RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,203
Posts: 5,346,393
Members: 24,604
Currently online: 714
Newest member: LanCo96

TrekToday headlines

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

IDW Publishing Comic Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

A Baby For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

Klingon Beer Arrives In The US
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Star Trek: Prelude To Axanar
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Abrams Announces Star Wars: Force For Change Sweepstakes
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

New Funko Trek Figure
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Saldana As A Role Model
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

San Diego Comic-Con Trek Fan Guide
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Cumberbatch As Turing
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Deep Space Nine

Deep Space Nine What We Left Behind, we will always have here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 5 2013, 02:31 PM   #31
Worf'sParmach
Commander
 
Worf'sParmach's Avatar
 
Location: Plano, TX
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

Garrovick wrote: View Post
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.
Agreed, on all counts.
__________________
Obsessing over every detail in the Star Trek Universe since the 1990s
Check out my fanfic (pretty please ): http://www.fanfiction.net/~ginomo
Worf'sParmach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11 2013, 07:07 AM   #32
Anna Yolei
Vice Admiral
 
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

indolover wrote: View Post

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.
I didn't have a problem with his vision of sunshine and lollipops and everyone working for their own enlightenment.

But from a purely story-telling POV, I think DS9 holds up moreso than TNG because there's conflicts from within the cast. More often than not on TNG their conflicts extend from external pressures; and while many are still better than much of what passes as television today, that whole model of "no internal conflicts" was going nowhere fast....even moreso with Voyager, where there weren't even good stories to make up for that.
Anna Yolei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11 2013, 04:44 PM   #33
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

I loved it, and to me, there is no "dilemma" there. If Sisko doesn't act, the UFP is in danger of losing the war.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11 2013, 06:14 PM   #34
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

sonak wrote: View Post
I loved it, and to me, there is no "dilemma" there. If Sisko doesn't act, the UFP is in danger of losing the war.
Sure there is. Sisko did some pretty crappy things in this episode, and they -should- weigh on him. But the "good" (if you want to call it that) of getting the help to win the war, outweighs the moral implications of how he accomplished it.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11 2013, 06:23 PM   #35
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

R. Star wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
I loved it, and to me, there is no "dilemma" there. If Sisko doesn't act, the UFP is in danger of losing the war.
Sure there is. Sisko did some pretty crappy things in this episode, and they -should- weigh on him. But the "good" (if you want to call it that) of getting the help to win the war, outweighs the moral implications of how he accomplished it.
I wouldn't call it "good" but necessary to draw the Romulans in before the scales tipped too far in favor of the Dominion.

Sisko has the cost of two lives plus whoever else suffered due to the bio-mimetic gel being given to someone who wanted it for "genetic experimentation" on his head.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11 2013, 07:22 PM   #36
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

R. Star wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
I loved it, and to me, there is no "dilemma" there. If Sisko doesn't act, the UFP is in danger of losing the war.
Sure there is. Sisko did some pretty crappy things in this episode, and they -should- weigh on him. But the "good" (if you want to call it that) of getting the help to win the war, outweighs the moral implications of how he accomplished it.

that's not what a dilemma is. A dilemma is a situation with two relatively equal sides and no right decision. Sisko may have had to do things he didn't like, but he made the correct decision and Garak summed it all up rather well.
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 14 2013, 10:36 AM   #37
Kira Nerys
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

You got to be kidding me ?I usually don't like Sisko,in this ep he was brilllant .It was the best ep in all of Star Trek.
Kira Nerys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 14 2013, 01:15 PM   #38
stj
Rear Admiral
 
stj's Avatar
 
Location: the real world
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

The moral of the story is, you're a noble fellow if when necessity forces you to commit a wrong against someone, you still feel bad, for a little while at least. But...

The necessity in the story is completely irrelevant to anything in real life, coming from the menace of bad SF figures like the Founders. Like the ticking bomb scenario, the enemy with impossible powers is a premise preselected for a desired conclusion, namely, sometimes you have to be immoral, or dead.

The plotting of how the criminal acts are supposed to save humanity is unbelievable to anyone who has thought about the role of intelligence in the decision to go to war. Again, this is a preselected premise, in this case designed to hinge the outcome of the war on a single person's decision. Maximum ego boo for vicarious identification, in other words.

There isn't a real conflict within Sisko, because the premises make any other choice insane. No, conflict isn't drama, choice is drama. Sisko has no choice, therefore is not a signifiicant moral agent.

The conclusion is evidently supposed to be ironic, in that Sisko is not really supposed to be able to live with himself. But as an open ended serial, Sisko is able, easily, to live with himself, meaning that the character development in the episode is meaningless.

There's nothing to hate about In the Pale Moonlight aside from its reactionary politics and the absurd praise it receives. It's just another crap SF show.
__________________
The people of this country need regime change here, not abroad.
stj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 14 2013, 01:22 PM   #39
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

stj wrote: View Post
It's just another crap SF show.
By the standards you project, there are very few that aren't. The episode is just a natural outgrowth of Roddenberry's paradise.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 15 2013, 12:41 AM   #40
JediKnightButler
Captain
 
JediKnightButler's Avatar
 
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
View JediKnightButler's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to JediKnightButler Send a message via AIM to JediKnightButler Send a message via Yahoo to JediKnightButler
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

Not me! I thought that it was a great- if not pivotal episode. It showcased Sisko (and Starfleet's) dilemmas at that time quite well. The scene at the end with Garak, as well as his closing lines and deletion of the log were some of the best moments of the series.
__________________
Do or do not. There is no try.
JediKnightButler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 15 2013, 12:57 AM   #41
marksound
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Planet Carcazed
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

I thought it was good. It showed that in time of war, even good men must do "bad" things for the greater good.

It does beg the question though, would Sisko murder Tuvix?
marksound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 15 2013, 01:25 AM   #42
Kelthaz
Rear Admiral
 
Kelthaz's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

The only thing I disliked was that Sisko got permission from StarFleet for his actions. Sisko should have acted alone.
__________________
"Who are you?! And how did you get in here?!"

"I'm the locksmith. And... I'm the locksmith."
Kelthaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 15 2013, 06:00 AM   #43
JirinPanthosa
Commodore
 
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

The thing about Roddenberry's 'No conflict' edict is that it barred the writers from laziness. Interpersonal conflict can be great, but only if it's original, character driven interpersonal conflict. The 'Roddenberry box' took away a crutch and forced the writers to be creative.

And the DS9 writers were very creative in general, but not when it came to interpersonal conflict. When Worf came aboard and had difficulty accepting that Odo was security chief and not him, that was lazy, and it turned out to be a very bad episode that made Worf look more like a pathetic child than a Starfleet officer.

DS9 was at it's best when it wasn't focusing on interpersonal conflict among the cast. When DS9 had interpersonal conflict is when the cast seemed the most like spoiled children.
JirinPanthosa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 16 2013, 03:31 AM   #44
TheRoyalFamily
Commodore
 
TheRoyalFamily's Avatar
 
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

JirinPanthosa wrote: View Post
The thing about Roddenberry's 'No conflict' edict is that it barred the writers from laziness. Interpersonal conflict can be great, but only if it's original, character driven interpersonal conflict. The 'Roddenberry box' took away a crutch and forced the writers to be creative.
If by "creative" you mean "having less ways to be lazy," then I suppose you are right. Still doesn't stop lazy writers from being lazy, as Roddenberry TNG showed - we just got more of the same junk. Inter-crew conflict would have at least added some variety.
__________________
You perceive wrongly. I feel unimaginable happiness wasting time talking with women. I'm that type of human.
TheRoyalFamily is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 16 2013, 03:54 AM   #45
indolover
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

sonak wrote: View Post
I loved it, and to me, there is no "dilemma" there. If Sisko doesn't act, the UFP is in danger of losing the war.
Well the dilemma is at what cost will the Federation be saved. The cost is deceiving an empire into war.
indolover is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.