quote:Guess you never watched "Amok Time" or Star Trek VI, both of which featured Vulcans acting in exactly the same fashion...
Not exactly. In "Amok Time" it was somehow part of their culture, and T'Pau's behavior may be explained in that she felt disturbed by the presence of aliens who have never taken part in such a ceremony before. On other occasions we have seen a certain arrogance and sneakiness of Vulcan too, but this was never shown as something intrinisically bad. It was usually shown as a typical trait that in some rare cases developed like in ST VI.
quote:I'd have to say that the mere presence of Jeffrey Combs makes this a superior episode.
Why that? Combs didn't get a chance to show more than an Andorian who always asks the same questions and smashes bones and communicators.
posted
Well he must have done something pretty well, because in our thread concerning who was the greatest ST villain of all, Weyoun practically won hands down.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
It's not so much that Jeffrey Combs is a great actor, it's just that because of the way he looks, he gets these smarmy or weasely character roles, & he just makes them come alive so well. Anyone remember him in that S1 B5 episode as the PsiCorps dude helping COL Ari ben-Zayn try to grill Sinclair? He=teh r0xx0rz there.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Jeffrey Combs is a great character actor. I don't think we're going to see him stealing roles from Matt Damon or Leo any time soon, and I don't think he'll be on the short list after Olivier and DeNiro, but I'd say he was on par with the better character actors; Chris Walken, Brad Dourif, and Gary Oldman. So, no, TSN, to answer your question, had he been a crewman #3 the episode would not automatically be a winner, but I felt his talents did markedly improve this episode. I totally bought him as the high-strung paranoic Andorian leader. His nervous energy was palpable. His contempt for the Vulcans was handled well. When he sees his fears validated at the end of the ep, his relief was very real. I would say he contributed much to the success of the episode, and helped me look past the reckless destruction of countless Vulcan artifacts, and other such flaws. So it still wasn't great, but certainly better than some others.
ps-Incidentally, Dukhat, I would have to say that your own namesake would almost certainly be my fav DS9 villian. Greatest ST villian? C'mon, no one can hold a candle to Khan.
[ November 12, 2001: Message edited by: Balaam Xumucane ]
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
For the n millionth time, he's not named after a megalomaniacal, egotistical dead deposed Cardassian leader, he's named after a beloved, accidentally slain dead Minbari leader. Thus the spelling that resembles avian headgear.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
My applogies, Dukhat. I really didn't follow B5 that closely. I just thought you had devised a more appropriate and interesting spelling. Nevermind. I thought the best bad guy in DS9 was Gul Dukat (no relation).
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:His nervous energy was palpable. His contempt for the Vulcans was handled well.
Agreed on that. It is only that it was a one-dimensional thing. I mean, although Combs did have a certain share of the screen time, the role had not very much diversity. He was only showing his rage and shouting at the hostages. There were, for instance, no consultations with his people and there was no real change of the situation to him, except for the very end.
posted
Ok. People are bitching about logistic problems whit regards to this episode. *coughberndcough* I have to disagree.
(1) Q. Why didn't reed shoot from the hole in the wall?
A. The second one Andorian went down the other three would know exactly where Reed and and his elite team of red shirts are. When you are shooting at an enemy from a tiny hole it's pretty f**king easy for the enemy to take cover. If they had any, the Andorians would've probably pulled out a grenade (or the 22nd century, Andorian equivalent of one) and blow the little face-wall-sculpture thing inward toward Reed and his marry men, killing, if not seriously injuring them.
(2) Q. Why didn't the Reed just beam down some stun grenades at the Andorians location?
A. Well. As stated in the episode, the Andorians will hear the stun grenades re-materializing. Sense the grenades are re-materializing at their exact location, they probably would spot them before they were done. Being extremely suspicious in nature, they would have either, destoryed the grenades before they could go off, or they would have cleared the room.
By doing the whole stun grenade thing, Reed would be taking a huge risk that if just one of the Andorians made it un-stuned, that Andorian would execute the hostages. Where as if he and his marry men were there in person there was a lower chance of that happening sense an un-stunned Andorian would have been pursued and most likely stopped before he would have the chance to execute any of the hostages.
posted
And dance for us. Dance!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
MIB
Ex-Member
posted
grrrrr. Sense and Since. I'm always using the wrong one by accedent. Plus I do know the difference between merry and marry. I don't need a f**king dictionary. Aren't I allowed to make a few typeos??
Printer-friendly view of this topic
