts a position as Captain of the U.S.S. Orville and finds to his dismay that his ex-wife Kelly will serve as his First Officer. During the Orville's first mission, the hostile alien Krill Captain (Joel Swetow) attempt to steal a device that can accelerate time, which has both beneficial and dangerous applications. Mercer and Grayson rig the device to destroy itself and the Krill vessel.

This is a straight-up action/adventure, the main purpose of which is to introduce the cast and set the stage for the series. It's what a pilot does. As with most pilots, it's practically assured that this will be the weakest of the episodes; as the crew's personalities and interpersonal relationships will be fleshed out during the course of the series. The awkwardness of Ed and Kelly's own relationship is played for laughs, although we do learn that despite the sniping, Ed has the maturity to recognize that he's not always right and that Kelly brings a wisdom to her position that makes him a better captain. In the end, professionalism overcomes bitterness and he asks her to stay on. We also learn that despite her infidelity, Kelly's feelings for Ed still smolder, and her regret for her actions is sincere. In all, that's a solidly good start for our two leads.

The bridge crew banters. But it's exactly the kind of banter that happens in my office today; and it's exactly the kind of banter that happened at my duty station in the Air Force. I totally buy into the rapport between Gordon and John (the helmsman and navigator).

Some of the jokes fall flat. Sometimes it's the joke and sometimes it's just the timing. Examples: Ed should never have introduced Kelly as "my ex-wife" to the research facility director. That was just unprofessional, and didn't ring true. The bit about Gordon wanting to wear shorts on the bridge... well, that would definitely work better if it weren't delivered in the middle of a crisis. First rule of workplace comedy is "mission first". Once you're out of crisis, then make the silly demand.

S01E02 - "Command Performance". The technologically advanced Calivon imprison Ed and Kelly in a replica of their former home as a zoo exhibit. Alara is left in command of the Orville as Bortus has laid an egg and must incubate it. Alara is unsure of herself, but gains confidence with the help of Claire's mentorship. Ed and Kelly wonder if they could have made their relationship work, but finally conclude that they were never compatible for a long-term romantic relationship, despite their strong camaraderie. Admiral Tucker orders Alara to return to Earth instead of approaching the powerful Calivon; Alara violates these orders and rescues Ed, Kelly, and an alien child by trading an archive of Earth's reality television for them. Ed presents Alara with a medal of honor and believes he and Kelly can prevent her from being punished for insubordination. A female offspring hatches from Bortus's egg, stunning him and Klyden as all Moclans are male.

Just as the pilot established the series leads, this episode establishes the secondary characters. Of these, Penny Johnson Jerald as Dr. Claire Finn shines. She completely owns the "experienced older officer" role she said she wanted to fill back in Episode 1.

What was refreshing to me here was that there was no administrative incompetence in evidence. Admiral Tucker issues the right order. Alara's decision to follow orders was the right decision. Her subsequent decision to disobey those same orders was likewise the right decision. And Dr. Finn points out what everyone who's ever been in a position of command already knows: there are no wrong decisions. You issue the best commands possible given the information at your disposal, accounting for the risks you can identify; and you must then be willing to accept the consequences of those choices. This one episode was a crash course in command, and it was a damned good one.

Alara's decision to disobey flag orders gives us a classic "feel good moment", while avoiding a good bit of cliche by way of her delivery. "They can bite me," is a refreshing change from the Trek standby of having Spock/Data/whoever say "To hell with the orders".  And I completely buy the Chief Engineer. Older guy, tons of experience, who occasionally has to be reminded that it's not really his ship. Hell, sometimes I am that guy.

The final solution to the problem doubled as the Big Joke and tripled as biting social commentary. Alara quips, "They wanted an Earth zoo. I gave them one," referring to the vast archive of 21st century reality TV she donated to the Calivons. And man is it a zoo. So after the first episode of goofy action, we move to a bit of softball social commentary. This one is easy... "ha, ha... look, rich housewives arguing!" But make no mistake... you're being led into deeper waters.

At first it appears that Bortus' egg is merely deus ex machina to get him out of the way and put young Alara in charge. This turns into the central plot point of the third episode.

S01E03 - "About a Girl". Bortus and Klyden intend to have their child surgically "corrected" to be male, which is standard practice for Moclans when a female is born. Claire and Ed object to performing a sex change on a healthy infant, so Bortus and Klyden plan to have the procedure performed on a Moclan vessel. Gordon and John change Bortus's mind by showing him Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, but Klyden still wants to proceed, revealing that he was born female. The case is arbitrated on the Moclan planet, Moclus, where Kelly represents Bortus; she casts doubt on the idea of male superiority by demonstrating that Alara is physically strong and Gordon is stupid. Ed locates a female Moclan of advanced years, Heveena, who testifies that she lived a happy and fulfilling life in seclusion, and reveals that under the pseudonym "Gondus Elden" she has become the Moclans' most respected writer. But Klyden and the tribunal are unconvinced, and the baby undergoes the surgery. Despite their disagreement, Bortus and Klyden are committed to each other and to giving their son, Topa, a good life.

Now we've gone from an introduction to our leads to a focus on the supporting cast. This third episode throws a spotlight on our remaining main character, the Moclan, Bortus. For this one, there's possibly more to discuss about reactions to the episode than to the episode itself. I think the episode is very straightforward social commentary. What makes it better than people think it is, is that close examination leaves you wondering what point the show is making. And that in itself is the point.

I have heard it said that MacFarlane confuses the basic concepts of gender identity in this episode. He does no such thing. To the characters involved -- the Moclans -- there literally is no distinction between gender and sex. They are, to a man, homosexual males. That is, they are egg-laying individuals who identify as males, which calls into question whether it's the critics who are confused as to whether gender identity is addressed in this show. The child is not simply being given a sex change: it is also having its gender identity decided for it as well. This is driven home by the revelation that Klyden was born female, but identifies strictly as male. Both "gender" and "sex" equally and interchangeably apply, without having to stop and sjw-splain the difference between gender and sex to people who have neither time nor patience for that in a one-hour episode of entertainment. It's precisely because there are people who would insist on hijacking the storytelling for the five episodes or so it would take to "explore the modern realities of life" that we have here a fictional species specifically designed to curtail those sort of red herrings. It's a simplification; but it not only needs to be done; it's straight out of the Star Trek Writers/Directors Guide, just as I mentioned in my last post. MacFarlane is completely on point.

I've also heard it said that this script is somehow "homophobic". At no point in the episode is that in evidence. The Moclans are homosexual. And at no time is it indicated that this is a bad thing. Bortus and Klyden love each other. They have a healthy marriage. They also have important disagreements, and do not appear to be stereotyped in any way that isn't reflected in the actual daily lives of the married gay men I know. What the Union crew argue against is not that... it's enforced conformity. Their position is clearly that you should choose your own path to happiness, whatever that might be. Again, this is a literal page out of Roddenberry's book, and although I closed my last post with this quote, I'll quote it again:

The whole show was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but to take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in lifeforms. We tried to say that the worst possible thing that can happen to all of us is for the future to somehow press us into a common mold where we begin to act and talk and look and think alike. If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences -- take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind here on this planet -- then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that's almost certainly out there.

-- Gene Roddenberry

This is a decidedly progressive outlook, and I'm using "progressive" in a positive rather than merely dogmatic sense. The crew of The Orville cry out against conformity, and in this particular instance, they lose... as one tends to do when one is opposed by an overwhelming majority. Their only response can be to make the best of it, and they go about doing just that. You should be uncomfortable with this episode. You're not intended to like the outcome for the child no matter who you are. And you have to look for the pearl... when Bortus says at the end, "we must give him a good life, whoever he becomes," you know he means it. He would have readily said it of his daughter.

It's easy to overlook, in all the noise about gender identity, that the show is making a statement about women's rights and capabilities as well. I'm not talking about using Alana to demonstrate physical strength... that's ham-fisted and easily refuted. The better case is not made by Heveena, either. Having the one woman they could find (on a hunch!) being the equivalent of Shakespeare is far too convenient. I know they've got limited time, but still.... The better case would have been made by pointing out the fact that Kelly acted as legal counsel on this all-male world and nobody made so much as a peep about her intellectual qualifications; as well as by the fact that among Moclans, gender differences are slight enough that transgendered males don't even know they're transgendered. (That's not so farfetched either. It never crossed my mind that circumcision made me physically different until I was almost out of high school. I just never bothered to compare my junk to other guys'.)  

The voices that I've heard object to this episode can't really effectively make cast labels without undermining their own real world position. And those who support conformity in this episode find themselves rooting for the gays. There are two extremes of negative reactions, and yet there is a trap for both. Fiction is not necessarily advocacy, and folks would do well to recognize that simple reality. Social commentary in science fiction is there to invite you to think... it is not there to tell you what to think. The fact that we have in this episode a commentary that makes diametrically opposed people do synchronized double-takes delights me no end.

The comedic moments are still there, suitably dialed back for the subject matter. The bit about using Ruldolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer to instruct Bortus in diversity and acceptance was inspired.


Other Stuff:

Production values and special effects: I've got no complaints at all. It's a TV show, so it's going to have a limited budget. With that budget they've managed to construct spacious, futuristic sets and deliver competent CGI as well as model work! (Nobody shoots with models any more. The fact that they took the time is just astonishing). People have complained about the CGI... those people need to suck it up. Hell, Rogue One couldn't deliver a convincing CG Carrie Fisher with a megabudget. I'm still not a fan of the swoopy engines, but the forward 2/3 of The Orville looks amazing.

Costumes and makeup: DAY-um! Full body appliances for Bortus, a healthy sampling of other races among the crew... this thing has shots in it that are keeping the makeup artists on their toes. And they are up to the challenge. Likewise with the costumes. The uniforms look livable. They look convincing as uniforms. They're practical. They have pockets. The same with the civilian clothing. This stuff looks like clothing that people would actually choose to wear of their own volition.

Technology: The Union lacks Transporters, and I, for one, couldn't be happier. The only reason for them in the first place was to compensate for a lack of budget in the original Star Trek. A little back-lit glitter in a fish tank, a fade, and bam! You're on the planet, without expensive model-work. There's no need for that here, so good riddance. The one thing I wish they did have, since shuttles are so important, is dedicated shuttle pilots. This would take the place of the Transporter Chief, and would also be in charge of shuttle maintenance. They don't have it, but it would have been nice.

The replicators are still there, which I'm ambivalent about, but at least it could be argued an extension of the 3D printers we currently have. So far they're keeping the technobabble to a minimum, and I like that, too. The phrase "particle of the week" originated with ST:TNG, and not as a compliment. Treknobabble should be used both sparsely and consistently. Using what you have is far more clever than producing unobtainium ex nihilo.

I wish I knew what Yaphit's job on the ship is.

--==//oOO\\==--

I said I would give this series a few episodes to find its feet... after all, Star Trek: The Next Generation sucked giant eggs for the first season. But three episodes in, I not only observe that The Orville is finding its feet very quickly; I see a pattern of progression that shows me it's going in the right direction.

I like it.