an error on Glee

I've not posted anything about Glee here before. Glee is one of the best new shows on TV, I just haven't had time to do proper reviews.

However, I must address something from this week's episode. There's a joke made about how Puck relates Super Mario Bros. to shifts in our society. Actually, Mario Bros. really IS significant in our culture, and I think Puck might be onto something. But there's unfortunately some wrong information here.

It's not the first time Glee has messed up. When Rachel was in Cabaret, they were basing it on the film rather than the stage show, using the song "Maybe This Time" and even dialogue from the film. That annoyed me because I know better.

Likewise, this week Puck said that "what made Super Mario 3 so great was the Star Worlds. Nothing like that had ever been done before." Now, Mario 3 was a game-changer in many respects and possibly the greatest Mario game ever. But there are no Star Worlds in Mario 3. The Star Worlds are in the inaugural SNES game Super Mario World. In that game, there were secret levels that all led to the "Star Road", which was a whole bonus level of worlds to beat. It really WAS super cool, and a great addition to the series. But it wasn't in Mario 3. I'm just a little disappointed that fact was gotten wrong.

Anyway, that's it. I'm a nerd, and I care about that sort of thing. Now if you have the ability, go play Mario World or Mario 3, whichever. They're both great.

LOST: "Across the Sea" Reflections

Okay, there are definite SPOILERS in this post, so if you haven't watched DO NOT READ! I'VE WARNED YOU!!

wow, this was a doozy of an episode that gave some answers, some more questions, and a lot of head-scratching. It's essentially a prequel to the series as a whole. The episode opens with no recap, and until the edits at the very end, played out without any reference to events that would come later. Until the end, you could have watched this episode before any other episode and not really been spoiled.

Mother tells the boys' mother not to ask questions because every question will lead to more. This is the sort of thing that Damon and Carlton have been saying now for a year, and I think they put that line in specifically for the fans. This episode does open huge cans of worms regarding island origins, and we are being told to just shut up and rest, and accept that we'll never know EVERYTHING.

Isn't it interesting that Jacob and his brother have been black and white from birth, and throughout their entire lives. And when we might finally have gotten a name for him, we don't! She just says, "I only thought of one name" which makes sense since she didn't know she had twins. But did nobody ever give him a name later? Does the Man in Black have a name at all? What did Mother call him? It seems like he's always just "brother", like he's a frackin' Berenstain Bear or something.

I know it's TV, and birth is always fake-looking on TV. Those were the cleanest newborn babies I've ever seen, even for Lost. But can I just ask, didn't it seem like there were no umbilical cords? We've seen three other births on Lost, and it's never seemed so obvious as here. Don't they realize that the audience is sophisticated?

The nature of good and bad is explored more here than for most of the season. Jacob asks whether he is good, and if so why does Mother love him less. We aren't to just accept that Jacob is saintly; he's not. He does what he's told because he is trusting. That informs how he does things for the rest of his life; he expects trust. The Man in Black is curious, and frustrated. He is an instigator. Though he is loved, he knows he's been lied to and wants no part of that lie. He cannot trust ANYTHING Mother says anymore; everything is suspect. There's a very interesting line when Mother says "Jacob doesn't know how to lie." The Man in Black has a capacity for deceit. He can manipulate. He's a schemer, in a way like the Biblical Jacob (there's a twist for you). With Jacob, what you see is what you get. He'll get mad and he'll thrash you. He's not perfect. And yet, he doesn't lie. It's a very interesting dynamic. Whether Jacob was always good and the Man in Black was always bad is irrelevant now. You can sympathize with him, whose "mother" destroyed everything he ever worked for, killing his family and holding him hostage essentially. And yet the being that we NOW know as Man in Black is not quite that man. He is a pillar of smoke, a dangerous presence intertwined with that Man in Black. He still has all of those elements that made the Man in Black sympathetic, yet he is more evil now. Whether Jacob was more good than his brother before, he is certainly more good than his smokey brother now, I think.

Has this episode answered the age old Gary Troup-inspired question; was the Man in Black the "bad twin"?

The casting people did a great job casting young versions of Jacob and the MIB. Also, I didn't pay close attention, but I don't think that it was the same kid who they've been seeing on the island that some think was Jacob. Does anyone know?

I'd even go so far as to say that the Man in Black is a kind of anti-Christ figure. Again, Jacob is spoken of with God-like language. "You look down on them from above." The episode is rife with varied mythological imagery. It's telling when he says "I've lived among them for 30 years." Just like Jesus? And he is murdered! And he is resurrected, sort of, but in a terrible form. There are also vague Cain and Abel similarities, though which is which? It's obviously not allegory since neither is exactly pure. Jacob is more obedient to his Mother, but she loves the other one more. Jacob is the aggressor, who beats on his brother twice, and ultimately kills him (though whether he truly intended to kill him is questionable).

We got an answer about who built the wells. The "light", whatever it is, is somehow related to the electromagnetic energy of the island. And we saw the Donkey Wheel! But wait... all the wells were stopped up, right? And the people were killed, and the homes were destroyed. So did the Smokey MIB go back later and finish building the wheel system? And we still don't know why that cavern was all filled with ice. It also seems like going into the light is responsible for making Smokey the way he is, so why can Ben and Locke leave the island that way unharmed? Did that pocket of energy always move the island? See what I mean about more questions???

I very much want to know what the timeline is for the island. We are never shown the Tawaret statue in this episode, which is odd considering Jacob seems to live in it later on. And yet, it being Egyptian, one would think it must have been built before hand. We don't know when exactly this episode takes place. We do know that it must be before Richard came in the 16th Century. We also know that it is in an age when iron tools have been made, people speak Latin (like Mother) and traverse the ocean in ships. This still doesn't limit time very much though, since man has been sailing since they settled the Mediterranean, and quite possibly earlier, to the tune of tens of thousands of years ago. The same goes for iron tools (I'm using iron because of the obvious magnetic properties of MIB's dagger). If we go from Biblical records, Cain's great great great great grandson is said to have made iron tools. So the most helpful points in dating the episode come from the language spoken. If indeed it was Latin Mother spoke, as it sounded, that would place this episode sometime after the founding of Rome. It's likely to have been in any case, since I would assume the Egyptian influence on the island predates this episode. Unfortunately, that's still thousands of years to play with.

What we thought began with Jacob of course began with Mother, and likely with others before her. When she was killed, she thanked the Man in Black. She didn't seem to age. Apparently the act of protecting the island is a sacred oath which makes you immortal. She wanted to leave too, but she needed a replacement. She was really sort of insane, wasn't she? Like she had elements of Rousseau about her. But things that both of the brothers have said are direct quotes from her. She started that whole thing about how it always ends the same way. Why does she mistrust people so much? Who brought her here and left her? I believe her when she says she came by accident. So let's not blame Jacob exclusively for bringing people to the island and toying with them; this sort of thing predates him! I'd like to know, even IF it was Egyptians who built these things, etc, why did they leave? How did they get to the island in the first place? I could believe that they were killed by Roman conquest of the island, and then somehow the Romans were destroyed.

The waterfall of light is sort of a Pandora's Box. When we first saw it I wondered "is this the magic box?" and I still kind of wonder. Someone always has to protect it, or else it will go dark, she said. Well, that particular outlet DID go dark when the Man in Black went in and became Smoke. So I don't doubt that perhaps it cannot leave the island without destroying the light that Mother said was inside all men.

When Jacob became the guardian of the waterfall, it was a very interesting ceremony. After saying some ceremonial words (and I would LOVE some Latin scholar to translate that for us!), she passes Jacob a cup of wine to drink. She then says "We are now the same". It's a kind of communion. It even seems to pass on the gift of immortality. Just as Jesus said that "Whoso... drinketh my blood [the wine] hath eternal life." This leads me to a whole secondary theory. We know that Jacob was mortal in that the Man in Black's loophole allowed him to die. We also know that Jacob somehow was able to make Richard immortal. This logically tells me that that day on the beach, Jacob performed the ceremony with Richard, passing the immortality on to him. THAT's the thing that Richard knows what to do next. When the final candidate is revealed (and duh, it's Jack) Richard will do the little wine ceremony and make Jack immortal. Then Richard will finally be able to die. The only problem with this theory is it doesn't explain why Jacob didn't age for another 400 years. But maybe that's just how it works.

We are never told WHY the Man in Black is unable to kill Jacob, even besides the guarding the island stuff. Mother says "I've made it so you can never hurt each other". Now, this is sort of not true, since the Man in Black was essentially murdered by Jacob. But perhaps that has more to do with him going into the light and becoming the Smoke Monster. Maybe the Smoke Monster killed him, taking him over and leaving a husk.

And we did get a big revelation. We found out where those black and white stones came from back in "House of the Rising Sun" (though the white stone looked totally whiter in the future than it did here), and we learned who Adam and Eve were. It was dun dun dun the Man in Black!! And his mother!! As I long suspected, they were both killed and placed in those positions by a third party, Jacob! Now, my problem with this revelation is Jack's assessment of the decay. He says they died "at least 40 or 50 years ago". Well, that's a frickin' understatement. Try 4 or 5 hundred years! Or even THOUSAND. We just don't know. So shouldn't they have decayed more rapidly? Is Jack just not much of a forensic scientist? Has the decay been slowed, or were they somehow fossilized? Well, at least we can't say they never told us who they were. Isn't it interesting then that the Man in Black, as Christian Shepherd, led Jack to the site where his rotting bones lay.

I want to know what exactly happened to the Man in Black once he crossed the threshold of light. Somehow he was taken over by the smoke thing, but it left his body behind. It left it, but gained an ability to appear. This explains some of what he said about Jacob "stealing my body" earlier. Did the same thing happen to the French team? Are there bodies of them down in the tunnels? It didn't seem to work that way with Sayid or with Ben. So far that means that when Smoke becomes someone, he leaves a body. Yemi's body was in the plane. Locke's body was on the plane. MIB's body was in a tree. So... just what the heck happened to Christian Shepherd's body, dang it?

Why exactly does the Smoke kill so many people? He seemed to agree with Mother that mankind was bad, but is that the only reason?

When they are playing the game (whatever game it was; a proto-backgammon?), the Kid in Black tells Jacob that when he makes up a game he can make his own rules. So does this mean these scenarios where Jacob brings people to the island was his game? And the "rules", are these Jacob's rules? So does that mean it was all kind of the Man in Black's idea?

So we know that they can't leave the island via the light or they will become evil and die or something. ...But why exactly could they not leave across the sea? That part I don't understand. Was she just trying to keep them there until she had established a replacement? ...And if they were such a threat, why did Mother wait thirty years to kill everyone else?

On the whole this was a very interesting episode. It's actually a first for the show; never has an entire episode been set away from the main characters completely in a different time. Besides the teeny little flash forward at the end (which is really just to make it clear to the dumb people in the audience what we're seeing), there are no flashbacks or flash forwards. Every other episode has had some sort of time traveling "device" to tell story. This one doesn't. It also doesn't feature any of our main characters proper or their stories. That's interesting. I did find a lack of certain elements frustrating, most because there are only two episodes left. I also do not understand, since it was done with such reasonable success here, why we COULDN'T have just been told the story of the French people or the Dharma people or whatever without all the time travel nonsense that seemed to come and go for no reason and compress the logical timeline. But that's just me.

What do you think, was this episode successful?

I can't stomach terrorism -- I don't have the constitution

There's been a lot of talk recently about Constitutional rights for terrorists after the attempted bombing in New York City. There was a lot of talk in theory about human rights and such before that, mostly about the use of torture. But in this case, much discussion has been made of whether terrorists deserve Miranda rights. In this instance, our perpetrator was a U.S. citizen. Should we suspend his rights to gain information? To me, so much of this is reactionary and based on arguments from people who, though they may have sworn to uphold the Constitution, have never bothered to read it. I stand up for all the rights contained in it, and not for rights not contained in it. Let's dissect the Constitutionality of some of the arguments.

Miranda rights are so called from a famous court case Miranda v. Arizona wherein the court found Ernesto Miranda's rights regarding self-incrimination had been violated. The name stuck for a piece of business that police are now required to give when arresting. It's essentially an arresting officer spouting fine print at you, reminding you of your rights so that you can't use ignorance of the law as a defense. It's even become a verb, mirandize. Now, sometimes it seems to me that cops will bend the law and try to get all the information they can out of people before they are officially arrested, so that Miranda doesn't trip them up. I see this all the time on Cops, especially during drug busts. Sometimes they don't even seem to mirandize people, though that may just be due to television editing. I don't want to sound like I'm maligning police, though. Frankly, most criminals are too stupid to remain silent anyway. So let's not pretend that reminding them of their rights will magically prevent us from getting information.

I heard Joy Behar say today on The View that Miranda is not in the Constitution. (Before you ask "Why were you watching The View???", let me tell you that I flip over when Price is Right is on commercial sometimes, to see if anyone says anything stupid.) While technically the phrasing of the Miranda rights are not explicitly in the Constitution, she is essentially totally wrong. Those rights are all in the Constitution, that's why the Miranda exists. The Fifth Amendment states that no person "shall be compelled in any case to be a witness against himself." The meaning of this is extended to any statements made which could be used as evidence. By making statements regarding circumstances of your guilt, you in essence testify against yourself. So to prevent that, the law clearly states that any testimony you give is purely of your own volition, and that neither the courts nor the police can "compel" you to give such statements. You have the right to remain silent; you aren't required to remain silent. However, the federal powers cannot coerce testimony from you. Furthermore, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to legal counsel. So the two essential elements of Miranda, the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, are indeed specified in the Constitution. Joy Behar is a dope.

So do I believe that a terrorist who is an American citizen should be afforded the right not to talk, and perhaps even be found not guilty of his crimes? Yes I do. If we start bending our laws for this reason or that reason we became a nation of chaos. I'm fiercely against innocent people doing time and the only way to prevent it is to uphold these laws even in the face of certain guilt. The laws of our nation, especially the Bill of Rights were never designed to protect the victims; they were designed to protect the accused. That is, not victims of crime, but victims of our government. Our Founders were pretty clear on their mistrust of governmental power, and the Constitution as a whole was established for the people, to "ensure the blessings of liberty."

The vast majority of terrorist acts are not committed by U.S. citizens. Therefore, there is no need to try them by Constitutional rules in Federal courts. The notion that we should seems fundamentally ridiculous to me. Now, then there comes the sticky issue of "torture". Foremost I would say that nothing in U.S. law prevents torturous interrogation of non-citizens. We do however seem unfortunately bound by treaties and agreements made after World Wars regarding prisoners of war and such. So I can't really argue for or against torture in those areas, not being a legal expert. But as regards U.S. citizens, this is a different issue. Many argue against torture or shall we say, "extreme interrogation" based on the bit against "cruel and unusual punishment." Well, guess what? Interrogation doesn't qualify as punishment. So that rule doesn't apply. The only real sticking point against this sort of thing is the previously mentioned bit in the Fifth Amendment about not being compelled to testify against oneself. There are two qualifiers, however. The clause in full reads "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against oneself." That presupposes that the information needed is regarding one's own guilt, and also that it is a criminal case. Waterboarding a suspect who is not being tried criminally for information regarding other terrorists then is technically not illegal.

The one angle that never seems to be played up is treason. Most modern terrorists who commit acts against America are doing so under the auspices of some foreign religious or military ideology. Yes, the lone crazy environmentalist blowing up a factory is a terrorist, and should be tried for his crimes, though afforded all rights guaranteed him. But somebody who tries to bomb New York City out of allegiance to terrorist cells in Pakistan or something is a traitor. Article III, section 3 defines Treason thusly: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. To me, these acts of radical Islamic terrorism most definitely qualify as adhering to our enemies, since we declared "war on terror" almost ten years ago. Since punishment for treason is relatively undefined, the nation could come down hard on any citizens who could be convicted of treason. THAT's the way to get them, not by summarily removing or restricting all rights, but doing so once it is proven that treason was committed.

On the whole, our system can work if we follow it. There will always be extreme situations, and points where it seems our law fails. But the solution is never to pass quick, reactionary laws. Like the recent attempts at "bullying" legislation. What about bullying was not already illegal? Slander is illegal. Libel is illegal. Assault is illegal. Doesn't that cover it all? I'm tired of the rights of the People being neglected due to the acts of a few Persons.

Isn't it time we expect our elected officials to actually uphold the Constitution, and not just in word only?

Something for Mother's Day

A strange thing happened to me this morning. I woke up thinking about the Mommy Market. Now, I wasn't dreaming about it, nor had any other related thoughts to it, but when I woke up I remembered a movie I hadn't seen for a long time. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, well good! That's why you're reading this!

Sunday is Mother's Day, and funnily enough that's an appropriate time to check out the movie I'm referring to; it's called Trading Mom. Based on the children's book The Mummy Market, the story follows three kids who decide they don't like their mom and want to trade her. So they go to the Mommy Market where they are given three chances to find a new mom. Each of the kids gets their pick at a new mom, but each one ends up not being quite right. All of the moms are played by Sissy Spacek. If you only know her from her dramatic work like In the Bedroom or from being creepy Carrie, then this film is worth checking out. She is funny, and does a great job making all four moms distinct characters. The daughter is played by My Girl's Anna Chlumsky, who has kind of disappeared these days, but was in all kinds of kids movies back then.

I saw the movie back in the late '90s when Disney Channel used to run it a lot. If you have never seen it, I was worried that it would be difficult to find. It was available on VHS years ago, but has never been released on DVD. However, Lionsgate Films has done us all a solid; the entire movie is available on YouTube. And not like in 12 parts; the entire film uncut. So if you have an hour and a half for a sweet kids movie, you can watch Trading Mom here.

I don't know why I woke up with this movie on my mind, but it's a great movie for Mother's Day. I think I may watch it now.

LOST: "The Candidate" Reflections SPOILERS!

Now, before we move ahead I just want to make it clear that this post will contain SPOILERS!! for anyone who hasn't yet watched the episode. Do not read if you do not want to be SPOILED, unless you are already a spoiled brat.

I didn't really see the need to revisit the cages. It felt like the writers were doing it just for the sake of doing it. However, I did like that little moment where Sawyer called Widmore's bluff about killing them, and Widmore countered by saying that he can kill Kate because she's not on the list. That's true, she's not anymore.

Speaking of lists, where did Widmore get this list? And are we to believe that the infamous "Jacob's list" from way back in season three has been just one list this whole time? Is this supposed to have been that list? Or is Jacob always making silly lists? And in the end, were any of the lists the Others knew about really Jacob's anyway? I only ask because at one point neither Kate nor Sawyer was on "Jacob's list".

Once Jack broke his friends out of the cages, they all headed to the plane. I could not understand why they weren't still trying for the sub. It made no sense to me. Wasn't the plan from the outset to take the sub? So why were they going to the plane in the first place? And then they get there only to be told there are explosives on it, and they should all head for the submarine.

I wonder if Widmore was responsible for the explosives on the submarine really, or if Locke had planted them there himself. It does seem strange that he claims Widmore wanted to kill them all in one place which ends up being exactly what Locke wants. But Locke does still want to leave the island, and the plane may be his only way to do that. So maybe it was Widmore after all.

I love when Smokey told Jack that whoever told him to stay on the island was wrong, and then Jack says "John Locke told me" and throws him in the water. ...Isn't it kind of sad that worked? Of course, since it was all part of Locke's master plan, maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

This point I don't know about because I haven't double checked or freeze framed or anything. But did anyone else think that the last of Widmore's men that Locke shot on the dock looked an awful lot like Jacob?

I got very concerned when Jack became stuck on the submarine, wondering how he was going to get back to the island.

I really liked the music in this episode, particularly the bits when Locke was on the plane. So much of the Lost music is familiar themes, but this episode had bits of originality that felt straight out of a Hitchcock film. I liked that.

There's a tiny part of my that's getting annoyed with Smokey Locke because he seems to be almost too good a manipulator. Every teeny weeny thing ends up being part of his diabolical plan. And that strikes me as just a tad too convenient. It's like the Joker in The Dark Knight. It all feels fine while it's going along, but on looking back there is just no way he could have had all those pieces set up ahead of time to finish the way they did.

It's clear that Smokey's plan was to kill off all of the remaining candidates. I knew there was something fishy about his "I need all of them or I can't leave" story. It just never made any sense to me. For it to be a lie does make sense. Now, I don't know if I believe Jack that he can't leave unless they are all dead, but I know that he would want to kill anyone Jacob was trying to use. Jack has certainly gone the way of Locke in this episode becoming a believer. It makes sense he'd not fear the bomb anymore after watching Richard's failed suicide. But was it ever going to be that they all survive, or was it only ever going to be that just Jack survived? Sayid told Jack "It's going to be you". This clearly supports my assumptions from last week are correct, and Jack is the candidate who will replace Jacob. I believe the series will end with Jack on the island, maybe even with an "eye close" shot to mirror the eye open of the pilot. This is not a spoiler, just speculation.

Sayid is gone after the explosion. Did it kill him? Jack says rather cryptically "There is no Sayid". Does this perhaps mean that Sayid was essentially dead back at the Temple, and this Sayid was merely a zombie and of no consequence anyway? Regardless, it seems his purpose has been fulfilled. Kate's been shot, and just like on any other TV show it conveniently got her in the arm and conveniently went straight through. And what of Sun and Jin? At first I thought perhaps this would get rid of Sun, thus proving that Jin was the Kwon from the wall. And yet, in an interesting reversal of the events on the Freighter, Jin chooses to stay rather than leave so that neither of them will be stuck without the other one. And thus we are left with more apparent drowning deaths, just like Joanna and Charlie.

My question though is whether Sun and Jin are in fact dead. What if Jack was right, and they cannot die? We never saw them die. We saw them clasp hands underwater and then it went to commercial. Now, there's no sensible way they can survive, but then again Locke should never have survived falling from the window. I'm just throwing it out there that they shot it in such an oblique way as to allow for the possibility that they would live. Just like on X-Files when Spender got shot but you never saw it, and then he turned up alive later on. Or Tony Almeida on 24. So I'm not quite ready to count Sun and Jin out yet. Unfortunately, Smokey seems to have a sixth sense about this sort of thing, and he implies they ARE dead. He tells Claire that "not all of them" are dead. This implies some of them are. So maybe Sun and Jin are gone. If so, too bad; that leaves little Ji Yeon orphaned and a needless casualty of storytelling (which is yet another reason I'm not buying it).

The season's penchant for having lead characters drop like flies as we get closer to the end is starting to remind me of the final episodes of Sailor Moon and everyone died in those too. That would make Jack the Sailor Moon of this scenario. But they all came back again at the end of Sailor Moon, so I'm still not discounting the possibility.

I mentioned above that Jack had become very much like Locke. Well, there on the beach, Locke had his own little "Deus Ex Machina" moment. He believed so hard, and now it seems Sun and Jin are dead, just like Boone. I half expected him to pound on the sand and shout "Why are you doing this?!"

I wonder where Ben and Richard are...

Alt-2004
Unfortunately, it seems that all the set-up from last week of getting the Losties together in one or two places hasn't amounted to anything as I'd hoped. It ended up being just a Jack flash-sideways about his need to fix things, in this case Locke.

It was nice to see Bernard again, and actually working as a dentist.

I thought that the explanation for Locke being in the wheelchair this time was very interesting. He was flying a plane and crashed it, crippling not only himself but his father. That's quite a reversal, still allowing Locke to feel pathetic and guilt-ridden. It also brings back the plane motif. In a way, it recalls Boone, who died in a crashing plane because of Locke's guidance. I wonder if there is anything Jack could do for Cooper as well as Locke.

I wonder what the point was of Christian giving Claire the music box. I knew it would play "Catch a Falling Star". It just seemed like an excuse to get her and Jack talking. And now everyone starts going back to their own lives again. What about Desmond's plan? What was the point of any of this?

Locke in his sleep seemed to have memories of the island, like pushing the button.

I'm really anxious for the flash-sideways to end already. Last week's was a set-up to nothing, and this week's though a character study, also didn't get us any further.

With just 3 more episodes left, I'm looking forward to what will happen next week. Will anyone else drop dead? Will Desmond's purpose be revealed?

...And then there were 4.

The Third Seat on the Bridge

Something has bothered me for a long time about Star Trek: The Next Generation. When I was a kid, I never really understood the layout of the bridge. The captain had his chair, obviously. Beside him was a seat for Commander Riker. But there was a third seat on the bridge, on Picard's other side. I could never understand what that chair was for. Was it simply to give the set symmetry? Was it simply there in case guests needed to sit? I must conclude no. There are two other seats for that (they are not full chairs, but are built into the ends of that big curve). The seat by Picard has a console to consult, just like Riker's. After years of thought and many, many viewings of TNG, I finally realized who the seat belongs to and the implications it has for that character; the chair is for Deanna Troi.

It may seem strange to think of Counselor Troi as a bridge officer, but that is exactly what she was in the first season of the show. Even beyond that she could often be found on the bridge. What business does she have being there? Because as originally established, that was her character's job. What this means, then, is that the later writers of the series like Ron Moore, Brannon Braga, Rick Berman, et al. misunderstood just what Counselor Troi's role was, and in the process created a position of "ship's counselor" which was nothing like what was intended. From definitely the fourth season on, Counselor Troi was the Enterprise's resident therapist. Moore has even joked on commentary tracks about how it was a very '90s idea to bring shrinks along on every starship. That idea might seem to date the show, but in fact I am going to argue that it was NEVER intended to be that way. I know that with a ship full of families it might seem logical to include a psychiatrist, but I think they stretched it too far in making it essentially a ranking Starfleet officer on every ship, and extending it too far to Counselor Troi. But if that's the case, then what exactly was the role of Counselor Troi?

In watching "Encounter at Farpoint" again, you can see that Troi was always a bridge officer. Counselor is still a job description, but what does that job entail? It seems clear to me that her role quite simply was to be an advisor to Captain Picard; that is, to give him counsel (hence, Counselor). She is present at every negotiation in that first episode. I realize that her characters is empathic, and thus would be of great advantage in diplomatic situations to guide the Captain. That's probably why Picard wanted her for this assignment. I do not believe Picard brings her along to see Groppler Zorn just because she knows when he's lying; he does it because it is her job. She's very upfront with Zorn about her Betazoid parentage; she isn't trying to hide anything or give Picard an unfair advantage.

Troi's role in this manner carries through the first season, and even into later seasons a bit. Note that her position as diplomat is integral to an episode like "The Price". So Troi is seated beside Picard to be that extra voice in his ear when a Romulan commander comes onscreen. It's an interesting development for Roddenberry. In his original pilot for Star Trek he had a woman on the bridge, as Executive Officer in fact. The original series' bridge set did not have this three-chair layout. There was one central Captain's chair. Spock, though first officer, was also a science officer and thus stayed at his science station. And all too frequently, McCoy would leave sickbay and come up to the bridge to discuss things with Kirk. As dramatically dynamic as it was to have Kirk, Spock and McCoy all there discussing things on the bridge together, it strains the logic. I mean really, why couldn't McCoy just use the comm system most of those times? Should he really be leaving Nurse Chapel in charge of sickbay all the time? So when Roddenberry created TNG he took the added step of laying the bridge out with those three chairs specifically. Rather than inventing reasons to have a McCoy on the bridge, he invented a role there; the ship's counselor. I know that things changed a bit from the first season to the next. For example, in the first season it seems like Crusher, like McCoy, is the only doctor on-board. With over 1000 people on the ship, that just makes no sense (this point is even addressed in a later episode, "Remember Me"), and by season 2 she had a full staff of doctors. But I believe Troi was always meant to be a bridge officer. Roddenberry recognized that part of what made Kirk a good captain was the input from logical Spock and passionate McCoy and his ability to make decisions from that. Why not, then, put another person on the bridge as advisor to the captain? Somebody whose job it was to remain up-to-date on diplomatic issues with each species; somebody to give the Captain a fresh perspective during negotiations. That is what Troi was there for.

But you may be asking, if that is the case why was Troi reduced to a therapist in later years? This was a slow process, and I believe the first indicator was an episode called "The Neutral Zone". In this episode, three 20th-Century humans are thawed out from cryogenic stasis. When one of them has trouble adjusting, Picard has Troi speak with her and help her locate living family. We learn that Troi does in fact have degrees in psychology and psychiatry. This is the first instance that I can recall of Troi acting as therapist. What unfortunately happened then was the newer writers in the later years began to think that was why Troi was on the ship. It wasn't. McCoy had degrees in psychiatry too. While Troi was useful as therapist it was never meant to be her primary mission.

Like everything else on television, building a world takes time. When we accept that the crew have brought families on-board, the realities of that situation eventually start to be fleshed out. There are schools for the children. There are recreation areas, such as Ten Forward. And yes, it is likely that there will even be a psychologist for the crew to speak with, since mental health is just as important as physical health. I would think though that this would fall under the auspices of the ship's medical staff. Either way, I do not think that it was ever meant to be Troi, or really that it should ever have been a Starfleet position. I know that Troi wears a blue uniform, signaling someone in the medical or science area. This however could simply be due to her degrees, and frankly she spent so much of the first six seasons in catsuits that the uniform was secondary to what her role was. After the pilot, we don't see her in uniform again I think until "Chain of Command" six years later.

The biggest blow to the original idea of ship's counselor came in the fourth season episode, "The Loss". Here Troi has been firmly established as the resident shrink on the Enterprise with office hours and regular appointments. We watch her in sessions with crewmen. This episode I think is the single most destructive to what her character was supposed to be. From here it became clear to everyone that Troi's role was to be the touchy-feely one helping Worf and his son connect or helping Picard through personal crises. As episodes progressed from there, she seemed to have a certain ineptitude for the goings-on of the bridge. The movies haven't helped, since she's been at the helm several times and both involved crashing the ship.

Perhaps the most unfortunate result of Troi's essential demotion was the collateral damage it inflicted throughout the Star Trek universe. The role of "ship's counselor" became one of resident therapist, and one which every ship was assigned. I've heard this point as one of derision. And it's certain high-profile writers for the show who I think are most responsible for this misconception. The counselor issue continued on Deep Space Nine, where a number of the better TNG writers worked. When Ezri was added, they wrote the character as a young ship's counselor. And what did that mean? It meant she went around trying to be a good therapist to people. A series that did fine without this sort of thing for six years, suddenly got back into "Counselor Troi" mode by having Ezri try to guide her superior officers by helping them recognize their repressed feelings or work through their claustrophobia. And while Voyager did not have a visible ship's counselor in that manner and was able to avoid this pitfall, every now and then Troi would appear on the show and once again she would be trotted out solely as Reginald Barclay's personal therapist. This perversion of who and what her character is to me is the fault of writers like Ron Moore and Brannon Braga. Note that in the Michael Piller-penned Star Trek: Insurrection, Troi is back to advising Picard on diplomatic issues. Actually, I should point out in general that Troi is back on the bridge on the Enterprise-E in the movies.

All television is a product of its time, and there will always be things that date it. But it has started to really bother me when people use the Ship's Counselor as a reason to slander Trek. Quite frankly, the prevailing concept of what a Ship's Counselor was is wrong. Counselor Troi was a capable Starfleet officer assigned to counsel the captain, not to take care of the entire ship. The clearest evidence of this rests on that main set that was seen in every episode; the unnecessary shift in Troi's character is reflected in that constantly empty seat by Picard.

Categorizing Steve Martin

I came across a Steve Martin movie on TV today, and realized that his film career is pretty easy to sort out into categories. He seems to make the same kinds of films over and over. Other writers/actors/directors do the same, but Steve Martin particularly has an oeuvre that can be sorted rather cleanly. Here now are the 5 different kinds of Steve Martin movies:

1. The Good Ones

I realize this is a terrible umbrella category, but it covers many films where Martin plays a leading role. In the good ones, his character is engaging, even if not always completely likeable; he is always sympathetic. A good one may be comedic, dramatic, or a combination of the two. At their best, there's a certain originality to the role or the take on the story that stays with the audience.

example -- comedy: The Jerk

The Jerk has reached legendary status for being so off-beat. I almost considered classifying it seperately. Not everyone will necessarily respond to it, but it cannot be denied that it is one of the strongest pieces that he has made

example -- drama: Leap of Faith

I like this movie a lot, and if you haven't seen it, check it out. He plays a con-man healing evangelist, but his plans change when it looks like there's been a real miracle.

other notable films: Roxanne, Parenthood

2. Brilliant Art House

Every now and then in recent years Steve Martin has taken breaks from doing lousy movies that make money and focusing on bizarre smaller films. In these, characters are sometimes much more eccentric but played low-key and never for cheap laughs.

example: Shopgirl

Shopgirl is one of my favorite movies that nobody has seen. Based on his novella of the same name, it is Steve Martin's quirky and delicate look at a woman torn between two very different suitors. For a time Jimmy Fallon was attached to the project, but that fell through and when the film was finally made a few years later, it featured Jason Schwartzman. Clare Danes is radiant.

other notable films: Novocaine

3. The Unnecessary Remake

Steve Martin has made a lucrative career of remaking classic comedy that didn't need remaking. Generally this means finding a classic comedy, filling it with over-the-top "jokes" and slapstick, throwing in a foreign accent, and forgetting what made the original any good in the first place. And I don't blame Cheaper By the Dozen for this trend; it really starts with the big-screen version of Sgt. Bilko.

example: Father of the Bride

While not actually a bad movie in its own right, was there anything about the Spencer Tracy original that demanded a remake? Father of the Bride is probably the best of the remakes, which seem to get progressively worse. ...And with a remake of Topper on the horizon, I'm getting worried.

other notable films: Cheaper By the Dozen, The Pink Panther

4. The Even Less Necessary Sequel

Thanks to the success of Father of the Bride, we have gotten a sequel to every single remake he's ever made (except the aforementioned Sgt. Bilko). The plots are generally more ridiculous, the chemistry of the characters wears thin, and the jokes are staler. They also feature terribly unoriginal titles; just slapping a "2" on it, instead of crafting a title that makes sense. Father of the Bride Part II does not tell you as a title that the movie is about pregnancy (or the rather bizarre angle of mother and daughter pregnant at the same time).

notable films: Cheaper By the Dozen 2, The Pink Panther 2

5. The Scene-Stealing Supporting Actor

Sometimes Steve Martin takes on a crazy role that steals the movie. It's actually something that begins with his television work. When you think of early Saturday Night Live, how can you help but think of "two wild and crazy guys"? And yet he was simply hosting. He was never a regular cast member. He's done similar good work for Tina Fey, including guest spots on 30 Rock. His supporting characters are usually a little more "out there". They can enhance an otherwise mediocre movie (Baby Mama), or complement an already wonderful piece.

example: Little Shop of Horrors

Little Shop is probably the best example of Steve Martin at his kooky supporting best. His turn as the sadistic dentist is one of the most memorable parts of that film. He never overpowers the movie, but he gets a lot of laughs and has a wonderfully bizarre death scene. He really captures what's written for the character, but adds a little spark here and there.

other notable films: It's Complicated, The Muppet Movie (cameo)

6. Shared Billing

There are many movies in which Steve Martin co-stars with other entertainment giants. Some of these are classics, others are abysmal failures. But he has made a number of movies with other notable comedians, even beyond his teaming with Martin Short in the Bride movies or Eugene Levy in Cheaper By the Dozen.

the good examples: Three Amigos, Planes, Trains & Automobiles

the bad examples: Bowfinger, Bringing Down the House

You could probably set aside a separate category for just his cameo work, but I think that they can all fit under the "supporting" category. His work in Prince of Egypt is actually not much of a scene-stealer, but he does get an odd little song in the middle of the movie. Anyway, that's how I roughly see Steve Martin's career. I'll leave it to you to decide where The Man With Two Brains fits in...