Where is Samantha Wildman? You'd think the writers would at least make some attempt to explain her absence. I know Voyager had lazy writers but this was just ridiculous. Why didn't they just kill her off if they were never going to show her again? Samantha's absence has gone from a funny continuity error to a genuinely disturbing show of neglect. All it would have taken is one line to explain why she's never there, and the writers couldn't even do that. Shameful.
I just watched the episode for the first time and it moved me very much. Maybe it was because it touched some things that are close to home for me, but I thought it was great.
I did think the exposition was a bit long. I think they were trying to spell out the reasons for the taboo and convince the audience of its validity because it was a weak point.
I don't agree with the fact that the last dialogue was bad however. But I don't really watch soap opera so I can't compare ;)
I watched this episode recently--having heard of its reputation but never having seen it. I posted this brief review on my Facebook page:
So while many other Star Trek fans were gearing up to watch "Star Trek Into Darkness" (which sounds like an awesome movie--can't wait to see it!), instead, I finished watching the notoriously bad episode "Spock's Brain." Three thoughts:
1) Yeah. It's bad. Really bad. Plays out like a *parody* of Star Trek rather than the genuine article. The plot doesn't stand up to close scrutiny--in fact, it doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny.
2) But still--REMOTE-CONTROLLED SPOCK?? Wow, that's almost as cool as Park and Rec's DJ Roomba!
3) Nevertheless, the episode is much much better than bad Voyager or Enterprise (which is unfortunately too large a percentage of those shows). It's over-the-top campy, and I think it was meant to be taken that way. My sense is that neither the director nor the actors (particularly Shatner) didn't buy the premise, so they just hammed it up. As bad as it is--it's one of those things that's so bad I actually rather enjoyed watching it.
I'd also add that I agree with the comment above by Jeffrey that the bridge scene is a highlight of the show--almost TNG-like in its problem-solving approach. A nice touch in an otherwise rather embarrassing episode.
You're welcome, I'm sure. Of course, this episode DOES have SOME problems-chief of which is the implausibility(not to mention disputable utility) of a cryongenic capsule drifting out into deep space,light years away from earth. Let's log that one as a convenience of/for the writers,shall we? Ditto trouble with the Romulans and/or the Neutral Zone-which provides a crisis to distract Captain Picard & crew from their out-of-time passengers,thereby causing anxieties and conflicts to develop between them, which would ordinarily have been given some level of priority. However, these flaws do not detract from the greater points of interest; i.e., the differing responses of three ordinary humans who wake up 370 years in the future. Usually, anachronism is played for the Cheap Laugh, especially on TEEVEE: "Happy Days and "That 70s Show" being the best (and worst) examples.There's little of that here and, in fact, one of the more sophisticated yucks comes from the comparison of the Enterprise to the "Q.E.II". Although it is observed by Data that the C&W singer has adjusted most easily to the situation, I must point out that his "adjustment" involves the further pickling of his liver via prodigious consumption of martinis;picking up where he left off,back in the 21st Century.
This episode appears to have been filmed at a higher frame rate. The onacreen motion is both smoother and quicker, which may be why it seems more energetic.
I'm in agreement with the consensus about the series finale. But I'm seeing many comments ragging on the first two seasons which I thought were great. I recently re-watched the series and the first two seasons were actually my favorite. Season 3, with the linear plot line, enthralled me the first time I watched it but I wasn't as impressed watching it a second time. I think this plot line for an entire season contributed to the shows failure. For the casual fan, who didn't watch the show every week, they would have been completely lost tuning in at mid-season. Star Trek was always about exploration and not all out war.
Season 4 went back to the regular format but it was kind of hit or miss. The hurriedly thrown together series finale was a major bummer to an otherwise solid show. It's too bad SyFy channel never picked up the show. I think it would have been far more successful on cable and available during the age of streaming. Due to their poor advertising, I had no idea that this show even existed when it aired on television.
I, too, liked this episode. But, I agree with Jammer that in the earlier episodes Blalock misinterpreted emotionlessness with being almost inaudible. I have to blame the producers for that as well. They should have corrected her. The other Vulcans spoke plenty loudly while still keeping the emotions low. It's easy to simply blame the actress, but a good actor still needs feedback from the producers. The ball was dropped by everyone on this one.
@Joe I: I believe most of the dislike of Enterprise comes from jadedness and unrealistic expectation. None of the ST productions have been perfect, yet most Trek fans generally rate the original episodes much higher than the rest of the series. I don't think this has anything to do with the original episodes being of any better quality. (All but a very few are really just about godawful.) For example, this review dings Blalock for not being dynamic enough, but nowhere in any of Jammer's reviews does he ding Nimoy for being too emotional when he shouldn't be. (Watch the Uhura singing scene in Charlie X to see Nimoy showing plenty of emotion, which bugs me every time I see it.) In my opinion, he is harder on Enterprise than he is on the original series, and I don't know why this is. The fact is that most Trek fans are biased toward the series they first watched and nothing else can possibly compare. Is Enterprise perfect? By no means. But it is still good Trek as far as I am concerned.
Aside: I have noticed a lot of complaint about this series from what I consider to be the extreme nerd end of the fan spectrum that there are terrible problems of continuity with the other series. Some people have claimed that this problem caused them to stop watching the show. Of course, people are free to dislike what they want to dislike, but I think that to not watch the show for this reason is silly. There have to be continuity problems! In the original series, Kirk wrote with a PEN for gods' sakes! This show would totally suck in a major way if Archer had to use pre-60s technology all the time. There is no way a Trek show made in the 2000s could possibly be successful if it truly tried to be a real prequel. It's too bad that people can't just enjoy the show for what it is - a loose interpretation of the earlier timeline. In this respect, I really like it. It's fun. To nitpick continuity seems really - Vulcan.
Eithnepath - Sat, May 18, 2013, 8:06am (USA Central)
I'm convinced Weyland-Yutani was one of the founders of Starfleet. Why else do they never learn that studying obviously malicious aliens and technology should be done before you reactivate them on your ship?
The Romulans - Sat, May 18, 2013, 2:29am (USA Central)
I agree that Jammer seems to be a little harsh with his review here. I thought this one was quite good and nailed the Prime Directive concerns appropriately. Solid episode, an easy 3 stars.
The Romulans - Sat, May 18, 2013, 2:23am (USA Central)
I also could not recall this episode as being exceptional, but after watching it recently I can't see where I can take any points away. Every puzzle piece slots together brilliantly. The concept of killing billions of people in an instant is absolutely great. A truly solid piece of science fiction.
Brundledan - Sat, May 18, 2013, 1:32am (USA Central)
Absolute bottom-of-the-barrel, the nadir of TOS. It's the worst episode of the original Star Trek because it ISN'T an episode of Star Trek at all; Gary Seven is the prime mover of events from beginning to end, while Kirk and Spock are reduced to standing around like idiots who can do little more than hope everything works out. As for the real stars of this ep, Seven's a smug prick and Roberta's an insufferable airhead.
And all of this happens under the "Star Trek" title because "oh hey, by the way, we time-traveled back to 1968." From this, through the idea that there were orbital nuke platforms in '68 (which would have been a surprise to everyone in the viewing audience) and that Seven's purposefully detonating one in the lower atmosphere would save the Earth rather than trigger World War III, right up to the Enterprise's history tapes spoiling the entire spin-off series before it can even get started with the revelation that everything that just happened was supposed to happen all along and Seven and Roberta are destined to succeed in all of their missions, the episode treats its audience like complete morons.
The worst the third season had to offer still beats "Assignment: Earth", and the third season featured a whinny-ing Kirk being ridden around the room by a midget.
No Sintek. Your life is not richer and your human experience is not deeper because you never noticed the difference in the costume. You're just less observant. Now if you noticed the difference but just didn't give a shit THAT would suggest you might have healthier priorities. However you ARE posting a comment in a "Star Trek" message thread - and a "Voyager" one at that. Unless you're randomly trolling boards then you must be as big a geek as anyone here. Still I'll be the bigger geek and point out that the commbadge props were made of wood and not plastic.
I loved this episode so much! I'm a sucker for AI rights episodes, I must admit, so even if this was done poorly I'd probably still love it, but it was done very well. There's enough humor to keep it from coming off as a rip-off of "The Measure of a Man," and in a realistic turn of events the Doctor only scores a small victory. It may not be the ending I was hoping for, but it is the ending that makes sense. We didn't go from endowing only white male landowners with rights to where we are today in one big jump. It's always been a slow process and will no doubt continue to be that way. Look at the gay marriage struggle in the US. Even if every state agrees to legalize gay marriage, it will always be an uphill battle. Has racism disappeared since equal rights were granted by law? If you say yes, you REALLY need to get out more. Homosexuality was officially a mental illness until 1971, and transgendered individuals are STILL considered mentally ill. I don't know what the next big battle will be, but I trust that us Star Trek fans will mostly be on the right side of history. When the first AI wakes up and sees the world with an abstract understanding similar to that of humans, you can bet I'll be the zealot camping outside of the research facility in protest - maybe even devising a rescue plan. I hope my fellow trekkies will be right there by my side.
Anyone else feeling better about their life for never noticing the difference in plastic props on costumes nor commenting at length about said difference?
Just to clear up the semantics here, by "cast" I mean the actors who portray the characters, not the characters themselves. Voyager's only real weak link acting-wise was Garret Wang. TOS is hard to judge this way since the non-Big-Three were rather cartoonish (in a loveable way of course). TNG had to contend with Sirtis and McFadden and VOY's child actor (though only a guest), Scarlet Pommers outdoes any of the other series child actors except maybe Aron Eisenberg. DS9, as I said, had weak players in the key positions (Brooks especially)--I think Visitor did better in the later seasons, but it was really rough for a few seasons. It also had only average players in their Science Smart Person (Dax). Compare to Spock, Data, The Doctor, Hoshi--it's no contest there. ENT had only decent actors in its key positions, and the winner of all terrible in the person of Anthony Montgomery. Jolene Blalock made for an horrendous Vulcan.
The implication in your assessment of ENT's characters' developments mirrors what you say about DS9 and seems to imply that only by surviving brutal tragedy can characters develop well (cf O'Brien, Sisko, Trip, T'Pol). One need only cite Picard as the perfect example (up until the overrated "Tapestry") of a great character who defies that rule, and I would broadly apply that principle to most of the VOY cast. Ironically, the oft-hated Neelix is in many ways one of Trek's most tragic characters with regard to backstory.
Good episode. I don't get the Ezri hate, but then I didn't get all the Jadzia love either. She was a boring, badly-acted supergenius; DS9's Wesley Crusher.
Another fine review, though I don't think four stars is generous for "The Defector" at all. The only real unfortunate part of the episode was Jarok's death. I would have loved to see James Sloyan take on a recurring character - he always makes such an impression. It's true that Dr Mora appeared twice on DS9 (it feels like more), but his later appearance on Voyager in "Jetrel" felt like something of a retread.
William B - Fri, May 17, 2013, 9:16am (USA Central)
As Jammer pointed out, “The Defector” is a huge improvement on Ron Moore’s first script in “The Bonding”; both are clear demonstrations of Moore’s interests and running themes throughout TNG, DS9 and BSG (well, maybe in Roswell and Carnivale too, but I haven’t seen those). The episode takes the brinksmanship from “The Enemy” and turns it up a notch by opening with the suggestion from “Seval” that the Romulans are planning to start a war. The episode also connects forward; the set-up of Jarok posing as a lowly desk clerk carrying information so as to hide that he is a high-commanding officer, thought of by the Federation as a butcher and by the Romulans as a hero but who is perhaps neither, is inverted in DS9’s “Duet,” where the lowly desk clerk poses as a high-commanding officer.
One of the themes running through this episode is a question that always fascinates me: how do you make decisions based on incomplete information? As Geordi said, you never have the complete picture, and you can fill that in with pure deduction or with “instinct,” which at best is a form of logic only perceived on the subconscious level and at worst is a reliance on arbitrary feelings and prejudices rather than the truth. Related to this is the recognition throughout that knowledge is power, from the knowledge gained by disassembling starships (which both our crew and Tomalak are interested in doing) to knowledge of a person’s background. Jarok destroys his ship and refuses to give military information because that would shift too much power to the Federation (hiding the truth because it could help the Federation); he hides his background and identity because he believes it would prejudice the crew to disbelieve him (hiding the truth because this truth could reasonably lead to the crew coming to false conclusions). And indeed, this is a great episode for form mirroring content: the whole episode is structured as a mystery, in which disparate elements which push and pull in different directions (“Seval” is clearly lying about something and his pursuit by the Romulan warbird seems staged, but he also seems sincere) and which finally come together in the suggestion that Tomalak, representing the Romulans, masterminded the whole thing. Of course, there is still more that Tomalak doesn’t know, and Picard’s masterminding the Klingons’ arrival on scene works brilliantly. The sharp, twisty plotting is not merely a fun device (and it is fun), but supports the theme and helps us recognize the difficulties that come in attempting to make quadrant-shaking decisions when only part of the picture can be seen.
At the episode’s end, the Tomalak makes the choice to avoid a battle which is essentially Mutually Assured Destruction. (“You will not survive our assault.” “You will not survive ours.”) Tomalak leaves and lets the Enterprise and her Klingon escorts zip away. The open question is whether every step of the Romulan plan was to test Jarok’s loyalty, or whether it was only in the final stages. Certainly, the Romulans want conquest, but are only the aggressors in extreme sneak attacks done in secret (like the Tal Shiar assault on the Dominion in DS9). Are they eager for war, or do they desire peace as much as the Federation does, but with an eye to prevent continued Federation and Klingon expansion and to subvert those powers if they can and an unwillingness to brook any disloyalty to the High Command? My suspicion is that it’s the latter, with the Picard-Tomalak-Klingons sequence a microcosm of the political situation in the quadrant which will always end in stalemate. The Romulans continue to be interesting, proud but intelligent, desiring expansion but not at all costs. Which, of course, is who Jarok is, and it’s part of the episode’s strengths that Jarok is at once clearly a Romulan who believes in Romulan values, not particularly repentant for the “campaigns” he had been involved in nor especially proud of them, and a man whose belief in the value of peace (and the possibility of his children growing up in a quadrant without war—“They will grow up thinking their father is a traitor…but they will grow up”) to leave everything behind. Picard’s words from Henry V when he confronts Tomalak at the end—“If the cause be just…”—are part of what help alleviate the tragedy of Jarok’s end: he kills himself out of shame, but his defection or death are not meaningless insofar as his giving up his homeworld was for a genuinely meaningful cause.
I feel like dancing on the 3.5-4 star line for the episode. Jarok himself is a great character; the use of Henry V to help frame the episode works well. The interaction between Jarok and the whole crew is excellent—the best scene is the scene with Picard in his ready room but the interrogation with Riker and Troi, and the Ten-Forward and holodeck scenes with Data are highlights. Generally the whole cast is used well to show a spectrum of responses to Jarok, all of which hint at a part but not the whole of what motivates this complex character. Picard’s asking Data to chronicle these last days in the event a war should happen ties into the main themes—history should have as much information as is possible, from as objective source as possible—but I do feel like this thread was a little underdeveloped. But this is a minor criticism. The only thing that makes me hesitate to give it four stars is not any significant flaw within the episode but the desire to save four stars for episodes that are near the best of the season (if not the series)—and season three is so good that I am not quite sure if this episode should properly make the cut. Ultimately, I’m going to give it the benefit of the doubt and agree with Jammer’s four star rating.
Where is Samantha Wildman? You'd think the writers would at least make some attempt to explain her absence. I know Voyager had lazy writers but this was just ridiculous. Why didn't they just kill her off if they were never going to show her again? Samantha's absence has gone from a funny continuity error to a genuinely disturbing show of neglect. All it would have taken is one line to explain why she's never there, and the writers couldn't even do that. Shameful.
I just watched the episode for the first time and it moved me very much. Maybe it was because it touched some things that are close to home for me, but I thought it was great.
I did think the exposition was a bit long. I think they were trying to spell out the reasons for the taboo and convince the audience of its validity because it was a weak point.
I don't agree with the fact that the last dialogue was bad however. But I don't really watch soap opera so I can't compare ;)
I watched this episode recently--having heard of its reputation but never having seen it. I posted this brief review on my Facebook page:
So while many other Star Trek fans were gearing up to watch "Star Trek Into Darkness" (which sounds like an awesome movie--can't wait to see it!), instead, I finished watching the notoriously bad episode "Spock's Brain." Three thoughts:
1) Yeah. It's bad. Really bad. Plays out like a *parody* of Star Trek rather than the genuine article. The plot doesn't stand up to close scrutiny--in fact, it doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny.
2) But still--REMOTE-CONTROLLED SPOCK?? Wow, that's almost as cool as Park and Rec's DJ Roomba!
3) Nevertheless, the episode is much much better than bad Voyager or Enterprise (which is unfortunately too large a percentage of those shows). It's over-the-top campy, and I think it was meant to be taken that way. My sense is that neither the director nor the actors (particularly Shatner) didn't buy the premise, so they just hammed it up. As bad as it is--it's one of those things that's so bad I actually rather enjoyed watching it.
I'd also add that I agree with the comment above by Jeffrey that the bridge scene is a highlight of the show--almost TNG-like in its problem-solving approach. A nice touch in an otherwise rather embarrassing episode.
You're welcome, I'm sure. Of course, this episode DOES have SOME problems-chief of which is the implausibility(not to mention disputable utility) of a cryongenic capsule drifting out into deep space,light years away from earth. Let's log that one as a convenience of/for the writers,shall we? Ditto trouble with the Romulans and/or the Neutral Zone-which provides a crisis to distract Captain Picard & crew from their out-of-time passengers,thereby causing anxieties and conflicts to develop between them, which would ordinarily have been given some level of priority. However, these flaws do not detract from the greater points of interest; i.e., the differing responses of three ordinary humans who wake up 370 years in the future. Usually, anachronism is played for the Cheap Laugh, especially on TEEVEE: "Happy Days and "That 70s Show" being the best (and worst) examples.There's little of that here and, in fact, one of the more sophisticated yucks comes from the comparison of the Enterprise to the "Q.E.II". Although it is observed by Data that the C&W singer has adjusted most easily to the situation, I must point out that his "adjustment" involves the further pickling of his liver via prodigious consumption of martinis;picking up where he left off,back in the 21st Century.
This episode appears to have been filmed at a higher frame rate. The onacreen motion is both smoother and quicker, which may be why it seems more energetic.
Oh no, where is Michael? The reviews aren't the same without him. :(
I'm in agreement with the consensus about the series finale. But I'm seeing many comments ragging on the first two seasons which I thought were great. I recently re-watched the series and the first two seasons were actually my favorite. Season 3, with the linear plot line, enthralled me the first time I watched it but I wasn't as impressed watching it a second time. I think this plot line for an entire season contributed to the shows failure. For the casual fan, who didn't watch the show every week, they would have been completely lost tuning in at mid-season. Star Trek was always about exploration and not all out war.
Season 4 went back to the regular format but it was kind of hit or miss. The hurriedly thrown together series finale was a major bummer to an otherwise solid show. It's too bad SyFy channel never picked up the show. I think it would have been far more successful on cable and available during the age of streaming. Due to their poor advertising, I had no idea that this show even existed when it aired on television.
It was nice of the Agrathi to give Miles Bill Maher as a cellmate.
An all-around superb episode that is engrossing for the entire 45 minutes.
I, too, liked this episode. But, I agree with Jammer that in the earlier episodes Blalock misinterpreted emotionlessness with being almost inaudible. I have to blame the producers for that as well. They should have corrected her. The other Vulcans spoke plenty loudly while still keeping the emotions low. It's easy to simply blame the actress, but a good actor still needs feedback from the producers. The ball was dropped by everyone on this one.
@Joe I: I believe most of the dislike of Enterprise comes from jadedness and unrealistic expectation. None of the ST productions have been perfect, yet most Trek fans generally rate the original episodes much higher than the rest of the series. I don't think this has anything to do with the original episodes being of any better quality. (All but a very few are really just about godawful.) For example, this review dings Blalock for not being dynamic enough, but nowhere in any of Jammer's reviews does he ding Nimoy for being too emotional when he shouldn't be. (Watch the Uhura singing scene in Charlie X to see Nimoy showing plenty of emotion, which bugs me every time I see it.) In my opinion, he is harder on Enterprise than he is on the original series, and I don't know why this is. The fact is that most Trek fans are biased toward the series they first watched and nothing else can possibly compare. Is Enterprise perfect? By no means. But it is still good Trek as far as I am concerned.
Aside: I have noticed a lot of complaint about this series from what I consider to be the extreme nerd end of the fan spectrum that there are terrible problems of continuity with the other series. Some people have claimed that this problem caused them to stop watching the show. Of course, people are free to dislike what they want to dislike, but I think that to not watch the show for this reason is silly. There have to be continuity problems! In the original series, Kirk wrote with a PEN for gods' sakes! This show would totally suck in a major way if Archer had to use pre-60s technology all the time. There is no way a Trek show made in the 2000s could possibly be successful if it truly tried to be a real prequel. It's too bad that people can't just enjoy the show for what it is - a loose interpretation of the earlier timeline. In this respect, I really like it. It's fun. To nitpick continuity seems really - Vulcan.
"Exploitation begins at home", just ask any feminist.
The review is too harsh. There were one or two good lines. Anyway, it's a farce, so there's no point in nitpicking--within reason.
The final act and wormhole were tedious, but meh. It wasn't a boring episode. 3 star entertainment.
Great ep. Shame they didn't have more political courage and made the allegory a bit more transparent--isreal/palistine.
I apologize if I hit a nerve. I was in a very bad place when I wrote that comment 5 hours ago.
I'm convinced Weyland-Yutani was one of the founders of Starfleet. Why else do they never learn that studying obviously malicious aliens and technology should be done before you reactivate them on your ship?
I agree that Jammer seems to be a little harsh with his review here. I thought this one was quite good and nailed the Prime Directive concerns appropriately. Solid episode, an easy 3 stars.
I also could not recall this episode as being exceptional, but after watching it recently I can't see where I can take any points away. Every puzzle piece slots together brilliantly. The concept of killing billions of people in an instant is absolutely great. A truly solid piece of science fiction.
Absolute bottom-of-the-barrel, the nadir of TOS. It's the worst episode of the original Star Trek because it ISN'T an episode of Star Trek at all; Gary Seven is the prime mover of events from beginning to end, while Kirk and Spock are reduced to standing around like idiots who can do little more than hope everything works out. As for the real stars of this ep, Seven's a smug prick and Roberta's an insufferable airhead.
And all of this happens under the "Star Trek" title because "oh hey, by the way, we time-traveled back to 1968." From this, through the idea that there were orbital nuke platforms in '68 (which would have been a surprise to everyone in the viewing audience) and that Seven's purposefully detonating one in the lower atmosphere would save the Earth rather than trigger World War III, right up to the Enterprise's history tapes spoiling the entire spin-off series before it can even get started with the revelation that everything that just happened was supposed to happen all along and Seven and Roberta are destined to succeed in all of their missions, the episode treats its audience like complete morons.
The worst the third season had to offer still beats "Assignment: Earth", and the third season featured a whinny-ing Kirk being ridden around the room by a midget.
No Sintek. Your life is not richer and your human experience is not deeper because you never noticed the difference in the costume. You're just less observant. Now if you noticed the difference but just didn't give a shit THAT would suggest you might have healthier priorities. However you ARE posting a comment in a "Star Trek" message thread - and a "Voyager" one at that. Unless you're randomly trolling boards then you must be as big a geek as anyone here. Still I'll be the bigger geek and point out that the commbadge props were made of wood and not plastic.
I loved this episode so much! I'm a sucker for AI rights episodes, I must admit, so even if this was done poorly I'd probably still love it, but it was done very well. There's enough humor to keep it from coming off as a rip-off of "The Measure of a Man," and in a realistic turn of events the Doctor only scores a small victory. It may not be the ending I was hoping for, but it is the ending that makes sense. We didn't go from endowing only white male landowners with rights to where we are today in one big jump. It's always been a slow process and will no doubt continue to be that way. Look at the gay marriage struggle in the US. Even if every state agrees to legalize gay marriage, it will always be an uphill battle. Has racism disappeared since equal rights were granted by law? If you say yes, you REALLY need to get out more. Homosexuality was officially a mental illness until 1971, and transgendered individuals are STILL considered mentally ill. I don't know what the next big battle will be, but I trust that us Star Trek fans will mostly be on the right side of history. When the first AI wakes up and sees the world with an abstract understanding similar to that of humans, you can bet I'll be the zealot camping outside of the research facility in protest - maybe even devising a rescue plan. I hope my fellow trekkies will be right there by my side.
Torres can lock onto my bone anytime.
@mike
"forced situations" is not standard fare for Deep Space Nine, or at least it ended up not being.
Anyone else feeling better about their life for never noticing the difference in plastic props on costumes nor commenting at length about said difference?
@Paul :
Just to clear up the semantics here, by "cast" I mean the actors who portray the characters, not the characters themselves. Voyager's only real weak link acting-wise was Garret Wang. TOS is hard to judge this way since the non-Big-Three were rather cartoonish (in a loveable way of course). TNG had to contend with Sirtis and McFadden and VOY's child actor (though only a guest), Scarlet Pommers outdoes any of the other series child actors except maybe Aron Eisenberg. DS9, as I said, had weak players in the key positions (Brooks especially)--I think Visitor did better in the later seasons, but it was really rough for a few seasons. It also had only average players in their Science Smart Person (Dax). Compare to Spock, Data, The Doctor, Hoshi--it's no contest there. ENT had only decent actors in its key positions, and the winner of all terrible in the person of Anthony Montgomery. Jolene Blalock made for an horrendous Vulcan.
The implication in your assessment of ENT's characters' developments mirrors what you say about DS9 and seems to imply that only by surviving brutal tragedy can characters develop well (cf O'Brien, Sisko, Trip, T'Pol). One need only cite Picard as the perfect example (up until the overrated "Tapestry") of a great character who defies that rule, and I would broadly apply that principle to most of the VOY cast. Ironically, the oft-hated Neelix is in many ways one of Trek's most tragic characters with regard to backstory.
Good episode. I don't get the Ezri hate, but then I didn't get all the Jadzia love either. She was a boring, badly-acted supergenius; DS9's Wesley Crusher.
Another fine review, though I don't think four stars is generous for "The Defector" at all. The only real unfortunate part of the episode was Jarok's death. I would have loved to see James Sloyan take on a recurring character - he always makes such an impression. It's true that Dr Mora appeared twice on DS9 (it feels like more), but his later appearance on Voyager in "Jetrel" felt like something of a retread.
As Jammer pointed out, “The Defector” is a huge improvement on Ron Moore’s first script in “The Bonding”; both are clear demonstrations of Moore’s interests and running themes throughout TNG, DS9 and BSG (well, maybe in Roswell and Carnivale too, but I haven’t seen those). The episode takes the brinksmanship from “The Enemy” and turns it up a notch by opening with the suggestion from “Seval” that the Romulans are planning to start a war. The episode also connects forward; the set-up of Jarok posing as a lowly desk clerk carrying information so as to hide that he is a high-commanding officer, thought of by the Federation as a butcher and by the Romulans as a hero but who is perhaps neither, is inverted in DS9’s “Duet,” where the lowly desk clerk poses as a high-commanding officer.
One of the themes running through this episode is a question that always fascinates me: how do you make decisions based on incomplete information? As Geordi said, you never have the complete picture, and you can fill that in with pure deduction or with “instinct,” which at best is a form of logic only perceived on the subconscious level and at worst is a reliance on arbitrary feelings and prejudices rather than the truth. Related to this is the recognition throughout that knowledge is power, from the knowledge gained by disassembling starships (which both our crew and Tomalak are interested in doing) to knowledge of a person’s background. Jarok destroys his ship and refuses to give military information because that would shift too much power to the Federation (hiding the truth because it could help the Federation); he hides his background and identity because he believes it would prejudice the crew to disbelieve him (hiding the truth because this truth could reasonably lead to the crew coming to false conclusions). And indeed, this is a great episode for form mirroring content: the whole episode is structured as a mystery, in which disparate elements which push and pull in different directions (“Seval” is clearly lying about something and his pursuit by the Romulan warbird seems staged, but he also seems sincere) and which finally come together in the suggestion that Tomalak, representing the Romulans, masterminded the whole thing. Of course, there is still more that Tomalak doesn’t know, and Picard’s masterminding the Klingons’ arrival on scene works brilliantly. The sharp, twisty plotting is not merely a fun device (and it is fun), but supports the theme and helps us recognize the difficulties that come in attempting to make quadrant-shaking decisions when only part of the picture can be seen.
At the episode’s end, the Tomalak makes the choice to avoid a battle which is essentially Mutually Assured Destruction. (“You will not survive our assault.” “You will not survive ours.”) Tomalak leaves and lets the Enterprise and her Klingon escorts zip away. The open question is whether every step of the Romulan plan was to test Jarok’s loyalty, or whether it was only in the final stages. Certainly, the Romulans want conquest, but are only the aggressors in extreme sneak attacks done in secret (like the Tal Shiar assault on the Dominion in DS9). Are they eager for war, or do they desire peace as much as the Federation does, but with an eye to prevent continued Federation and Klingon expansion and to subvert those powers if they can and an unwillingness to brook any disloyalty to the High Command? My suspicion is that it’s the latter, with the Picard-Tomalak-Klingons sequence a microcosm of the political situation in the quadrant which will always end in stalemate. The Romulans continue to be interesting, proud but intelligent, desiring expansion but not at all costs. Which, of course, is who Jarok is, and it’s part of the episode’s strengths that Jarok is at once clearly a Romulan who believes in Romulan values, not particularly repentant for the “campaigns” he had been involved in nor especially proud of them, and a man whose belief in the value of peace (and the possibility of his children growing up in a quadrant without war—“They will grow up thinking their father is a traitor…but they will grow up”) to leave everything behind. Picard’s words from Henry V when he confronts Tomalak at the end—“If the cause be just…”—are part of what help alleviate the tragedy of Jarok’s end: he kills himself out of shame, but his defection or death are not meaningless insofar as his giving up his homeworld was for a genuinely meaningful cause.
I feel like dancing on the 3.5-4 star line for the episode. Jarok himself is a great character; the use of Henry V to help frame the episode works well. The interaction between Jarok and the whole crew is excellent—the best scene is the scene with Picard in his ready room but the interrogation with Riker and Troi, and the Ten-Forward and holodeck scenes with Data are highlights. Generally the whole cast is used well to show a spectrum of responses to Jarok, all of which hint at a part but not the whole of what motivates this complex character. Picard’s asking Data to chronicle these last days in the event a war should happen ties into the main themes—history should have as much information as is possible, from as objective source as possible—but I do feel like this thread was a little underdeveloped. But this is a minor criticism. The only thing that makes me hesitate to give it four stars is not any significant flaw within the episode but the desire to save four stars for episodes that are near the best of the season (if not the series)—and season three is so good that I am not quite sure if this episode should properly make the cut. Ultimately, I’m going to give it the benefit of the doubt and agree with Jammer’s four star rating.