Jammer's Review

Star Trek: The Next Generation

"Preemptive Strike"

***1/2

Air date: 5/16/1994
Teleplay by Rene Echevarria
Story by Naren Shankar
Directed by Patrick Stewart

Review by Jamahl Epsicokhan

The last regular episode before the finale follows the template of the other episodes in the season's home stretch by providing a character story that plays like an epilogue. "Preemptive Strike" is by far the most successful of these episodes, providing the swan song for Ro Laren, a character who never fit the mold of the traditional TNG Starfleet type and who here chooses a path, like Wesley Crusher in "Journey's End," that does not include Starfleet.

Unlike "Journey's End," however, this is a story that grows organically from the character's backstory and benefits from a much better narrative engine (although, notably, the plot involving the Maquis grows directly from what was set up in "Journey's End" as well as DS9's "The Maquis"). Indeed, one of the selling points here is the straightforwardness, even familiarity, of the premise: Ro returns to the Enterprise and is immediately assigned to an undercover mission to infiltrate the Maquis. The story's complexity comes through the choices Ro must make when thrust into a difficult situation where her loyalties become torn. She accepts the mission, uncomfortably, out of loyalty to Picard.

This is a TNG episode that plays on what already at the time had become primarily DS9's turf — with moral ambiguity and political situations involving the Federation/Bajoran/Cardassian demilitarized zone and the Maquis' acts of terrorism. Ro infiltrates a Maquis cell with the perfect cover story, one that speaks to both the appropriateness of Starfleet selecting her for the mission and also the aptness of the script. The truth here is in the details: Ro is infiltrating an organization that includes a good number of Bajorans, and the leader of the cell, a man named Macias (John Franklyn-Robbins), takes Ro under his wing and forms a close paternal bond with her.

The mechanics of the plot are well-oiled and credible without drawing undue attention to themselves: Ro's cleverly covert raid on the Enterprise for the medical supplies allows her to prove her loyalty and usefulness to the Maquis while showing us that Picard understands her tactics in trying to gain the Maquis' trust. But along the way, there's a gradual yet unmistakable shift; Ro becomes so sympathetic to the people she's infiltrating that she realizes her mission, in her own heart, will require her to betray them. (Perhaps the point here is that it would feel like less of a betrayal if she believed in what she's doing.) Michelle Forbes draws us into Ro's plight with a performance that conveys below-the-surface agony in every scene where she has to deceive someone.

Meanwhile, Picard sees an opportunity to cripple the entire Maquis movement when Ro discloses that the Maquis are particularly afraid of the Cardassians developing biogenic weapons. He uses this information to set a trap with the perfect bait, and he uses Ro to plant the false intelligence. But for Ro the situation becomes untenable after Macias is killed in a Cardassian assault. Picard (and by extension, the script) is smart; he realizes that Ro has been emotionally compromised and sends Riker in with her to make sure she carries out her mission, along with a stern warning not to betray her uniform. (He can't pull Ro out of the field now because he needs her relationship with the Maquis to make the plan work.)

Ultimately, "Preemptive Strike" is about Ro's decision at the end, where she torpedoes the undercover mission, betrays Starfleet and Picard, and joins the Maquis. For TNG, it's a fairly radical development (such things would become more commonplace on DS9). It's enough to make you re-examine the episode's gray areas and see that with the Maquis situation the Federation has a complicated quagmire on its hands rather than an easily solvable problem where everyone can be appeased or an enemy can be confronted head-on.

The episode's final shot, after Riker briefs Picard on Ro's betrayal, is one of the most memorable shots in the series. Patrick Stewart's grim-faced silence is more effective than any dialogue possibly could be.

Previous episode: Emergence
Next episode: All Good Things...

Season Index

35 comments on this review

Patrick - Sun, Mar 10, 2013 - 11:44pm (USA Central)
With this one single episode TNG did more dramatically with the Maquis than Star Trek: Voyager did in its whole 7 year run. (Also: Ro mentions a lieutenant commander from tactical training who left Starfleet to join the Maquis. That's Chakotay she's talking about. That's from the TNG Companion book by Larry Nemecek)

Also also: there's got to be fan fiction somewhere of Ro Laren and a rescued Tom Riker hooking up in a Maquis cell while escaping the Jem'hadar extermination of the Maquis. There has to be...
Ospero - Mon, Mar 11, 2013 - 6:25am (USA Central)
Well, I haven't seen the fanfic you talk about, but Ro is a major character in the DS9 relaunch books - Odo's replacement, actually. There is a beautiful scene in one of the books that serves as an extension to the final scene in this episode between Ro and Picard, even though they don't actually interact in that scene. I liked it.
Shawn Davis - Mon, Mar 11, 2013 - 6:59am (USA Central)
I agree with what Patrick said about this episode doing more dramatically with the Maquis than ST: Voyager did in it's entire 7 year run.

The episode was awesome indeed. The only big letdown is that Michelle Forbes chose not to reprise her role as Ensign Ro for Star Trek DS9 because the actor didn't want to commit to being an actor on the T.V. series that long. Of course Nana Visitor's character "Major/Coronal (sp?) Kira Nerys replaced here.

I think that Kira is a much better character for DS9, but Ms. Forbes still could of at least starred as "Ensign Ro" in a least 1 episode of DS9 so make some stories about Bajor, the Maquis, and the Cardassion occupation interesting.
Latex Zebra - Mon, Mar 11, 2013 - 7:27am (USA Central)
Great episode. I knew the minute Ro went on the mission that she would join the Maquis but the story of her getting there and the betrayal that Picard feels at the end is well worth it.
Eduardo - Mon, Mar 11, 2013 - 10:17am (USA Central)
Curiously, Michelle chose not to get bogged down on TV, hoping to break into movies instead.

End result, she never broke into movies but remained a TV regular (24, Homicide, Lost, The Killing), without ever returning to Trek.

Preemptive Strike is definitely one of Trek's better hours. Patrick nailed this episode, both wearing the uniform and sitting on the director's chair.
Josh - Mon, Mar 11, 2013 - 3:05pm (USA Central)
Great episode - it's only too bad we had to be subjected to "Firstborn", "Bloodlines", and "Emergence" to get here. It's really too bad that Ro never returned as a character on DS9. On the other hand, she did play a major role in one of the best BSG episodes.
Paul - Tue, Mar 12, 2013 - 8:13pm (USA Central)
@Jammer -- one nitpick, Macias wasn't a Bajoran. He appeared to be a human.

Speaking of Tom Riker ...

I kind of find it dubious that the Maquis would accept Tom into a cell after a guy (Will) who looked just like him turned out to be a Starfleet spy in this episode. And it's pretty clear that it is the same cell, because Kaleeta is in both episodes.

Nic - Tue, Mar 12, 2013 - 9:42pm (USA Central)
@Patrick: I'm sure that was the intent when they wrote the line, unfortunately it was contradicted later in Voyager where Chakotay says he resigned his commission in March 2368 (i.e. around TNG's fifth season).

Not much to add. Great episode, great review, perfect rating.
Nick P. - Wed, Mar 13, 2013 - 7:44am (USA Central)
I agree this was a very good episode, my critique is more that I never liked how the Maquis-bajoran stuff slid us further and further away from Genes' vision of Starfleet. The central rule for gene was that Starfleet will always be the good guys, EVEN IF you have to make the plot convuluted.

Maybe this is a better episode than Gene ever could have made, but this crappy, stuck in the mud bureaucratic wishy-washy federation that gets worse in DS9 is NOT what I wish the future to be like. I really do miss Genes optimistic Star Trek where the Federation is not just better, but more righteous than other groups/civilizations. It is interesting how we make fun of Genes utopianism, but it sure is obvious when it is gone. He would have HATED this episode.

I hate the respect for Bajoran religion, I hate the maquis plots, I hate the stupid federation now. Again, I do enjoy this episode, but where was the positive future to look forward too Roddenberry was such a fan of.
Grumpy - Wed, Mar 13, 2013 - 12:24pm (USA Central)
Excellent point, Paul. Most likely, Tom Riker had the Maquis watch "Second Chances," much as Odo did during his briefing in "Defiant."
Patrick - Wed, Mar 13, 2013 - 12:49pm (USA Central)
I'm with Paul, I don't think Macias is a Bajoran. He's wrinkly sure, including his face, but he talks about his "Bajoran friend". I don't think Bajorans use that kind of qualifier when talking about each other.

It's also weird that this episode doesn't briefly mention what the Maquis are in a captain's log and just assumes the TNG audience was aware of the events of the DS9 two-parter. This is before the internet as we know it and also gliding on the assumption that people watching this show had access to DS9 in whatever area they were living as well. It's a minor nitpick.

Also @ Nick P--I miss Gene's utopian vision in Trek too. Whether it was a realistic or dramatically viable, or not, it was so amazing for a tv series to have a far reaching ideal. You don't have that anymore...
Michael - Thu, Mar 14, 2013 - 12:53pm (USA Central)
Great episode. Ro was such a strong character. I believe her choice here, but I wish we had seen more of her, before and after. She puts the other women in the show to shame, sorry to say. My idealism takes issue with the depiction of the Federation, but I'm torn by the needs of the writers to construct compelling scenarios. The Maquis storyline is a good attempt to have an issue with no easy answers, but the problem I run into with it is that it always seems like one side or the other is going a little bit too far. I understand the general notion of having an investment in the life you build, but personally I'd rather move to a safer planet than live under a totalitarian regime or join a guerrilla army, no matter how much I like my backyard. Maybe I'm just lazy that way.
Nick P. - Sat, Mar 16, 2013 - 1:01pm (USA Central)
Not to get into an argument, but to everyone that seems to think you need to make starfleet be stupid in order to be dramatic. I think the obvious counterexample is Star Trek itself. Star Trek went 24 years doing it Genes way, and it was pretty successful.

I think it is more interesting that somewhere around mid-season 5 is when people seem to agree TNG starting sliding even if just a bit, is the SAME PERIOD we starting getting the Ro Laren plots, and federation-Maquis non-sense. I won't go as far as saying it killed trek, but I do think the correlation is interesting.
grumpy_otter - Sun, Mar 17, 2013 - 9:14pm (USA Central)
When Ro Laren says she has never felt like she belonged anywhere until she met the Maquis--I believed her. Her character has been so consistent throughout, with no crazy inexplicable behaviors (as every other main character has experienced), that it made me realize what Star Trek could have been.

Yeah, it's been great--it has also been abysmal at times. This episode is, for me--even more than the finale, the culmination of the entire series.

The scene where she covertly meets Picard while pretending to be a hooker is the hottest moment in the whole series. It is commander-subordinate, proud father-adoring daughter, potential lovers, and stern parent-recalcitrant teen all wrapped up into one tense and passionate scene--without being creepy.

Almost to the end, and I imagine everyone is going to praise the final outing. I'll be throwing a few bombs. :-)
Jay - Sun, Mar 17, 2013 - 9:43pm (USA Central)
Picard really went on to make himself a hypocrite of the highest order later...in the film "Insurrection" he was essentially precisely what Ensign Ro is here. Every time I rewatch this episode, particularly the last scene with his indignant glare, I recall that film and can think of nothing other than what a fraud his self-righteousness is here.
Josh - Sun, Mar 17, 2013 - 9:55pm (USA Central)
I'd sooner forget that Insurrection exists...
Mike - Mon, Mar 18, 2013 - 6:01pm (USA Central)
I'm with Josh on this one. Outside of "First Contact," I wasn't much thrilled with the TNG movies for the way they often flew in the face of earlier character development. (Even "FC" was a bit iffy.)

This episode was a nice way to wrap up Ro's story, and a strong lead-in to the finale. A rare bright spot this season.
Fabian B - Sat, Mar 23, 2013 - 12:07am (USA Central)
I agree fully with Jammer's reviews of Journey's End, Firstborn, Bloodlines, Emergence and Preemptive Strike.

Just one comment. In Preemptive Strike, one gets the impression that the reason Picard is putting so much pressure on Ro to betray her Bajoran compatriots in the Maquis and fulfill her mission is because Admiral Nechayev made him promise her to make Ro do it. So, having made this promise, Picard can't back off and let Ro to quit the mission. The Federation's Admirals are just as stubborn and scheming as its Captains sometimes.
Jammer - Tue, Mar 26, 2013 - 11:11pm (USA Central)
@Paul, yes, that appears to be my mistake. I've removed the reference to Macias being a Bajoran.
wl123 - Wed, May 8, 2013 - 10:45pm (USA Central)
Good episode with strong characterization and development.

@ Nick: As for Star Trek and Optimism, the world has moved on. The future is today, we have achieved things that Star Trek had predicted back in the 70's-80's-90's. However, we are no closer to a Utopia than we were during Gene's heyday as showrunner in the 60's-70's. Sure the cold war is over, but terrorism has now taken center stage.

Can anyone argue that uninhibited optimism is even remotely possible in a world, where a bomber could kill innocent civilians for no reason other than an act of vengeance.

The Maquis and the later years of Star Trek TNG-DS9 gave us that warning about the nature of mankind and our delusion that technology will allow us to be evolved and civilized. It warned us about the war on terror and its excesses with DS9 "Paradise lost", the ambiguity of sides with TNG "Preemptive Strike", and the tragedy of terrorist vengeance/counter in DS9 "Darkness and Light".

Our world reflected Star Trek and still is, but we are now reflecting the reality that the later years revealed. Gene's vision was a dream that the world of fact and fiction awoke from nearly 12 years ago.

Gene's dream was and is commendable, but it was a dream not a reality.
Patrick - Thu, May 9, 2013 - 12:20am (USA Central)
@Wl123
So what if Gene's dream is not wholly grounded in reality? Just because 9/11 happened 12 years ago, should Superman no longer fight for truth, justice, and the American Way? Should Luke Skywalker turn his back on the Force because terrorism exists in the real world? Should the residents of Hogwarts be hole up in a bunker because of the various calamities that exist in the global sphere?

Star Trek is escapism to be sure. But, it has an intrinsic goodness that has been known to carry into the real world. It inspires. I'm reminded of a scene in "The Offspring" where Data tells his daughter, Lal, that even if never he truly becomes human--the important part was his working towards his dream.

We can't toss away a hopeful vision, just because so many want to wallow in a sewer. Oscar Wilde said: "We're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
Cloudane - Fri, May 17, 2013 - 4:47am (USA Central)
Call me naive if you will, but I believe in Gene's vision. I think the biggest problem is that too many people get bitter and cynical and end up saying "welp, humanity sucks, no point in trying".

We didn't put people on the moon by saying that we're never going to be capable of it - it was a dream until, eventually, we achieved it.

I think humanity deserves a little credit - yes we still have considerable problems and plenty of conflicts we shouldn't be having.. but I think we have made good progress. Not so long ago our own countries were lopping people's heads off every 5 minutes and burning people at the stake. Just a generation ago we were treating females as lesser beings, criminalising homosexuals and inflicting brutal physical punishments in schools that caused our children to scream and bleed. I know some countries and even some states of America are still lagging behind and still do some of these things, but I really think we're getting somewhere.

It won't happen overnight, but the visions showed to us by Gene (and some other positive shows and communities I follow) can inspire us to do our best as individuals. And ultimately, "humanity" is a sum of its parts. I'd love to see more shows like TNG.
DavidK - Fri, May 17, 2013 - 7:18am (USA Central)
One thing I wanted to add, I don't think it has to be an either/or situation. I believe humanity could reach Gene's vision, but we don't all improve at the same speed, there are always outliers. I don't think the Maquis or Section 31 or any of those themes necessarily have to trash humanity as a whole.

Also I think the worst thing you could do is portray the paradise of the Federation as being easy, or even the inherent goodness of humans in the future as being easy. It's hard work, it's important to put those ideals under pressure. Your characters need to be able to make mistakes.
wl123 - Sun, May 19, 2013 - 2:42pm (USA Central)
The warning is from Trek itself that we took as mere storytelling rather than mankind's own issues. Exploration is not merely about exploring new star and nebulas, it's about exploring the uncharted possibilities of existence as Q had pointed out at the end of TNG's All Good Things....

Who among us that lived in the 90's could deny that we were overly hopeful. That we held too much heart with our technological progress creating a world that may resemble Star Trek. Yet, the dream ended, futurist like Fukyama and others forgot one important truth, mankind is not merely just a species, a nation, or a group, we are individual people making choices that affected everyone around us.

We need a new way to create the vision, because unless we have a bloody World War based on ideologies as Gene predicted, we would not have peace. Don't forget that Gene's vision of mankind's future also included a decmiation of half the world population.
Rosario - Sun, Jun 16, 2013 - 10:21pm (USA Central)
Television not only reflects reality but it legitimizes behavior. As television has become coarser and coarser, society, people, have become less civil. Television (not movies) is/was always trying to, "push the envelope" ie.

1950: Married couple enters home (a real nice one, worth coming home to), toss off hats, he picks her up and carries her upstairs. Fade to black.
1970: Married couple make it to bedroom door (inside a posh apartment.) Fade to black.
1990: Married couple fall back on the bed (In a shabby suburban home.) Fade to black.
1995: Unmarried couple fall back on the bed (In a neatly decorated apartment.) Fade to black.
2000: Unmarried couple rustle under the sheets (In a frat house.) No Fading.

A reality show a few years back had cameras in the bedrooms to watch the actors "get it on."

More violence on TV. More cursing on TV. Less hope or people trying to better themselves. A little push here a nudge there.

Imagine falling asleep in 1955 in front of the TV and waking up today with it still on. Your mind would be blown. You would be shocked. Imagine if Two and a Half Men is on, talking about Charlie's ex-lover having a sex change and now having sex with his mom. You're done, your cerebellum is fused.

As TV legitimizes behavior, behavior that YES already does exist, that behavior becomes slightly more acceptable, then more and more, the more often it is portrayed.

Star Trek, especially the original series, always had a grand vision for the future and Humanity's conduct in it. Star Trek's characters took a fierce pride in the Federation's ideals and - prime directive issues aside - always tried to live up to them.

We need more shows with happy families, with fathers who take care of their children, where people don't treat eat other like garbage, don't swear like sailors, work to better themselves, harbor no hate in their hearts, don't steal, don't do drugs, don't cheat on their wives etc etc

Let television legitimize THAT behavior. Shows with hope for the future, with people who don't fight over their petty personal conflicts and work together to achieve something for all and sundry!

But no, we get inter-personal relationship troubles and love triangles and back stabbing even in the face of annihilation.

ranting. So... yeah we need more shows like Star Trek :)
Nathaniel - Tue, Jun 18, 2013 - 8:11am (USA Central)
@Rosario

"The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise."

For some reason your comment brought this quote to mind.
DavidK - Wed, Jun 19, 2013 - 8:14am (USA Central)
@Rosario

The only fear I have is that fiction ends up becoming this sort of global delusion that we all tell each other to convince ourselves everything is going to turn out all right in the end. That, more than anything, scares the hell out of me, the idea of us turning our backs and pretending to erase unpleasant truths from existence rather than using fiction as a medium to examine and reflect.

I'm not saying we have to wallow, just that there's room for a balance. You can't have every story reward goodness, it's condescending and a bit insulting. Insulting for everyone who's lost someone who, for example, died randomly despite being a loving, caring person. Insulting maybe even for anyone who has robbed a bank and gone on to live a long, fulfilling life, because sometimes crime does pay and you can't lie about that *all the time* without your audience getting a pretty good vibe of untruth about the whole thing (or worse, they don't get a vibe of untruth about it, only to get slapped in the face by reality when they leave their lounge room).

Also the problem with creating characters that are happy, caring, don't swear, everything on your list, is that they become so superhuman as to be completely unrelatable. To err is human and all that, it's the flaws that make characters who they are.

Now, that said, it's possible none of that relates to Star Trek at all as it's speculative fiction about the future rather than the present...but I stand by it as a general rule, hehe, false sense of security = bad (although I could probably be talked into the idea that the pendulum has swung too far in one direction. Like I said, balance).
Rosario - Wed, Jun 19, 2013 - 10:41pm (USA Central)
@DavidK

More or less agreed, I wouldn't want a uniformity of "wholesome" entertainment. I certainly wouldn't want to go after Hollywood or HBO/Encore/Starz etc. As to superhuman, I'll have to disagree. Watch more movies from the 30s and 40s. There are a great deal of "dark" heroes though they usually end up turning to good to protect the innocent and eventually they will die but a heroic death against what they previously stood for.

As lame as it sounds, I'll cast out Mr. Belvedere as an example of a good role-model on television. He was calm, polite, well-mannered, he was always reading a book and he always had the answers to whatever the moral of the episode was. He was cast as a mere servant but a kindly and benevolent one that was a font of good common sense. He could also make excellent PB&Js. I wouldn't say the show was entertaining but he was a good role model.

You can also have a good man have bad people be inflicted on him and he honestly gets himself out of situations. To take your bank example there are numerous old films that start with a horrible crime and over the course of the movie is the hunt for the wrong-doers by the good guys - and no, they didn't always get their man. I'm not sure there is a false sense of security when a film/show shows that bad things happen to good people but that good people can overcome without succumbing to the bad. That just seems like a positive overall message to me. Crimes in most old movies are brutal, the movie wants you to be appalled, it makes you root for the good guys and maybe, want to be one.

I would also posit that the pendulum *has* swung too far and we *are* wallowing.
Rosario - Wed, Jun 19, 2013 - 11:22pm (USA Central)
going off on a tangent...

I can also envision a Battlestar Galactica without interpersonal conflicts. Written by someone with actual knowledge of warfare, strategy and tactics who doesn't use... "idiot" methods to get his characters into trouble.

You know, "idiot" plot, like two characters are fighting with each other so they don't hear cylons sneaking up, or a guard isn't set on a camp for no other reason than that the writers want it to be attacked and can't be bothered to make their characters intelligent enough to set a guard in which case the cylons would have to actually be clever to launch a sneak attack.

Instead of characters fighting all.the.time. you could have them working together to achieve the goal of throwing off their pursuers and finding a new home. Adama could have given rousing speeches on why we fight and tear-jerking eulogys at the funerals of characters because people do die. Instead of scene after scene of Starbuck oozing teenage-angst we could have scene after scene of her out-stripping cylon fighters because she's supposed to be a great fighter pilot, right? I saw more of her "acclimating" to being a CAG than I ever did of her actually fighting Cylons.

It could have been a sci-fi military classic, with strong commanding roles and gripping, intelligent battles that don't depend on one side being incompetent. Sure it would have been a little more talkie but hey, I'm only filling in scenes that consist of characters just posturing at each other, exchanging glares, not dialogue. Something has to fill that void. It would also have had better and longer battles - that always helps especially with dialogue running throughout with the ship-to-ship communications.

Instead we got a dysfunctional group that is at each others throats almost every minute of every day unless a cylon raid shows up in which they throw aside all conflict and team up together to fend off the threat. Then they go right back at each others throats. That is a bleak, hopeless vision for mankind, whether they win through in the end or not. Whether they have moments of friendship or not. The over-arcing theme of BSG is that humans do not like each other and even being pushed to the brink of utter annihilation won't change that. That we are petty, self-serving cretins.

That is bleak and hopeless, dark, bitter view of the world and its people. Diseased minds wrote that show, week after week. All over it is praised, this site included. How folks who love Star Trek with its intrinsically positive view for the future can love BSG as much - if not more - absolutely astounds my mind. Even DS9, lauded and beloved for its darker view of the Trekkian universe still portrayed more often than not, folks coming together and working together towards common goals. A brighter future.

I'm NOT saying that people like this don't exist but why is every one of them on the crew of Galactica? Behavior like this is aberrant and should be considered aberrant. No real military would tolerate Starbuck's constant "bucking." It's inconceivable that a soldier who shows that sort of rogue behavior is promoted and put in charge over young people's lives. She's a great pilot with a good tactical instinct. Great, let her fly and ask for her advice and listen when she offers it. Don't put her in charge of people's lives.

I could rant at BSG forever so I'll just stop here. Tangent ceased!
Nick P. - Fri, Sep 20, 2013 - 9:06am (USA Central)
@WL123 & Cloudane

WL123 point about living in a world with terrorism is absurd in the greatest degree, and in some ways illuminates the point I (and Rosario to some degree) am trying to make. In the late 60's we lived under the REAL existential threat of nuclear devastation from the Russians. Right now, terrorism, I guess, but even the twin towers is a pin-prick compared to what the russians could have done to us. My dad had nuclear "alarms" at his school. We factually live in a much better, safer world than the 60's.

And I frankly think Roddenberry was wrong in lot of ways, you can have a young russian pilot and visions of peace until the cows come home, but all Kruchshev had to do was push a button and bye bye NY or DC or both....Seriously, we could have lost millions of people.

But that is exactly WHY we need people like Gene and show like ST, to show us there "might" be a better future for us. Not DS9 or BSG that shows the worst of us, we need SF that shows the best of us. People always say they would have loved to live on the the original or TNG Enterprise, and that is exactly the crux, NO ONE wants to live on DS9, even the people on the show don't want to live there!

I personally do not believe we will ever live in a star trek Utopia, but that is EXACTLY WHY we need to dream of the Star Trek utopia.
Nick P. - Fri, Sep 20, 2013 - 9:09am (USA Central)
@Rosario, I love BSG, but you do illuminate the biggest problem, and that is Moores need to have conflict, just for the sake of itself. The greatest weakness of the show was how trained military officers would pull guns on each other at the drop of a hat every other episode.
Jack - Fri, Dec 27, 2013 - 12:18pm (USA Central)
Ro seems to have skipped the JG Lt. rank and jumped right to two full pips.

It was harder to see to be sure, but the same thing seemed to happen for Lavelle in "Lower Decks".
Paul - Thu, Jan 2, 2014 - 9:56am (USA Central)
@Jack: Lavelle went to JG. You can tell when he puts the pip on the table.

Also, it's possible that Ro was promoted twice since we last saw her. Riker received that kind of fast track after the incident that created Tom Riker. Riker went on to be lieutenant commander and first officer on the Hood and then full commander and first officer on the Enterprise in less than two years. Heck, Riker could have been a captain by then, if he'd accepted command of the Drake.
mephyve - Sat, Feb 1, 2014 - 7:04pm (USA Central)
Great episode. Poor Picard felt stung by the 'betrayal' but he sort of sent a kid into a candy shop with orders not to eat anything. At her core, Ro has always been a rebel without a cause. Picard gave her a cause and nature took over from there.
Picard knew that the Cardassians were instigating some of these skirmishes. Given Laren history he also knew he was taking a huge risk. No matter his true intentions, he set Ro Laren up to fail.
4 stars
Looper - Sun, Feb 23, 2014 - 1:34pm (USA Central)
As a casual viewer of TNG, i must admit i fell in love with Ro watching this remarkable character episode. There's something so raw about her. To me, her beauty, her wits, her talent as an actor, all of that combined... she's up there with Seven of Nine, period.

Submit a comment

Above, type the last name of the captain on Star Trek: TNG
Notify me about new comments on this page
Hide my e-mail on my post

Season Index

Copyright © 1994-2014, Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of any review or article on this site is prohibited. Star Trek (in all its myriad forms), Battlestar Galactica, and Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc., NBC Universal, and Tribune Entertainment, respectively. This site is in no way affiliated with or authorized by any of those companies. | Copyright & Disclaimer