WTF BBQ.
"Conspiracy" vs. "The Neutral Zone"
- Thread starter suarezguy
- Start date
GLHB.
Datalore? Yuk!
You're thinking of Q Who?
You're thinking of Angel One.
I don't see the intent of TNZ as to be smug, I see it as to exposit Gene's views on how human culture ought to progress.
I think all the accusations of 'Smugness' or 'Elitism' in TNG are more anti-liberal cudgels than actual insightful commentary on the episode. The problem with TNZ is just how poorly the 20th century humans were written. They were written as Gene Roddenberry's criticism of 20th century culture, and come off as one dimensional in that regard and missing the point. TNZ writes 20th century humans the way it writes alien cultures, something exoticized and unable to comprehend outside its bubble. You'd think somebody capable of making millions of dollars would be smart enough to expect cultural change and would be focusing more on figuring out the culture to get himself back in power than he would just whining that he can't immediately throw his weight around. And a hedonistic musician, wouldn't three seconds of exposure to the holodeck make him forget all about the 'boob-tube'?
If they made the episode about 20th century humans adapting to the 24th century instead of just whining about it, it might have worked.
I think all the accusations of 'Smugness' or 'Elitism' in TNG are more anti-liberal cudgels than actual insightful commentary on the episode. The problem with TNZ is just how poorly the 20th century humans were written. They were written as Gene Roddenberry's criticism of 20th century culture, and come off as one dimensional in that regard and missing the point. TNZ writes 20th century humans the way it writes alien cultures, something exoticized and unable to comprehend outside its bubble. You'd think somebody capable of making millions of dollars would be smart enough to expect cultural change and would be focusing more on figuring out the culture to get himself back in power than he would just whining that he can't immediately throw his weight around. And a hedonistic musician, wouldn't three seconds of exposure to the holodeck make him forget all about the 'boob-tube'?
If they made the episode about 20th century humans adapting to the 24th century instead of just whining about it, it might have worked.
I get what you're saying, but I see from the other end ... I found the crew's open disdain for the behaviors of the survivors odd, and frankly very unFederation-like. It was like they could not comprehend that 20th century people behaved differently, or had different values and morals.
True, Offenhouse was a jerk of epic proportion, although I know people like that. Not surprising he was the only one of the three that didn't find a companion of sorts among the crew.
People say the early TNG characters are "smug" and "elitist" for exactly the reasons you cite. The show portrayed 20th Century humans as nimrods who should be actively derided for their savagery, and then had Picard and others expound endlessly on how far 24th Century humans had come. In other words, the creators of the show were painting their audience as out of touch and "backward" with no recognition of the potential for improvement or acknowledgement of things that are being done right in the 20th C., while simultaneously having the heroes look down from ivory towers of superiority. There are more effective ways to show that humans can achieve greatness and move past 20th Century greed and corruption. Kirk did it well on several occasions. So, yeah, I'm as liberal as the next guy, and I'm going to say it has more to do with hack writing than my political agenda.
I don't think it's smug and elitist to think that perhaps, in the future, humans can behave better than they do now. And I think you and I would have a similar attitude toward a 16th century human. "I am a DUKE! I have the right to treat commoners however I like! It was their duty to do my bidding the moment they were born! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to have my wife secretly killed for laughing too loudly in front of my friends."
We can agree though it was very bad writing.
We can agree though it was very bad writing.
The idea of presenting 24th century humans as more "evolved" and "enlightened" in and of itself didn't really bother me. What did bug me was that as presented, there was nowhere to go from there. I mean, how would the Enterprise D characters relate to 27th century humans? I can't believe all the evolving and enlightening has reached its zenith in the 24th century, but the show rarely, if ever, presented this possibility.
Kirk mentioned this all the time, indicating that despite all they'd achieved by then, humans still had a long way to go.
Kirk mentioned this all the time, indicating that despite all they'd achieved by then, humans still had a long way to go.
My problem with it stemmed from the first few minutes of the first episode. In "Encounter at Farpoint" we have this exchange:
So, the thing is, first of all, in-universe Picard is standing there in uniform, belittling uniforms of a previous era without any sense of irony or self-awareness. And, second of all, the writers have a character in costume, attempting to characterize real-world military uniforms as costumes, again, without any sense of irony or self-awareness. That's how the series leads off with its premise of the superiority of 24th century humans: completely ineffectually. It's bad, ill-conceived, and embarrassing in all respects.
So, the thing is, first of all, in-universe Picard is standing there in uniform, belittling uniforms of a previous era without any sense of irony or self-awareness. And, second of all, the writers have a character in costume, attempting to characterize real-world military uniforms as costumes, again, without any sense of irony or self-awareness. That's how the series leads off with its premise of the superiority of 24th century humans: completely ineffectually. It's bad, ill-conceived, and embarrassing in all respects.
You're mostly right. And to a degree, the 24th century is kind of arbitrary. Science fiction, though, is usually commentary on contemporary problems. The 24th century is far enough in the future that it may as well be the 27th century. Let's assume that human beings have been around for 150,000 years or somewhere in that neighborhood. The fact that we cannot do better than religious wars and capitalism bothers a lot of progressive secular types, so that that stuff is history is really the point of the show, at least in TNG's early seasons.
As the show goes on, though, it becomes clear that humans are not without problems (we have to have conflict, after all). There is still a tendency for aggression and territorial conflict and so on, which is evolutionarily sound.
The way in which TNG presents a lot of this is cringe-worthy, and that's probably the main issue.
Great point. I never thought of it like that, but now that I see it I can tell I really agree.
I'm not sure what the 'breaking point' is (my guess would be about the 25th century), but oftentimes people from far in the future tend to be presented as cold, methodical, placid, whereas in centuries closer to ours, they tend to be shown more like 'us'.
This reminds me of when I saw some outtakes from a 1950's instructional film. The actors were amazingly contemporary in their off-camera behavior and speech. Without realizing it, I think I had been conditioned to expect Ward Cleaver-ish types or something! In this, I could easily have believed that these were modern actors acting in a 1950's setting.
The Neutral Zone episode contradicts Q Who because The bases along the Romulan border had been scooped up yet the Borg were a lot more than a year away from the Federation in the later episode!
JB
JB
Last edited:
There's more than one borg ship. It could be that one was scouting the neutral zone inTNZ. That slightly contradicts Q's lines, though.
Q's line? Which line exactly? Do you mean Guinan's line? From transcript:
If you read that line as an assertion that the Borg still hadn't reached Federation space yet, then yeah, I think it would contract the premise that the outposts mentioned in "The Neutral Zone" had been scooped up by the Borg.
The intention originally that it was in fact the Borg who were responsible in "The Neutral Zone" is discussed at Memory Alpha:
Since "Q Who" had followed a change in the original plan, that might explain how the discrepancy crept in. The scooping up method mentioned in "The Neutral Zone" was the same used in "The Best of Both Worlds", so I never had any problem making the connection. Even if the idea that the Borg were to be responsible for scooping up the Neutral Zone outposts had been abandoned by the time "Q Who" was scripted, I'd always assumed, anyway, that they'd returned to original intent of the Borg having been responsible by the time "The Best of Both Worlds" was written.
Ah, yes, you're right. It was Guinan who said it. That actually makes for a handy retcon as we can just assume she didn't realize how close the Borg already were to Federation space.
And, yeah, I was aware of the change in storyline. I still wish they had gone with the original idea of the Borg wiping out the Romulans and coming after the FEderation. Although, given the quality of writing in s2 it's probably better that they went a different direction.
^ Oops. I see I had some typos in that post. For example, I meant "contradict" instead of "contract".
Interesting. I see both of those as much the same.
I don't agree with this at all.
I do find it rather telling that Picard (in one of his many lectures to Offenhouse) would say that control over one's own life and destiny is an illusion. So if Picard believes that people don't control their own lives, then logically speaking, he must think that someone else (or something else) does. And what would that be? The State?
Last edited:
Based on certain applications of the PD you get the feeling that "fate" might be the answer. And Riker does mention a "galactic plan" or some other such nonsense in Where Silence Has Lease. I don't think this is what the creators were aiming for at all, but there are definitely some unfortunate moments in the series that imply fatalism.
Similar threads
