Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

heard this episode created a lot of controversy, but its a bit less widely talked a bout then "Dear doctor" for some reason

anyone here who hates in the pale moonlight, who feels it was selling Rodenberry cheap to play on a love of angsts or whatever.

 

I loved it. The conflict for such a principled officer as Sisko was good drama, and any episode featuring Garak heavily gets my vote.

Not a fan of Rodenberrys 'no conflict' approach.

 

DS9 not my favourite series (though think it's dramatically best of all), but that is my favourite episode and one of best in all Trek. So, no.

 

The episode only works if the Romulans find out the truth after the Dominion War and declare war on the Federation. The writers wimped out by not showing that.

 

Yeah, as much as Gene did creating the franchise, it noticeably got better once he was out of the day to day parts of it. TNG saw a rise in quality, DS9 would've never happened at all under him. Idealism and hope for a better future is good, but when is starts overriding common sense and believability it gets a bit silly.

To the episode in question... this was easily Garak's crowning moment. He utterly played -everyone- from Sisko to the entire Romulan Empire. I liked the narrative approach too. Not only was Sisko doing these things, but he was believably justifying them that you could see a good man making difficult decisions and doing bad things for the greater good.

I would've loved it if somehow Dukat got a hold of that log entry and declared they weren't so different after all!

 

The Romulans would probably be impressed by such machinations. I know the Cardassians would be.

 

That doesn't mean they'll put up with it though. Maybe they'll give Garak a state funeral after they assassinate him.

Honestly though, I don't ever see the truth coming out. Garak's definitely not going to blab and Sisko won't either. As for the faceless Starfleet Command personnel who approved this? Well I see Section 31 erasing all records of this and persuading anyone who saw them or was in on this that their lifespans would be more productive if they never spoke of it.

 

I honestly don't understand your question, but maybe that's because I qualify as an antique. In what way do you think it "sells Roddenberry cheap" for Sisko to be conflicted with his decision and actions? Are you using the term angst in its philosophical or contemporary sense (often applied to moody teenagers)?

Kirk was often conflicted with his decisions. Picard, not so much, but he was sweating it when he thought his piano playing girlfriend was going to die.

 

There's a certain part of the fanbase that believes that In the Pale Moonlight pretty much symbolizes the deviation of Trek from Roddenberry's utopian vision of a better future when you have humans acting like Sisko did in a desperate situation.

From my experience this part is a minority, but maybe one of them will crop up and add their opinion to this thread.

 

Roddenberry knew Star Trek would evolve without his guidance. There's an old video where he thinks about what will happen to Trek after him. He said something like "People might say 'That Roddenberry-- he didn't know what he was doing.' And they'd be right."

 

Always liked In the Pale Moonlight.

It asks a very sobering question...

*What are you willing to do to protect your way of life?

Una McCormack does a nice follow-up called Hollow Men.

 

A really good episode. Sisko walking down that road and trying to justify to himself and us in his narratives was powerful

 

I love it and hate it.

Love it since it's one of the best ever Trek episodes.

Hate it, since it destroyed the Roddenberry vision.

People who criticise the Roddenberry vision frankly miss the point, and essentially the point of art (a TV show, especially a dramatic one, is still art by definition). No art form must absolutely correlate with reality, and to suggest as such is silly. I doubt the Great Bird, who was seemingly an intelligent man, believed his vision was reality. It is essentially a hope for the future, and to be taken in that context alone.

To suggest all art forms must correlate with reality means if one reads a Superman comic or movie, it should be dismissed. Aliens from distant worlds who get superpowers from the Earth's sun? Even though Superman highlights some realistic phenomenon such as nobility, kindness, heroism and dedication, no Superman is crap since aliens who have freeze breath don't exist in the real world!

Sometimes an art form should be seen for what it is, since art is by definition an abstraction. I personally don't care if the Roddenberry vision is "unrealistic", that as aforecited misses the point. It is an abstract vision of how humans could be in the future. One of the major appeals of art, frankly in all cultures, is that it allows great imagination. People who say "it's not realistic!" well maybe they're autistic or something, they lack the capability to ponder non-concrete concepts.

 

I dont PERSONALLY think it "Sells rodenberry cheap... but am aware of others who think it does... and wanted to hear their arguments, since just heard about them from 3rd or 4th hadn acounts.

Also I mean contemporary angst, as in a lot of tragedy in fiction.

 

How can you justify that statement? . Are you saying that the crux of drama is invalid with out a follow up ep, or just that it doesn't "work" for you .

Personally, I think a big reveal by either Starfleet HQ or the Romulans knowing, would lessen the drama, the strength is in the ambiguity and moral struggle.

 

Not only that, but the Dominion war ends about 20 minutes before DS9 as a series ends forever. When were they supposed to do this Romulan storyline?

 

I appreciate Roddenberry's vision, except for the "no conflict" policy that TNG was shackled with. The old truism is "conflict equals drama," therefore no conflict means no drama, or, at least, weak, limited conflict between characters. Thankfully, DS9 wasn't constrained this way. "In The Pale Moonlight" has deep, rich conflict that challenges Sisko as a character, making for great drama. The episode deserves all the kudos it gets.

 

I think DS9's introduction of new concepts must have been one of those proverbial times they blindfolded the bronze bust of Roddenberry in Berman's office.

 

I thought that the "no-conflict" approach to 24th-century Trek was a mistake on Gene Roddenberry's part. I just think it's unrealistic to expect that humanity will ever evolve to a point where there is no interpersonal conflict - certainly not in a mere few centuries.

However, I'm willing to give him a pass on it. Gene Roddenberry got a few things wrong with Trek, but they are far outweighed by all the things he got right.

 

Whether it's realistic or not is surely immaterial. I never knew Rick Berman was the supreme and Godly authority of valid artistic works.