Borderland and O. Deus
By timmer33

I can't say I'm shocked by O. Deus's review. Last week I posted something along the lines of this: O. Deus is a critic who feels his job is to CRITICise. Unfortunately he has lost all sense of objectivity. Rather, he enjoys causing controversy by panning good episodes (yes, he panned this) and praising shitty ones (Two Days in Sickbay??)

I'm stunned that O. Deus is still writing reviews for TrekWeb. I'm not saying he should be canned because he doesn't like ENT --- I'm just saying he should be an objective reviewer. He's not. HOME and BORDERLAND both received near universal praise from the fans. Deus pans both. How is it that this guy has this job? Are you getting paid, Deus? Are you hoping to parlay this into another job with a more legitimate magazine/newspaper? If so, it might explain a few things. It might make sense that you have ulterior motives to write more controversial reviews.

Here are some points:

THE GOOD

1. Brent Spiner. His character was wholly new to the franchise and offers so much. His acting was fantastic. He stole the show. As one reviewer put it (IGN?), the cascade of emotions over his face when Archer reveals the existence of the Augments was incredible. Spiner's got "It". He knows how to act in Trek and create a believable character. O. Deus looks at him and thinks he's hamming it up or something. That's ridiculous. Spiner is the best guest actor they've had on the show, period (Degra would be second best). Soong is motivated by desires that others feel criminal. He thinks he's doing something in the best interests of humanity. Spiner played that out beautifully and the writers played no small part in that, I'm sure. The scene between Spiner and Phloxx --- amazing. You can just *feel* the shock Soong feels when Phloxx disagrees with his work. Also the scene where Spiner is looking at the Orion girl. He gives her a little nod --- you can *see* what he's thinking! Great work.

2. The story. Great. Simply great. It set the basic foundation for a great 3 part episode. This was Act One. O. Deus looks at it and says it was bad. Get real, Deus. We're one third into an arc here and you're judging it based on its ability to stand alone or something. How about this: View all three episodes AND THEN write your reveiw.

3. The action. Great. Not too much and it didn't overwhelm the story.

4. Archer. Great. Bakula's discovered the best way to play the captain. A commanding presence, very sure of himself and conflicted by what he's done in the past.

5. The Augments. Very Kahn-esque. They followed the "formula" that Spock explained in Space Seed. Infighting and arguing. Power hungry. They were perfect. I really enjoyed the scenes with them, because it was something we've been asking about for a LONG time - even Steve Krutzler has! - and that's for scenes that don't feature the ENT cast! We can see stuff that happens off ship. We need to see that stuff. THat's something B&B NEVER did. Now COTO's doing it, and you're complaining! Listen guys, these scenes furthered the story and created believable, flawed characters.

6. The Augment from DUNE (Forgot his name). He was just amazing. He played the character so well. If I hadn't known he was in DUNE, I never would have guessed. His accent, his acting -- totally original.

THE BAD

1. The Orion Ships just appeared (TWICE!) without sensors showing them! All of a sudden Enterprise starts taking fire. WTF?

2. BIG SHOW. Terrible.

3. The scene where Big Show holds T'Pol up to display her.

4. What's with the bags under T'Pol's eyes? I read a story recently about a bizarre appearance on a late night talk show. It suggested she was into drugs. Is there any credence to this? I think she's a good actress and a good character -- I hope the Vulcan arc can clear up some inconsistencies. Whatever's going on, I hope Blalock is well.

Anyway, that's it for my thoughts.

O. Deus has done what he set out to --- he wrote a CRITIQUE that others objected to. He got people talking. He inspired my long post. However, if that's all you're going to do, it's flawed journalism. If you're going to criticise every show, why write reviews?? I'm not asking you to like something you don't like, but if you don't like ENT why are you even writing reviews for it? This was one of the best episodes in four years (along with Home) and you criticised both. We as fans are finally getting what we asked for, and you (and Steve) post these reviews that practically no one agrees with! If the majority of people said, "Yeah, this show sucked" then I wouldn't say this about you, Deus. However, both HOME and BORDERLAND were almost universally praised by fans.

I agree that we're both allowed to have our opinions, but why is someone as biased as yourself (yes - BIASED because you are taking the role of the CRITIC and trying to create dissention and discussion) writing reviews for Trekweb??? How about you write an objective review about an episode from a FAN'S point of view? Isn't that what a REVIEWER should be doing?

I guess the question should be --- Should Steve have someone REVIEW each episode or CRITIQUE it?