The "context" is in the headline. That tells you all that you should need to know to determine whether you want to read the article.
The fact that you seem to want someone to do that work for you and tell you what to think (divorcing whatever gets highlighted from its full context in the interview in the process) is frankly disappointing.
Getting mad at link aggregation software for aggregating links is a real choice.
I've never been convinced that the ear-grabbing actually did anything. Bareil certainly had no patience for it.
It's funny - I knew he would be wearing it at some point, sort of had my eye out for it...and didn't notice it at all when I actually watched the episode.
I wonder if there was more to it that got cut for time. I think it's...fine as it is, if only because Holly Hunter's physicality in the role is a sight to behold. But it doesn't have much to offer besides the further development of the relationship between Ake and Kelrec.
It's not a video, but thanks for playing.
Who are you asking? Do you have an opinion of your own? Is there any chance at all you have something to say about the interview you're ostensibly discussing?
DS9 was not a UPN show - it was syndicated.
The residents of the Institute are a bit of a minefield, not least because the show didn't do much to sketch out exactly what challenges they were living with. We're unfortunately left to assume that they would be at risk of harming themselves or others were they living on their own.
I do think Lauren was portrayed as having delusions more than any kind of "sex addiction," and you could make the case that Patrick may not be able to safely care for himself.
But a lot has happened in the deinstitutionalization movement since those episodes were produced, so it's pretty tough to justify way they were treated. It is, however, a decent mirror to the way society was at that time.
I've been pretty excited for this one ever since it was highlighted as a "love letter" to DS9...but I was pretty nervous about a couple of things.
I wasn't sure how the hell they would make it relevant to the cast of this show, and keep them rightly front-and-centre. There was no obvious connection for them to do so, and it wouldn't serve them well to just do a full-on nostalgia fest.
I also wasn't sure how to explore Sisko's fate in a way that felt substantial. It seems like any story about his return would have to be pretty significant (or, alternatively, so insignificant that it would be hard to make an episode about it).
As it turns out, I needn't have worried. They threaded the needle pretty perfectly. SAM was the central character from beginning to end, and her "connection" to Sisko was uniquely intertwined with the character's motivations. And they sidestepped my second issue entirely, but in a way that I still found satisfying.
I feel bad for Ben and Kasidy's kid, though - apparently completely insignificant to the history books.
And I do hope he was able to visit them from time to time.
DS9 ran on fusion power, so in theory there wouldn't have been any dilithium in use (though the same couldn't necessarily be said for docked or orbiting ships).
But I tend to think the station itself should be gone by now, unless they decided to preserve it for historical reasons or something.
At least we'll always have Turner.
You don't think the mysterious disappearance of a war hero who was also entangled with non-linear, godlike beings would be interesting?
Great. Read the interview, and if there's any aspect of it you feel you need to add thoughts to, go ahead and do it. And if you don't have anything to add, (a) that doesn't mean it's not worth sharing, and (b) you can just bypass the thread entirely.
It's not on OPs to tell people what aspects of an article to talk about, and in many cases, I would argue that it's not appropriate to try.
You can't possibly think that someone posting something online is analogous to approaching you and shoving something in your face. Please tell me you can tell the difference.