About this site

  • Comments
    When you submit a comment, it won't be published until approved. This is to cut down on comment spam. However, I will also edit or block comments that are profane or offensive.
  • No Legal Advice
    Although I may from time to time discuss legal issues on this blog, nothing that I post should be construed as legal advice, nor as creating an attorney-client relationship between you and me. In fact, there's a good chance I'm not licensed to practice law wherever you are. If you need legal advice, you should consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
  • Personal View
    This blog is neither affiliated with my employer nor hosted by it. It is maintained through TypePad, and I pay the hosting fees. Nothing that is posted here should be construed as anything other than the views of the particular author of the post.
  • Tung Yin's Recent Papers (SSRN)

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      


  • Check Google Page Rank

« Things you don't want to think about before eating | Main | The annoying Hillary Rosen »

April 25, 2005


How about "Star Trek Enterprise" and "Star Trek"

Tung Yin

Don't know, I only watched the pilot of "Enterprise" and maybe one more episode before bailing. But to reach back a little bit to "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine," you can see the complex arcs there, compared to "Star Trek"'s simplistic, Kirk saves the day in 45 minutes approach. (Don't get me wrong, I love the original series, but it is just kind of . . . dumb compared to DS9.)

Well the new enterprise won an emmy. I think its pretty good but its going off the air! I think it is better than Deep Space 9, although I did like Oddo. Voyager was the best of them all, I think. Although Enterprise is pretty good. The old Star Trek is still good, nice and simple. If you get a chance you should watch Enterprise, Friday nights at 7pm.


The author is right that the Golden Age of television in the 1970s is mostly a myth. Only CBS had a golden age in that decade (Mary Tyler Moore, All in the Family, MASH, Bob Newhart, the first seasons of Good Times, The Jeffersons, etc.). ABC and NBC produced mainly dreck in the 1970s.

I never had a chance to watch much of DS9. Wherever I lived, the station that aired it always did so at midnight or later, and since I didn't own a VCR I was unable to watch it. What I did see, though, I enjoyed, although since it probably wasn't more than 50 or 60 episodes, the myths never seemed to make complete sense to me.


Some of your comparisons just don't add up. Lost in no way tackles the same genre as Gilligan's Island. The Prisoner is a more apt comparison, even Lost in Space or Land of the Giants.

The A-Team tackled serious issues about trusting the intentions and competence of state, local, and federal government, and various conventional authorities.


Also, it isn't so much that watching '24' makes you smarter, as it is that understanding it requires having extraneous knowledge.

applying a blanket statement like "television makes you smarter" endorses the exception rather than the rule. Even if watching Jeopardy makes people smarter, most tv isn't Jeopardy, and most of the hours people spend watching tv aren't jeopardy. In fact, most tv is commercials, and most programming showcases people doing little more than consuming junk, luxuriating, manipulating each other, or acting violently. Does this teach much more than gluttony, manipulative personalities, the opposite of forethought, etc.?

The comments to this entry are closed.