Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:

Total Found: 222 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 9
Set Bookmark
Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 3:17pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S2: Loud as a Whisper

That scene where Troi reveals what was on Worf’s mind, may have been there to act as a foil to the scene, also on the Enterprise, where Data vocalises the thoughts of Riva. Worf and Riva are, after all, very different characters.

The place given to Data, and to Riva’s reactions to him, show how Data is growing as a character, and proving, yet again, how versatile and important he is. Troi is clearly secondary to him in this episode. Whatever its flaws may be, some important things happen in it. The episode also provides some “personal growth” for Riva.

I think this episode is a lot better than it’s given credit for being. 3 stars out of 4 seems about right.
Set Bookmark
James Alexander
Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 6:14pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Firestorm

this was the first episode of Orville I ever got a glimpse of.
was randomly scrolling through channels and I stumbled across this thing with a vaguely Bajoran-looking girl getting into trouble, and a robot's eyes turning red as it turns evil and tries to kill her.

thought what I saw was passable albeit nothing truly stunning, and it was good for killing time while it was on.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 9:00am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: True Q

OK except for the last 5 to 10 minutes. Q is either a bully, or completely amoral - either way, a repulsive character. The ending was completely the wrong one. 2.5 stars seems fair. It was a pity to see the same trope being trotted out, as when Riker was tempted to become a Q, of testing characters by letting something happen that they would want to correct.

Q has the same failing as the Greek gods, only more so: because he do anything, Q has no capacity for, and no understanding of, tragedy - his existence is fundamentally frivolous, because it is totally devoid of risk; and it is not based on goodness, but on egotism; so ultimately, it is hollow and selfish. That sounds pretty much like Hell to me. To be bamboozled into choosing that kind of existence, rather than the friendships Amanda could have had, turns the end of the episode into something very like one of the grimmer Twilight Zone episodes.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 5:57am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Lessons

4/4. The two main leads did not put a foot wrong. This was an excellent example of TNG at its best.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 5:40pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S6: Tapestry

I watched this super baked and the ending had me literally saying 'wow' out loud. The thing I haven't seen people mention yet is the circle being completed; the beginning of the show showing Picard dying by blade as a young actor, he laughs as he gets stabbed. Then, as he dies the second time round, he looks down at the knife again and laughs, like it was a time loop already established.

When Picard laughed, I laughed too, I found it absurd and cosmic joke-like, and because I was super baked it's like we realised it at the same time, and it made it all that funnier.
Set Bookmark
Tue, May 29, 2018, 2:26am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S1: Skin of Evil

Not a horrible episode, so......2.5 stars, I think. Basically, not quite good enough to get 3 stars, but watchable, interesting, involving, and, unlike some, it did not drag.
Set Bookmark
Sat, May 26, 2018, 7:44pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S7: Attached

A flawless episode - 4 stars out of 4.
Set Bookmark
Sat, May 26, 2018, 11:09am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S7: Dark Page

The lullaby sequence surprised me that it wasn’t “Warm Kitty, Soft Kitty” - I must be confusing The Big Bang Theory, which is always worth watchiing, with TNG, which is sometimes tedious and psycho-babbly - like this episode. TBBT is always fun, and far too many episodes of TNG, like this one, are not fun, but a chore.

I know what’s wrong with this episode: much too much of it felt, and even looked, like a consultation with a doctor. It was too obvious that the actors were people acting - disbelief went unsuspended. I think this is probably why I dislike of the holodeck scenes: they set out to destroy all possibility of suspension of disbelief. And this episode was marred by the same staginess.

Two stars seems fair: the episode is not unwatchable garbage with no redeeming features whatsoever, but it is dull and (I believe the word is) over-acted.
Set Bookmark
Thu, May 24, 2018, 10:05pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S1: Captive Pursuit

After a shaky start with parts of “Emissary”, I find DS9 grows on one. This was a good episode. I just wish that the usual colour scheme of the station was not so muddy brown - the blue of the uniforms of Bashir and Dax, and the vivid, Starfleet-like red worn by Tosk’s pursuers, were a genuine relief. (The colours of the uniforms in TNG also left something to be desired - mustard-brown, purple and black clash). It was good to have an episode in which O’Brien was so much to the fore, and there was real tension in the uncertainty about what Tosk would decide to do. This episode deserves its 3 stars. I don’t - yet - see why Jake Sisko is such a hate-figure in parts of the fandom; later, perhaps.
Set Bookmark
Tue, May 8, 2018, 10:16pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S1: Justice

1 star is more than enough.

The ending was especially off-putting, with the smug Starfleet types doing a runner, and violating the justice of the Edosians, without bothering to explain why their own justice should take precedence over it. There was the seed of an intelligent debate here, but nothing could come of it. Wesley should have been executed. That would have been a hard choice for Picard, it would have satisfied the logic of the Prime Directive, & it would have provided a plotline for possible future use. Other members of Starfleet die - so why should he be spared ? It would have shown that Redshirts are not the only mortals on Enterprise, and that actions have consequences.

As that scene in fact developed, it left the impression that the Federation can stomp over other cultures’ laws and sensibilities because the pygmy Eloi - sorry, pre-warp aliens - cannot stop it doing so. The vaunted Prime Directive is merely a figleaf to cover the moral nakedness of Starfleet, for its application is not governed by any discernible principle. One was unpleasantly reminded of US military interventionism at its most sanctimonious. Hypocrisy and smugness are no less nauseating from Starfleet 350 years from now than they are from present-day politicians. The obvious moral of this intellectually tawdry episode is the very cynical one that might makes right.
Set Bookmark
Thu, May 3, 2018, 5:42pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S7: Author, Author

A big old 4 stars. This episode was everything a ST Voyager episode should be.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Apr 29, 2018, 12:32pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S7: Prophecy

1. Why is Neelix talking about having “served over 300 meals” ? 204 Klingons + 150 Voyager crew = over 350 meals, at least. That is a lot more than “over 300” would suggest. Those replicators must have been working overtime.

2. Why is Janeway endangering her crew by beaming aboard more Klingons than she has crewmembers ?

3. Neelix, yet again, has all the tact and consideration for Tuvok of a Hutt (OK, different ‘verse, but anyway).

4. Why secular folk like Klingons, whose gods are dead, would have hopes of a saviour, is anyone’s guess. Maybe this Klingon sect has a different theology ?

5. I can’t decide whether this episode is mocking certain Jewish or Christian beliefs, or pillorying the abuse of those beliefs for selfish ends, or alerting attention to the manipulation of religion for selfish ends, or a bit of all three.

Since ST is fond of issues-driven episodes, it is only to be expected that religion, that plays so prominent a part in US culture, should come in for some attention. The uncertainty of tone is a pity nonetheless, seeing as other programmes - The Simpsons, South Park - have been able to explore this topic without this uncertainty. Maybe cartoons are a better medium for exploring certain issues than more “realistic” drama ?

6. A Klingon with what appear to be three (adamantium ?) claws ? Hmm...OK. Since he is aggressive, fair enough.

7. BLT’s semi-quotation from “Starship Troopers” was fun.

2.5 stars, I think.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Apr 29, 2018, 7:32am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S7: Repentance

Oh, dear. Oh, dear. Oh dear, oh, dear, oh, dear, oh, dear. Agh !

Seven, Seven, Seven, usually I agree with you, and you are definitely one of my favourite characters - but, when you are wrong, boy, are you wrong ! Keep to science - which you are a whiz at - but, leave ethics to others. It isn’t your forte.

Janeway, I appreciate that you are a humane person, which is a good thing to be; but sometimes, you really need to Mind Your Own Bee’swax, and not be an interfering prig.

Where to start ?

1. OK, so Iko has some redeeming features. But that is the point. A very nice person who goes wrong only by committing one murder, is as truly guilty of murder as a genocidal tyrant who kills millions over many years. It is immaterial to the reality of having incurred the guilt of committing murder, that the one-time murderer is in all other respects a very nice and good person. The fact of his having committed murder, suggests that his good qualities may after all not be as good or solid as they seem to be. The reality of his being a murderer cannot be hand-waved into non-existence by an appeal to his having unmurderous characteristics. So it is perfectly fair to expect the otherwise good person to pay for what he has done.

2. A second very dubious proposition: if Iko’s murderousness has a medical basis, he is not a murderer.

This is equally false, and for a similar reason. It tries to hand-wave away moral responsibility and guilt, by pointing to physiological factors. IOW, it evades the moral issues, by trying to explain them away as issues of physiology. But in that case, why punish anyone ? If serial murderers have health problems, it is absurd to punish them - for the argument abolishes moral responsibility, by explaining it as malfunctioning physiology.

Why reward people, when their seeming goodness is apparently to be ascribed to nothing more than a socially convenient interplay of the sub-atomic particles of which their physiology is made ? They are lucky, not good.

The mistake is to treat one factor in human action - physiological well-being - in human actions - as the only significant one. Issues of health influence moral responsibility, and can diminish or increase one’s *capacity to be responsible* ; but they cannot replace responsibility. Moral responsibility, if it exists at all, has moral significance for how people behave. Seven and Janeway failed to consider the possibility that maybe Iko’s brain physiology made him more, not less, responsible for his actions, and therefore, more and not less guilty.

Such comments are about human ethics - but Voyager presents us with no others. We Terran viewers are invited to make moral judgements about the behaviour of Vaadwaur, Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, Ferengi, Borg, Ocampans, Brunali, and many others - but always on the basis of Terran ethics of some sort. If a race is alien, why should the optimistic liberal humanism of ST’s creators be relevant to it ? Maybe, for aliens to execute murderers and seeming murderers is an act of supreme civic virtue, which it would be monstrous negligence of said aliens to omit. But does ST ever consider that possibility ? Insofar as its writers fail to do so, they are reducing aliens from being genuinely “other”, to being Rubber-Headed Aliens of the Week.

This episode was well-presented, but let down by its morally-confused message. Since its message was its heart, the episode had feet of clay. 2.5 stars seems fair.
Set Bookmark
Sat, Apr 28, 2018, 1:33am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S6: Spirit Folk


I think they are a good use of the holodeck. Chaotica is barely distinguishable from Ming the Merciless, but given the genre and its ostensible date (1930s ?) that makes sense. Chaotica, Arachnia, and the rest are wildly unlike “real life” - they are very obviously fictions, and are meant (by Tom Paris and by the writers) to be. The Fair Haven and WW2 and many other holodeck characters are too “like life” for their own good, or for their stories’ good. The result is, that Chaotica and Co. avoid “breaking genre”, whereas the more “lifelike” holodeck characters do break genre; which creates ambiguity as to what exactly they are intended to be.

Chaotica and Co. work as science fiction within the science fiction that is the feigned reality of Voyager. The other stuff does not stay scientifictional enough to work properly within that feigned reality.

@wolfstar: Agreed, it isn’t “just sci-fi”.

The problem is not that the sciencefiction is romantic SF, or psychological SF, or adventurous SF, or comic SF, or horror SF, or mystery horror SF, or the other kinds you mention; the problem is that the weak holodeck episodes - a few holodeck episodes are good - forget to be SF. They try to become something different, with just a splash of SF to anchor them in the Trekverse. But they become something else: 1900s Ireland, 1930s Chicago, 1500s Italy, a 19th-century holonovel, a children’s book, or whatever it may be.

Flotter and Trevis are characters in Naomi Wildman’s reading, who have nothing scientifictional about them, other than their placement in the experience of a girl whose own relation to the SF that is the Trekverse results from her being the daughter of a Voyager crewman. F and T are not firmly enough integrated into the Trekverse to be convincing characters - they could turn up in other ‘verses, and not be out of place. The same lack of convincing integration is a problem for the weaker holodeck episodes - but not for the Captain Proton sequences. Those are well-crafted, convincingly integrated, and don’t get in the way of their broader context in the Voyager “quadrant” of the Trekverse.

A conceptual category of stories, like ST, can accommodate a great variety of genres, and can combine them in creative and memorable ways. That is not the problem. The problem is when the overarching category that is ST is poorly served by sone element of the ‘verse that it binds together as a narrative universe, And that is the problem with the poorly integrated holodeck episodes (and with some othets).

I hope that all makes sense :)

Thanks, both of you, for the comments :)

Set Bookmark
Fri, Apr 27, 2018, 11:59pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S6: Good Shepherd

3 stars. This was a nice essay in character observation, that did not allow itself to rely too heavily on explosions and action. The premise is not about those, though they have their place in a different kind of story. A mainly psychological episode, that looks at why people act as they do rather than at their external actions, isn’t going to be to everyone’s taste, and can be very tedious if handled badly; but this was well-plotted, with credible characters.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Apr 27, 2018, 4:45pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S7: Critical Care

Caustic, funny, and insightful. 3.5 stars. I particularly liked the scene with Neelix, Tubok and Gar.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Apr 26, 2018, 2:43am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S6: Life Line

Doc + Reg Barclay (+ Counsellor Troi) = winner episode. 4 stars.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Apr 26, 2018, 2:23am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S6: Fury

A confused (and confusing) mess, with no discernible purpose. “Threshold” was much better. 1 star.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 12:39am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S6: Spirit Folk

Another episode to skip, after seeing about 10 minutes of it. My basic gripe about it is, that (apart from the irritating folksy Eye-rish tweeness), it and other holodeck episodes are an escape from the scientifictional genre of the story. I watch ST, and therefore, Voyager, because I enjoy science fiction; I don’t want to be fobbed off with something a zillion miles removed from science fiction, or, at most, only very tenuously connected to it. So episodes largely about WW2, or Ireland, or Renaissance Italy, or 1930s Chicago, feel like cheating - they feel like stories that count as science fiction only because they are parts of an episode in a scientifictional series.

The holodeck is in effect being used as an excuse for Voyager (and not just Voyager) to take a little holiday from being a scientifictional series. ST should not have to do this - it suggests a failure of imagination.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Apr 22, 2018, 2:51am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S6: Barge of the Dead

That Tom Paris calls B’Elanna a “born-again Klingon”, in a way that shows his remark is intended as less than complimentary, suggests that Evangelicals will be not unfamiliar in the 24th century. If their function as figures of fun has been adopted by some later group after their extinction, that cannot be inferred from canon.

Gods can be killed - though whether this is a credible concept, depends on what one understands by the concept of godhood. Mesopotamian religion has several deities being killed, such as Tiamat and Kingu, who were killed by Marduk in the best-known of several Mesopotamian myths of creation. Horus is killed by Set in Egypt, and most of the Norse Aesir are killed at Ragnarok. So the myth about Ko[r]tar is not in the least implausible. It seems to be a mixture of Etruscan, Greek, Mesopotamian & Norse elements. The writers are to be congratulated on their ingenious mixing of familiar ancient motifs to produce something new. Gods who need to be refreshed by sacrifices (conceptualised as their meals) can presumably - in principle - undergo death.

What made Gre’thor ? Maybe, the Klingon gods, before, or even after, they were killed. Without knowing a lot more Klingon mythology, one can only make informed guesses using analogies from real-world ideas. The details of all these things are not incoherent, so much as fragmentary. A Klingon mythographer or theologian would presumably be able to fill in the masses of missing detail. Maybe Gre’thor is made out of the bodies of dead gods. Myths are characteristically resistant to harmonisation and systematisation, so one cannot expect a harmonious and internally self-consistent picture of the Klingon afterlife here. B’Elanna perceives it only in broken flashes, as might be expected of someone with a busy life like hers.

The sight of Gre’thor’s gates looks uncommonly like illustrations of the description the gates of the city of Dis in Dante, Inferno, canto 9. 7That the idea of killing gods seems implausible, is perhaps a testimony to how deeply Western culture has been saturated with Jewish & Christian ideas.

I found this episode rewarding to watch, because of its various narrative elements, which made it thought-provoking. As I have never had much of a head for the sciences, the scientific problems in this episode don’t spoil it for me, as they might for others. The last 5 or 6 minutes seemed not really to lead anywhere very much, but they were interesting for their echoes of earlier moments in the episode.

3/4, I think. A good episode in many ways, though not exceptional. And there was no reliance on holodecks.

Set Bookmark
Wed, Apr 18, 2018, 4:51pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S5: Once Upon a Time

Detestable as holodeck episodes so often are, this outdoes them. Flot and Trev would be vastly improved by being obliterated. Where is Colonel Quaritch when he’s needed ? Or is the Avatarverse cloaked in utter inaccessibility ?

I like Voyager, a lot. But while Little Miss Half-Ktarian is tolerable even in generous doses, Itchy and Scratchy IN SPACE !!!! are puke-inducing. If Captain Planet were a Totally Right-On space vegetable, he would be as they are.

Having a good message - “Folk need one another, and need to realise that they depend on one another, so they really ought to drop all the narcissism, tribalism & chest-thumping” - does not make up for having a weak-as-water plot, shallow characterisation, and (yet again) more lazy Deus ex Holodeckery. One is used to wretchedly-confected Evangelical art like “Left Behind”, which sacrifices aesthetic value to the requirements of its message - but it is very disappointing that ST makes the same blunder. If a story is garbage as a piece of craftsmanship, it is sloppy and insulting to broadcast it, regardless of how good the message may be.

Neelix did something to prevent the episode being totally unwatchable, but not enough to rate the episode more than one star. There are worse episodes than this, so this one does not quite deserve zero, notwithstanding the efforts of Butthead and Bevis.
Set Bookmark
Sat, Apr 14, 2018, 1:29am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: The Motion Picture

Just my two cents worth. There are a few good things that can be said about ST:TMP. No question the special effects are wonderful, the cinematography is incredible. I saw this movie when it came out, I must have been 13. I was very impressed with how good the Enterprise looked. I still am. The ship was colorless and dull, but seeing it and the old crew on the big screen was terrific fun for a kid my age. Visually the movie was stunning, even if the color palette was bland. It's been described in other reviews as "Logans Run", lots of white and soft pastels. And everyone wears their jammies to work.

The ships were done with actual 3D modeling, the old-fashioned way, not CGI. In fact, STII: TWoK was somewhat famous for the groundbreaking demonstration film for the Genesis Project. That was a very early use of computer imagery. ST:TMP was all old-school.

Jerry Goldsmiths score was incredible. It was so good, it was reused and became the theme for the Next Gen series when that started. That score is now synonymous with the Star Trek franchise. There are some commendable things about ST:TMP, others have pointed out various qualities as well. But generally these things boil down to effects, the score and other post-prod factors. And then there is the emotional aspect of seeing the ship and the old gang on the big screen. There's nothing wrong with appreciating these things.

Nonetheless, this film is plodding, poorly paced and the characters are not well developed. Their interactions are mostly mechanical and dull. The story is, as has been noted, just a retelling of The Changling. I don't know why Roddenberry did this. He had to be aware that he'd told this story before. He, or someone at Paramount, had to realize fans were going to notice. But he went ahead and did it anyway. He might have thought, this is how I really wanted The Changling to be, but I didn't have the screen time or budget to do it right. Now I do. I don't know, I'm speculating.

Gene Roddenberry, and the directors he worked with on the old show, seemed to do a pretty good job of making economical and effective use of air time when working with an hour long episode format. One hour minus open and closing credits, and commercials, leaves about 42 or 44 minutes, or so? And you really have zero wiggle room. He seemed to respond well to being boxed into that time frame. You've got this many minutes to tell your story and your out, like it or not. It worked. But when he got a chance to make a movie, with no specific limit on running time, and a (relatively) open-ended budget, Gene Roddenberry just seems like he couldn't discipline himself as well.

The result is Star Trek: The Motion Picture. I like the joke title Where Nomad Has Gone Before. That's exactly what this is. It's just an old episode remade (The Naked Now, anyone?). It's no secret this film is the product of quite considerable changes in format (it's a tv show, it's a tv movie, it's a tv show again, it's a theatrical movie...), and the victim of seeming endless script rewrites. This tells me the whole project was just poorly conceived and executed from the beginning. It went into production with just too many questions unanswered for filming to be going on. It really shouldn't surprise anyone that the film is poorly paced and the interactions between the main characters is almost robotic.

This film cost about 51 million dollars to make. I think it brought in a couple hundred million overall. You can probably Google. Star Wars was made on about 11 million and grossed about a thousand bazillion dollars in ten minutes. Ok, that's being silly. But you get the point. Star Wars was cheaply made. In some places, the sets and props seem almost 1960's Dr. Who cheap. And that's saying something. I almost expect Patrick Troughton to come running out chased by a paper mache monster. But it doesn't matter. Star Wars was a great film, not just entertaining, but a great film because it was a wonderful example of great story telling. The people, their relationships, their adventures, everything was done superbly. Star Wars is everything ST:TMP is not. STII:TWoK is also everything ST:TMP is not. And for all the same reasons. Star Wars and Khan are both just great story telling. They are engaging, compelling, beautifully told stories. For all the money Paramount spent on TMP, it's like watching paint dry.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture, despite some really good things that can be said about certain aspects of it, is ultimately a bad film. It's a bad film because it simply fails at the one thing a movie is supposed to be from the beginning, a good, well told story. If it fails at that, impressive special effects and a beautiful score won't save it. If you're trying to defend this picture based on things like that, you're just proving my point.

Apparently Paramount agreed. This film did make money. It made back its investment and then some. But it wasn't nearly what it should have been. The return on TMP, given Star Treks legacy, the expectation, the money put into it, should have been multipes of what the studio actually made back. This is why Paramount green lighted a second film, but also promoted Gene Roddenberry to somewhere out of the way. Harve Bennett was brought in to salvage the situation. Bennett was made executive producer and put in charge of the film. The result (STII:TWoK), as about 99.999% of people will agree, was a vast improvement over the previous film. The comparisons of this movie to Moby Dick are already discussed on the internet, you can find those yourself. Needless to say, this film is no less cerebral and intelligent than TMP, but it has the story telling qualities that make great movies great. They're the same qualities that make great novels great.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture is an exercise is aimless, uncertain production plagued with a producer and staff who were apparently making up a lot of this on the fly. This movie had the potential to be so much more. Given the anticipation leading up to its release, ST:TMP really should have been a home run, knocked right out of the ball park. Instead we got a mess whose gaping flaws they attempted to cover over with obscene amounts of sparkle and flash. That's not story telling. It's superficial crap. This film is, as I said, ultimately a bad film.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 1:29pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S3: False Profits

" All these Ferengi do all day is sit around and con the citizens out of their money"

Sounds like our governments and we accept them.....
Set Bookmark
Sat, Mar 24, 2018, 3:25am (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S1: Dear Doctor

Ok, since this discussion is still ongoing, I would like to add my two cents.

First, I want to put some facts straight. Many people here argued that letting that species die is in some way equivalent to letting a bleeding person die. That is, to me, completely false. That comparison frames the discussion completely different: From big picture to small picture compassion. There is no question that letting somebody bleed to death, even though you could help and are asked for help, is morally wrong. But this episode is not about that.

As somebody earlier pointed out, what if a hundred million years ago, there were intelligent dinosaurs, and some alien race decided to save them? Then we would have never existed. Would you still applaud their decision? I mean, you couldn't, obviously, but would they have been right?

This episode was about interference - even though some of the other posters deny this. What they want to do is put their finger on one certain moment in history and freeze it in time. This one species is here now, so we must save it, completely ignoring the consequences. Lets think this through: Archer saves the Valakians. Sounds great. He is now directly responsible for EVERYTHING that happens after this point. If the Valakians decide to genocide the Menk a few years later? His fault. If the treatment doesn't work, and the Valakians die out anyways? Also his fault, as he (or humanity, if he is dead already) should have helped them again. Or should he say "No, we helped you once, not a second time though"? What if the Valakians need constant help? Where do you draw the line? They are pre-warp, as I understand it, so they are not "there" yet. Do you give them replicators, transporters, warp drives? If Archer takes the responsibility for saving their lives, he takes on the responsibility for their continued existence.

Or to put it into the "small" frame of reference: You see a starving orphan. You give it food, so it survives for another ten days. What now? You now have the responsibility for that child. Of course, it would be the right thing to help that child, and it would feel good. But what have you really given that child? If you truly want to help, you take it in, give it an education, until it can survive on its own.

Now why was that child starving? Maybe it was because it was living somewhere where food is scarce, and too many people already live there. And suddenly, there is not one child, but a hundred. Or a thousand. Or millions. And if you give them food, they will have children of their own, which in turn need food, and so forth. Suddenly, your small problem becomes a giant one. Instead of helping one starving child, you created millions of starving children.

And that is what this episode is about. Archer simply can not comprehend the consequences of his actions. Sure, maybe he cures them, and afterwards, everything turns out allright. That is one possibility. The other is, that the Menk will always be second class citizens, permanent slaves. I know, people believe Phlox was wrong in this assessment of the situation, but we just don't know for sure, and neither does Archer.

I think people should pull back a little and not get so hung up on the specifics of the plot. Instead, consider the general question asked here: Is it right to interfere? If aliens landed and helped the Roman Empire, or the Confederate States, or China, or Germany, or Sweden, or the Inka, no matter if the end result was "better" or "worse" - would that have been right? Who decides, if it is better or worse? If you help the Romans, and the germanic tribes or the gauls never have the chance to achieve anything, or even to exist - who wants to have that responsibility? Can you say for certain that this or that would have been better? And if you are sure that one or the other outcome would have been better, can you say the same for future events? If given the choice right now to help either China or America - can you say for certain that one or the other would turn out better? Who do you support in the middle east? And keep in mind, in all those examples, you are not even part of the species: You are some alien that knows almost nothing of the history of those events. All these examples are pretty poor, given that for most of them we can use hindsight. Archer can not do that.

Archer made the only sane choice here: To stay out of it. He was right: He is not there to play god (and no, that is not a religious argument, as somebody tried to protray it: He is not implying that he is interfering with "gods plan", he simply says that he can not decide the fate of an entire species). Even if it goes against all his urges. He wants to help. The pain he feels must be unfathomable. Picard made similar choices all the time - only that his choices had clear black-and-white consequences, most of the time. Here, the consequences are very unclear - which is why people find it so offensive. Everybody has their own interpretation of what would happen next, and thus finds it easy to say what would have been right or wrong to do.
Set Bookmark
Mon, Mar 12, 2018, 8:12pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S1: Broken Bow

I just want to say that listing a generic pop song like "Faith of the Heart" above Jerry Goldsmith's wonderful theme for Voyager is an absolute joke.

I agree that Discovery's theme is just as bad, though. I think Goldsmith would be turning in his grave hearing that one.
Next ►Page 1 of 9
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2018 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.