gogreenranger

Echoing what others said: the TNG movies felt like long, bigger episodes. While this isn't a bad thing, it didnt have the finality and "oomph" of the TOS movies.

THEY felt like they had big stakes, which carried from movie to movie, and at least for 2-4 (and 6), they picked up the character abd story arcs.

The TNG movies treated each as a standalone story, which again, isn't a bad thing, but the episodic reset button was no good when you had the epic story of the TOS films.

Of all of the TNG movies, First Contact had it, but honestly Nemesis was the one that tried to bring it and completely squandered that feeling of "this can change the entire galaxy and tie to threads from the series." I always felt like there was actually a better movie in there, left on the cutting room floor.

I've been rewatching TNG and it has become very, very apparent to me how much of the charm of the show was due to two things:

1. The sheer chemistry of the cast. Since really learning how much they all loved each other, it really just feels like a ship of joy.

2. The filler episodes let you spend time with the cast. I mean, you rarely get something like a whole scene about Data painting, or stroking a fake beard, or Geordi striking out with multiple women, or Troi extolling the virtues of chocolate sundaes.

I've been really impressed by how much SNW has been able to do with the ensemble, it really feels like the cast have relationships, so if we can get more of that, yes please!

I almost want to believe that they're cancelling Discovery to give more resources to SNW's production schedule. ;)

Just a fun note: Ron Moore got his start through that open submissions policy when submitted a script for what became "The Bonding." He had no writing credits before that.

They do until the Supreme Court interprets otherwise.

And now the Supreme Court, who interprets the Constitution as part of the checks and balances, is making noise that it could potentially disagree.

Also, as someone who is so versed in English, you understand that a sentence can refer to more than one thing, right? I can write a sentence, post to Lemmy, and kick a football. Only the sentence is what I write. The comma separates them.

Legal decisions have been decided on commas and they can be incredibly pedantic.

Right, but the comma separates the "Constitution creates the supreme court" and the "Inferiors courts that Congress may establish." Cutting out the middle removes key text.

It seems pedantic, but that's exactly the argument that either has been or will be made, because that comma implies that the Supreme Court and "inferior courts" have separate sources that govern them.