Understood. You’re being both generous and kind.
Chronos, in the “dumbest plot elements” thread.
Sorry, I didn’t notice the post where he was giving you grief about it until now, so I was confused about why the “:rolleyes:”. I get it now.
[Darmok]Tim… with the whooshing noise above his head.[/Darmok]
“Quest for the White Witch” by Tanith Lee, 1978.
DrDeth, illuminated!
The last two categories on the second round of Jeopardy tonight were:
SHAKA
WHEN THE WALLS FELL
Really? That’s great!
Jeopardy does that fairly often, using category names that are linked or form a familiar phrase, but this one seemed to pass without any recognition from Alex or the audience. I wonder if there have been other times that flew under the radar.
That’s pretty dang funny.
LOL. Love it!!!
Nm
I hated, hated(!) the whiny adult daughter in Birdman; it seemed so much like the type of film I love that I gave it a third watch and fast-forwarded through all the stupid, hackneyed “wah, wah, I was a drug addict and even though I’m like 35-years-old, you OWE ME, daddy!” For me, DIY editing Whiny McWhinypants = great love for the movie.
Maybe not so much a plot element, but the constant and gratuitous sex scenes in The Tudors spurred* me to buy the whole series in streaming format so I could skip over Jonathan-What’s-His-Face’s butt and the lay of the week’s perky breasts and well-groomed pubic fur. I gave up entirely on *GoT *when it seemed every episode featured rape/pillaging/killing of female characters.
I finally tossed SVU: Kriminal Whatevahs to the winds when it seemed that every plot arc focusing on a female cop took one or all of the following paths: being raped by a perp; being held hostage by a perp; having one’s kids held hostage/ransom by a perp; and coming to terms with a bad mommy figure. Blechhhh . . .
An interesting 2014 analysis of “Darmok.” The first third or so of the article is a recap: Shaka, When the Walls Fell - The Atlantic
Good one. And it allows me to remember that Picard specifically tried to get Dathon to tell him one of those legends/stories. And Dathon was unable to . Thus, the episode is impossible. Perhaps maybe there could be a race where important negotiations are started by allegories. But how do we understand “Juliet at the balcony”? By reading and hearing that play or at least that scene either performed or at least explained.
So, in order to have a communication system based on allegories, there must be a way to communicate those allegories first.
Here’s a Jeopardy! screencap: Star Trek reference on Jeopardy - Album on Imgur
Picard says – in reference to yet another “Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra” – that “our situation is similar to theirs? I understand that. But I need to know more. You must tell me more about Darmok and Jalad. Tell me . . . Give me more about Darmok.”
Dathon elaborates: Darmok on the ocean. (Picard muses that Darmok was alone.) Tanagra on the ocean. (Picard figures that Tanagra is an island.) Darmok at Tanagra. Jalad on the ocean. Jalad at Tanagra. (Picard remarks that they went to the same island.) The beast at Tanagra. (Picard says that Darmok and Jalad arrived separately but struggled against a common foe.) Darmok and Jalad on the ocean. (Picard says they left together, and Picard then talks about how it parallels their current situation: reasoning that Dathon knew there was a dangerous creature here, and knew from the tale of Darmok that danger shared sometimes brings people together.)
So he gets across extra details to the point where Picard groks the moral of the story.
Yes. But he doesnt tell the story. Obviously, he has to know the story. You cant build a allegory on allegories on allegories.
And yet, the whole point is that Picard gets all of that other stuff even without Dathon actually telling the story. (And I’m actually chuckling at the idea that, if not for Picard correctly interjecting stuff, Dathon maybe would’ve told more of a story than “Darmok on the ocean, Tanagra on the ocean, Darmok at Tanagra, Jalad on the ocean, Jalad at Tanagra, the Beast at Tanagra, Darmok and Jalad on the ocean.”)
Like I’d said, though, it’s possible they pantomime a little playlet for impressionable Tamarian kids while delivering that ritualized and minimalist description. So they’d know the story they saw acted out, picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words style; and they’d recall the seen details upon hearing the spoken words – regardless of whether, as Picard proves, it’s technically possible to deduce the tale from the description.
A quote from the official Star Trek Writer’s Guide seems appropriate here:
*Don’t try to tell a story about whole civilizations. We’ve never yet been able to get a usable story from a writer who began… “I see the strange civilization which…”. *
I’m not sure I follow.
What did they actually do, in TREK episodes? Well, in this or that episode they’d focus on the Klingons – which is to say, a proud warrior culture where a soldier of the empire seeks glory on the battlefield and thereby strengthens his family’s reputation in the constant struggle for status and political advancement. Oh, they go on and on about honor, and show extreme contempt for cowardice, and vigorously trade their lives for revenge: the whole Fighter With Machismo bit. You know.
Or they’d focus on the Vulcans; you want to take a crack at this one, describing their civilization? I’m pretty sure you could, if you felt like it, since the writers loved to go on and on and on about them. I’m pretty sure someone could chime in about the Ferengi and their ways, since that got driven into the ground likewise.
And so on.