View Single Post
Old May 29 2013, 05:11 PM   #99
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

wingsabre wrote: View Post

Look, even Roddenberry created situations where humans did despicable things out of greed, fear, etc... He may have a utopian future in his mind, but even he relented to human nature. Roddenberry created Harry Mudd after all. He created a world where Kirk was a womanizer and was weak to control his lust. He created a future where his heroes allowed a good woman die so the world will be a better place. He created a world where his heroes too had to acquiesced to thievery and treachery in order to steal the Romulan Cloaking device, just so they can protect their precious Federation. Look at any piece of art out there and you'll see that there's no absolute black or white, but there are also shades of grey. Sometimes there are no good decisions, just the least bad decision and Roddenberry understood that. Sisko's least bad decisions brought the Romulans into the war, and prevent an epoc of genocide and tyrannical rule from the Dominion.

Just because you hate certain aspects of the episode does not give you the right to force others to think the same way. If that's your goal, you should give up now because I know what I like and no one can convince me otherwise.
That why I gte confused when certain people cry about Rodenberry "vision" I mean look at the TOS you had crew bullying (ok that may be abit extrme), a man slut who liked to bend the rules and a universe full of theives and criminals.

By the time TNG is created Rodenberry seems to have become retarded. HE hippie lala land trek is boring. It may be Art but it sucks, which is why TNG first 2 series sucked and nearly killed it. Art all well and good but when you are makeing a TV show you have to be consistant and make something people want to watch.
Crazyewok is offline   Reply With Quote