"In the Pale Moonlight" is very frequently voted for/named as a franchise favorite, too.
A bunch of Press stuff on TrekCore
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
Indeed I haven't, I just checked Wikipedia. But here's the thing about those doomsday-scenarios: After the story ends, they are finished. They didn't go on, and continue with "the further wacky adventures of the guy that killed millions to save even more during a trolley problem". This is a story you can tell only once(!), because after that, the world is fundamentally changed and your character is burned.
The same case. The episode itself is great! One of the most daring Trek has ever done. Seriously, it's wonderful. The problem is the following episode: After commiting fucking murder and treason to turn a war, Sisko should have been either trialed & jailed, or put himself out of the line by either resigning or commiting suicide. You just CAN'T continue on after that as if nothing ever happened and pretend he is the same guy as before. Which is just what they did. Sadly.
Last edited:
Well, I think we already knew that what trekkies like is different from what people like. Otherwise we'd all be talking about The Last jedi instead.
Again...who did Sisko murder?
By who? Who actually knows about it? Not very many people.
Are you serious with that last one?
Sure you can. People do things every day that they don't tell anyone about. You don't know what crazy shit the people you meet every day have been up to, and they go on living their lives as though everything is the same. Just because Sisko never mentions it again, that doesn't mean the show wants you to pretend it never happened. As he himself says, he can live with it.
Well true, but the claim was fan least favourite.
It's missing the whole point of that line to take it literally. The whole reason Sisko repeats the line "I can live with it" to himself is because he's trying to convince himself of the lie that he can live with it. He wouldn't have to repeatedly tell himself that if it were actually true. And it's obvious from Brooks's performance that he's failing to convince himself.
Still, I've never understood the tendency to attribute the crimes of "In the Pale Moonlight" to Sisko. Garak was the one who did those things, over Sisko's objections. Sisko just let himself be talked into them. I've always seen it as a case of Garak manipulating Sisko and leading him down a darker path than Sisko ever wanted. Sisko was just desperate enough to be vulnerable to that manipulation. And since Garak's crimes ultimately got the result Sisko had wanted, Sisko tried to ease his conscience by telling himself that the ends justified the means. But it's clear that it still troubled him.
We, the viewers, and the writers do. Having your fucking main character be a MURDERER and pretend it didn't happen, just because there were no other witnesses, is dumb and insulting to viewers. We know he murdered somebody. Even if he was only "complicit". To pretend the series, from this point onwards, ISN'T about "a murderer who walks free, because he evaded punishment" is lying to yourself and your audience.
The suicide was more in answer to the first one - Sisko using WMDs on families and children - which is how the original the episode is based on (Fail Safe) ended.
Edit: Also, Garak knows. He is one of the heroes (another supposed "good guy"). But how trustworthy is he really? If he wanted something illegal to help Cardassia in his mind, he'd have the perfect blackmail against Sisko, and the whole Federation, really.
WHO DID HE MURDER?
Attributing the crimes to Sisko is the only way that folks can convince themselves that the writers didn't wimp out on the tough stuff they pretend the show was addressing.
Also, his suicide would be justified, because he is the central element, and the one link to the Federation, in a massive conspiracy to lure an enitre, uninvolved species into a massive, costly war, simply because they couldn't win on their own terms. That must never come out, and he must ensure he could never be compromised or the link to the Federation ever be made public. That means drastic consequences.
Btw, just because you didn't personally pull the trigger, you are still at fault if it happens by your order (as was layed out in the episode), under your command, during a conspiracy you perpetuaded, even if you didn't wanted to know "the details" that order contains.
Again: The episode itself is fine. Very good even. But the writers decided to do a crass thing with the character. And then didn't have the balls to follow through with it. The problem is not the action - that is portrayed completely believable. It's the lack of consequences and follow-up of such a dramatic character change.
Last edited:
To go back to topic:
I have the raging suspicion that Cpt. Lorca is going to do something equally drastic to win (or end) the war with the klingons. But luckily he's not the main character, so I guess this time the perpetuator won't get off scott-free, but face the consequences of his (criminal) actions. I'm fine with that (although it sounds a little bit clichéd, evil british surprise villain and all).
But I'm still concerned about Burnham "starting" this whole war. Admittedly not as much as Sisko (who was an unequivocal war criminal - in fact a very interesting character because he was a sympathetic war criminal, but one nonetheless). So Burnham's character won't be "burned" by her action. But I have to admit not feeling perfectly fine with it anyway, at least how it is portrayed in the trailer. But I guess in the episode itself, her drastic action is probably going to be explained much better, and perhaps even the "right" thing to do, with the war being more an indirect consequence of her action, than her directly starting it. If so, all my concerns would be nullified immediately.
I have the raging suspicion that Cpt. Lorca is going to do something equally drastic to win (or end) the war with the klingons. But luckily he's not the main character, so I guess this time the perpetuator won't get off scott-free, but face the consequences of his (criminal) actions. I'm fine with that (although it sounds a little bit clichéd, evil british surprise villain and all).
But I'm still concerned about Burnham "starting" this whole war. Admittedly not as much as Sisko (who was an unequivocal war criminal - in fact a very interesting character because he was a sympathetic war criminal, but one nonetheless). So Burnham's character won't be "burned" by her action. But I have to admit not feeling perfectly fine with it anyway, at least how it is portrayed in the trailer. But I guess in the episode itself, her drastic action is probably going to be explained much better, and perhaps even the "right" thing to do, with the war being more an indirect consequence of her action, than her directly starting it. If so, all my concerns would be nullified immediately.
Dude. Senator Vreenak and everything who was on board with him on his shuttle? And Tolar, the shady alien forger, as part of the cover-up? Did I really needed to spell that out?
Again: Sisko didn't pull the trigger. He just gave the order (earlier in this episode), during an operation under his command, which wasn't sanctioned by Starfleet, aka during a personal conspiracy. That's maybe not "murder" but "conspiracy for murder". But the consequences are pretty much the same. The correct response would have been to turn himself in. But he didn't wanted to harm the war effort, with all his "the end justifies the means"-thinking. But he's not just a witness. He's complicit in all those crimes. Conspiring for murder, especially if under your lead, and let someone else carry it out is still murder, even if to a lesser degree.
Last edited:
It's made pretty clear in the episode that garak took the action of planting a bomb alone. He didn't even tell sisko, he had to put two and two together and then confront garak in his shop leading to the climax in the episode. In fact when the senator declared the Rod a fake Sisko let him go and awaited the fallout, rather than resorting to murder. He may have covered it up but that was the whole point of the episode, the things people have to do during war, do you protect paradise for billions by betraying ones own principles?
You can very easily argue as well that the death of that one senator and his guards was in the best interests of the Romulans anyway as the Dominion would never have let them have autonomous rule. Sisko was aware of that which was why he covered it up though it's made pretty clear in the final scene that despite that knowledge it would weigh on his conscience for a long long time.
You can very easily argue as well that the death of that one senator and his guards was in the best interests of the Romulans anyway as the Dominion would never have let them have autonomous rule. Sisko was aware of that which was why he covered it up though it's made pretty clear in the final scene that despite that knowledge it would weigh on his conscience for a long long time.
You need to watch the episode again. Sisko only conspired to fabricate evidence. His intention was that Vreenak would take the forgery to the Romulan Senate and convince them of its veracity. Garak acted on his own to kill Vreenak because he believed the intact forgery would be discovered and dismissed, whereas if it were found in the remains of a murdered senator's shuttle, its flaws would be interpreted as blast damage and the murder would make it convincing.
Now, yes, technically, legally, that would put Sisko on the hook as an accomplice to the murder, but it's an absolute falsehood to suggest that Sisko intended the murder to happen and "let" someone else carry it out. Garak acted unilaterally to escalate to murder, and Sisko's mistake was in failing to realize how ruthless Garak could be.
Imagine a story where, say, a con artist hires a crew to help him pull off a nonviolent scam to trick a millionaire into paying him a large sum of money, but unbeknownst to him, a member of his crew is a hardened killer and stabs the millionaire to death during the con. The con artist would legally be culpable for felony murder, since a death occurred as a result of the commission of the crime he instigated, but it would obviously be egregiously wrong to claim that the con artist led a conspiracy whose specific purpose was to commit murder and that he "let" someone else carry it out. The purpose of the conspiracy was to pull a con; the murder was out of the con artist's control and against his wishes.
That's actually quite a good example: Someone wants to do something illegal in the first place (a heist/a forgery). But one of the guys he hires goes one step too far (murder). But here is the thing: In the episode, Garak specifically asks Sisko whether he is willing to go one step further. He doesn't straight up tells him "I'm going to murder a bunch of dudes". But there is a scene in it, where he (in retrospect) specifically asks for allowence if he can go "too far". And Sisko says yes.
Now here is the thing: You can argue whether that is "murder" or not. It is specifically "conspiracy resulting in murder". If you go the legal route, that would be either "being an accessory for murder" or "being a conspirator for murder", depending on exactly how much Sisko knew in the first place. The argument can be made for either of those, since that part has been intentionally left a little vague in the episode. But nothing below.
Whatever the specifics now are, Sisko is a culprit in a murder case. But he didn't turn himself in, or go to authorities. Now WHY he does that is perfectly understandable - the war and everything, and I guess many of us would have acted the same had we brought ourself in such a situation. As I said, the epsiode is quite good, and makes his motives perfectly understandable.
But the real problem is: Sisko is not in the position of a moral authority after that. He is someone who sacrificed his personal convictions and everything he stands for "for the greater good". That is understandable, and maybe even admirable, depending on who you ask. But he is NOT a "good Captain" anymore. He is a moral pariah. Someone who, in the fight against monsters, himself became a monster.
Now all that is interesting stuff. Stuff that the new Battlestar Galactica greatly explored, since it basically started at this place, and was an entire exploration of "what happens after the unthinkable has happened". It was also made by the same writers. The problem is, they didn't tackle those issues after the episode "In the pale moonlight". And they should have. Because that was a point, where his character made a complete 180°, from the righteous Captain, to a self-righteous Harvey Dent.
But they didn't treated it this way. They made him do those things. And then acted as if they never happened. This is one of the things that really should have had catched up to him after the war ended, and him having to face the consequences of it. A shame they never did.
That they completely forgot that Garak, one of the more shady Cardassians - and everyone who allies himself with him after the war - now has universe-changing blackmail against Sisko and the Federation is just a sad bonus.
I'd seen people rave about the holographic screens before, but I've only just seen the video and realised that it's because they're real life holographic screens and not stuff added in post a la the Kelvin movies and every other sci-fi out there. Very cool!
Garak killed Tolar and Vreenek, without bothering to inform Sisko of his plans because he knew Sisko would never approve of it. But this is Season 5? 6? Sisko should have had an inkling - we knew Garak was involved in the Obsidian Order before Tain exiled him from Cardassia. Sisko had to have known by now that there was more to Garak than "just a simple tailor." And Cardassian's aren't known for doing things by halves.
The mission was sanctioned by Starfleet as a 'Black Op' but as the CO in charge of implementing the mission he has to take responsibility for his subordinates actions.
Charge of Murder: The forger was in Klingon Death Row. Instead of the klingons executing him, it was Sisko.
Vreenek was under diplomatic immunity, presumably, but a combat op would likely not recognize a senators shuttle as a non-combatant - the romulans have been known to use diplomatic missions as cover for combat operations.
The difference is that Sisko feels no regret for blowing up a Romulan BOP but has a hard time pulling the trigger on a civilian who never got a chance to defend himself.
Similar threads
