Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 1x10 - "A Quality of Mercy"

[Ometiklan]

...It is an odd choice for the episode to make so much of the change and to not make the decisive difference clear; it almost seems to be a disaster independent of Pike being the wrong man for the moment, which is the apparent theme they were trying to communicate.

I think if they were doing a time travel episode where Pike was supposed to fix the timeline to restore it to what it should be or even to "put right what once went wrong", then the specifics would be important. But the show as presented (especially given the almost offhand dialog about how in all alternative Pike-lives futures Spock still dies) is more about just that it does go wrong and learning how to live with that. The minutia don't matter as much as the character growth. And I also disagree that the message was Pike is the wrong man for the moment. That is one of several conclusions that you could derive from the events portrayed, but I don't think that was the actually message the writers were trying to send us.

For all the flourish, the message of the season was "It's important to history that Pike be horribly injured because he is a bad captain, and Kirk is a way better one, and Pike would have totally messed up everything Kirk accomplished in TOS."

Can't tell how serious you are about this and maybe you are just being reductive on purpose...but I disagree. This episode was to say "if Pike tries to change his fate, in this case, things go badly." It is not a detailed examination of comparative captain's abilities and it certainly isn't trying to paint the captain/lead of the show as bad.

I think you're being much too hard on the episode (and the series) overall... but yeah, I agree that the theme of this one was a hard pill to swallow.

Basically, the writers (different ones, to be fair) backed themselves into a corner by letting Pike glimpse his future (in DSC)... and now that he's the star of a full-fledged prequel series, they kinda have to deal with the implications of that while still, somehow, rationalizing having things turn out the same. It's awkward at best....

For me, I think they have done a good job addressing this rather awkward situation the DIS writers put them in. I think the butterfly effect/unanticipated consequences explanation is probably the best way to "solve" the problem. TNG ran into this very problem many times in time travel episodes where there was foreknowledge. They tended to solve it with someone, often Riker, saying "but how do we know changing course isn't what gets us into trouble in first place?" and Picard agreeing to stay the course. That was a lame, not remotely satisfying excuse. At least here in SNW, the butterfly effect/unanticipated consequences are a reasonable justification. But I could have done without them saying "in all possible alt futures Spock dies, and we need him" - that was a little unnecessary.

The episode should’ve been a more intimate story, Kirk, Ortegas weird turn as Stiles and the Romulan Preator and fleet were really unnecessary. It should’ve been about Pike either running from or losing to the Bird of Prey and having to deal with the idea that he may not have been the right person for the job.

The episode was unnecessarily cluttered.

But that would have been a different episode entirely. Your episode, not the one they were actually trying to tell. They weren't trying to examine the different captaining approaches and doing a comparative analysis vs the circumstances (though that would be an interesting episode in itself). They were providing a dramatic portrayal of simply how attempting to change the future could, and would, go wrong despite Pike's (and Farragut-Kirk's) best efforts.

But the question of "should our heroes try to change/improve the future?" is an interesting question. In this case, regarding Pike and the cadets, the answer is said to be no. But, it that true in all cases? Is there a Trek episode that addresses whether a character (with whatever degree of foreknowledge they have) should or should not try to improve the future, even if it changes what is "known" will happen? Would that also have implications on whether characters should try to improve circumstances in general, all the time, even when they don't know what the future holds? I can't think of a specific time travel episode that addresses this idea right now (there probably is one), but it is interesting question.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I was being a little facetious but if you drill down past the surface narrative to what they’re really showing you, Pike needed to be removed from history because he simply does not have the temperament to handle enemies who just don’t want peace.

The show just said that in a nicer way.

If Pike was commander of DS9 he would have lost the alpha quadrant.

 

[fireproof78]

I can't think of a specific time travel episode that addresses this idea right now (there probably is one), but it is interesting question.

The one thing I keep going back to is The City on the Edge of Forever, and how one person made all the difference of the Federation's existence or nonexistence. I feel like this episode was highlighting that conflict that Pike had over trying to save lives and realizing that doing so led to, as you note, a lot of butterfly effects that result in a more negative outcome for multiple parties.

 

[lawman]

Mine is not a supposition, but the actual prime timeline. Spock "surmises" but in error. He knows that (in this timeline) Pike never left Enterprise, explosion hurt no one. But he doesn't know WHEN Pike left Enterprise. Pike is also told (by Pike) that EVERY timeline where Pike subverts the future, Spock dies, but he needs to not die. He has BIg stuff to do.

That would seem plausible, except... in the alternate timeline, it stands to reason that Pike was still offered the promotion away from Enterprise, and turned it down for whatever reason. It also stands to reason that Future!Spock would know this. His "surmise" is in the story specifically to get Pike, and by extension the audience, to infer that Pike is still with the ship because he avoided the accident. But that's not a logical interpretation of the sequence of events.

Nope. The entertainment value depends on far more than the minutiae. Cinematography, performance, direction, set design, story (far more important than plot), score…these are but some of the elements that contribute to the enjoyment of entertainment—and many are more important than plot. Getting hung up on minutiae that matters little to the broad strokes of the story is tiresome and an invitation to disappointment...

My initial post mentioned several other aspects of the episode, including ones I enjoyed. But FWIW, the subsequent conversation has focused on aspects of plot logic. And where that is concerned, I readily confess that in most instances I don't think of stories in "broad strokes." To be sure, stories aren't written in broad strokes. The devil is in the details, right?

In particular, I just automatically pick up on elements of story chronology, and it does bother me when they don't fit together. Not in an "OMG, this story is Totally Ruined!!" sense, but yeah, it bothers me. For instance, I read a novel recently (a Trek novel, in fact, by David Mack, whose writing I quite enjoy overall), and after an intro sequence there's a major heading labeled "TEN DAYS EARLIER," from which point the story proceeds... except it then proceeds to include more than ten days' worth of events before reaching the point where it left off, even assuming maximum compression and essentially instant travel times. I literally can't not notice that kind of thing. And it would have been such an easy fix!

I’m a professional historian. If I insisted that all historical drama films be consistent with actual history (as some of my colleagues do), it would be impossible for me to enjoy any feature film based on historical events.

That's a bit different, though. That's about external consistency. Speaking as a lawyer, I understand how and why stories take some liberties with (e.g.) courtroom procedures, and make allowances for things that aren't egregious whoppers. What we're talking about here is internal consistency, where a story is at odds with itself.

The accident and promotion aren't connected but only Pike and Spock's fate. What we saw in "Quality of Mercy" is just the one Alternate Future Pike is in. Alternate Future Pike apparently was shown different combinations of the future where he tries different things to avoid his fate but Spock dies anyway. ...

ALT FUTURE PIKE: But the monks showed me something simple. Every time we change the path, he dies.​

Well, yeah. But that handwavy line toward the end kinda undermines the whole episode: it's no longer "here's a bad future worth avoiding"; instead, it's "every possible future where you don't get maimed, Spock dies, and the whole galaxy suffers." That's basically "fate has it in for you." It's a heckuva sweeping generalization to swallow from a single example, so it would really help if the specific example shown is at least one where the "Spock dies" result actually does flow clearly and logically from Pike avoiding the accident... rather than from him refusing the promotion.

Akiva Goldsman has already said SNW is doing their own take on TOS where some thing are changed so don't expect things to match up with TOS. But, overall timeline still works between QoM and BoT+Menagerie... YMMV.

Agreed. FYI, I re-read Goldsman's interview and he more specifically says he/they "will deviate/re-write canon if they believe it will get them a good story" which I interpret as they are doing their own take on TOS. YMMV.

So what I’ve said all along, they are going to do what they want to do, and Prime is simply marketing for fans who can’t let go of the past. ... TOS will eventually be the one written out of the universe it created.

Yeah, seems that way. Although at this point, I'd really say "has been," not "will be." Goldsman is basically saying "we'll keep the parts we like." That's understandable from a creative POV, but from an audience POV it signals "this is not the same reality." It's an alternate version of a familiar fictional universe.

To be clear, I like the show on its own terms. But to my mind, there's no way I can not see it as (part of) a reboot. It's just a slightly less drastic one than the JJAbrams version.

It could be. Who is to say that this timeline is any less correct than the other?

It's not even a matter of "correct," or better or worse. It's just sufficiently different that it's not plausibly the same reality.

And yeah, that's a personal judgment call, of course. YMMV.

They're saying they will change things, not that there's a different timeline. That much was obvious from moment the Pike showed up.

"This is George Washington's original axe. Over time, one subsequent owner replaced the head, and another replaced the handle. But it's still the original!"

I’m fine with same overall multiverse.

Yeah, that works for me.

Heck, Trek being what it is, there are literally specific time-travel stories over the years that we can point to to rationalize the differences.

[The Doctor Who example shows] the utter inanity of a writer, Chris Chibnall, who'd make it clear he has very little patience for fiddly details and dot-connecting, choosing to do a kind of story that's entirely about making the most of an extremely tight, limited set of circumstances, where every fiddly detail and connected dot matters. The kind of story that tells you by its premise, "Now, pay close attention, every difference and detail could be critical" and then just really half-asses it.

Likewise, I don't understand the allure of doing a story about the butterfly effect of a decision and making it, uncommented on, actually depend on a change to a totally different decision. Being an alternate history, the episode functions by comparison to what we know already happened, it's not the time to be loose with what's going on.

Couldn't have said it better. Again, I'm not as critical as you are of the show as a whole, but on this point I agree wholeheartedly.

(Although I admit, Who being what it is, that I go in making way more allowances for "wibbly wobbly timey wimey" ambiguities.)

I also disagree that the message was Pike is the wrong man for the moment. That is one of several conclusions that you could derive from the events portrayed, but I don't think that was the actually message the writers were trying to send us.

Hrm. Interesting to ponder (and I'd hope that wasn't their main intent). Although the "fate!!" conclusion isn't a particularly comfortable one either.

I think the butterfly effect/unanticipated consequences explanation is probably the best way to "solve" the problem. TNG ran into this very problem many times in time travel episodes where there was foreknowledge. ... But I could have done without them saying "in all possible alt futures Spock dies, and we need him" - that was a little unnecessary.

Yeah, same here.

Its kinda weird how the story undermines its own premises, really. First of all, the timeline Pike visited wasn't even the future as it would plausibly happen... since from the moment he entered it, command decisions were being made not by the Pike native to that timeline, but instead by a Pike missing his last seven years of life experience and trying to play catch-up with events. Second, while the story implies at the beginning that how he handles things matters (so the experience is worth living through and learning from), it states at the end that it actually doesn't matter, because his mere presence there inevitably produces a bad outcome.

 

[David cgc]

But the question of "should our heroes try to change/improve the future?" is an interesting question. In this case, regarding Pike and the cadets, the answer is said to be no.

Except it's yes. Our heroes are always trying to change/improve the future, that's what life is. It's their job. They intervene in situations to try and improve the future. Indeed, back in 1966, that's what Pike was doing in the first place when he rushed into an irradiated room to pull out a bunch of unconscious cadets, he was trying to change the future from one where they died to one where they lived.

You're right that SNW was handed a shit-sandwich by DSC's decision to tell Pike about the freak accident where he'd be maimed, but SNW's choice to double-down on it by establishing it wasn't just the vision of the moment, he remembered context and details like the date and the people who were there narrowed their creative options so much more, and then establishing that he's willing to try to change that fate (after the SNW writers made the decision to give him the tools to make that even possible, mind you), they're forced into this insane melodramatic contortion that's left them saying that Pike must not merely live through, but has to tacitly or explicitly orchestrate profound trauma to a group of cadets, kill two of them, and maim himself, and not even because of anything they themselves will do with their new lease on life, but because some sadistic cosmic force will contrive a way to make Spock die no matter what, in an infinity of possibilities, Pike or the cadets do with their lives.

Even if I stipulate that Pike didn't totally blow it with the Romulans, the episode still unintentionally makes him a worse person by turning someone who wouldn't give up on saving a bunch of people's lives into someone who will kill them himself like some sci-fi Abraham proving his devotion to the infallibility of Klingon time-crystals. The text of the original story is that Pike ended up in that chair because he wouldn't give up on rescuing those cadets, to the point of his own death, and SNW reorchestrated things so that he would give up on them. I don't know what that says about modern audiences or sophisticated 21st century storytelling or anything like that, but I know I don't think it's an improvement.

 

[BillJ]

To be clear, I like the show on its own terms. But to my mind, there's no way I can not see it as (part of) a reboot. It's just a slightly less drastic one than the JJAbrams version.

I think, overall, we have the first live action CBS show that is very good.

I’m still mystified about people clutching to the Prime timeline no matter what changes. I mean, we have Uhura serving on the Enterprise in SNW, yet has no clue who T’Pring is in “Amok Time”. I know people will come running to say they didn’t actually meet, but it is incredibly hard to keep a secret in a small community. Then people will say well it isn’t important.

I have a long held question about the whole thing: if nothing in the Prime timeline is important, then why is it so important these shows be Prime?

If they made Jim Kirk a woman in 2260, people would say it either isn’t important or we have no idea what Kirk was doing in 2260. Just to maintain that illusion.

 

[Nerys Myk]

"This is George Washington's original axe. Over time, one subsequent owner replaced the head, and another replaced the handle. But it's still the original!"

It’s a bunch of fictional events in a fictional timeline not a physical object. Fiction by it’s very nature is mutable. Stories change and evolve over time. The only physical object here is the recordings of the episodes. And they aren’t going anywhere. No one is gonna erase or edit your tapes/DVDs/digital recordings.

 

[Unicron]

We don't even know what a "Fleet Captain" does.

For my part, I kind of like what FASA did for their RPG. Initially they said that fleet captain was only a formal title and not a rank, for senior captains who weren't flag officers like commodores, but then the TNG Officer's Manual made it into an actual flag rank (above a commodore and below an admiral) that was fairly rare. Fleet captains oversaw the development of Starfleet's newer and most advanced ships, and there were only three at the time (one each overseeing the Galaxy and Excelsior/Alaska projects, and one for other ships like cruisers). Fleet captains also controlled the composition and deployment of ships within a given task force or fleet, as needed.

They could of course also act as senior commanders on a ship or base, but they were more of an advisory position in technology development and command operation it seems. Not unlike how the TNG OM also has the rank of Branch Admiral for senior officers who've had dedicated careers in a given field, like the surgeon general being a medical branch admiral and the inspector general overseeing the function of ship and base operations. Or how in TOS we often saw a commodore commanding a starbase.

 

[Noname Given]

I think, overall, we have the first live action CBS show that is very good.

I’m still mystified about people clutching to the Prime timeline no matter what changes. I mean, we have Uhura serving on the Enterprise in SNW, yet has no clue who T’Pring is in “Amok Time”. I know people will come running to say they didn’t actually meet, but it is incredibly hard to keep a secret in a small community. Then people will say well it isn’t important.

I have a long held question about the whole thing: if nothing in the Prime timeline is important, then why is it so important these shows be Prime?

If they made Jim Kirk a woman in 2260, people would say it either isn’t important or we have no idea what Kirk was doing in 2260. Just to maintain that illusion.

I'm amazed some fans try to claim Star Trek has been soooo consistent with continuity to the point that any small glitch (no larger or smaller than others in the past 55+ years) suddenly causes them to cry :Reboot/Alternate Universe" when some of the stuff in the Berman Trek era was as, or more egregious - yet not many back then were crying out - 'Alternate Timeline'.

The only really consistent thing about Star Trek's continuity is that its always been inconsistent whether its TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, STD, Short Treks, STP, STLD, SNW; or the TOS or TNG feature films.

 

[Ometiklan]

...Even if I stipulate that Pike didn't totally blow it with the Romulans, the episode still unintentionally makes him a worse person by turning someone who wouldn't give up on saving a bunch of people's lives into someone who will kill them himself like some sci-fi Abraham proving his devotion to the infallibility of Klingon time-crystals. The text of the original story is that Pike ended up in that chair because he wouldn't give up on rescuing those cadets, to the point of his own death, and SNW reorchestrated things so that he would give up on them. I don't know what that says about modern audiences or sophisticated 21st century storytelling or anything like that, but I know I don't think it's an improvement.

I look at this as more of a "trolley problem", though not examined as thoroughly as they did in the very philosophically centered "The Good Place". On the one had you have saving a couple of cadets and Pike's non-chair-bound future vs on the other millions of lives, 'peace' with the Romulans, Spock, and all the positive things Spock will do. Pike is willing to make the choice when he only knows the costs on one side, but then he gets a cheat code where he learns the costs on the other side. I still think it holds up as he is making the less costly decision, even though it is more costly for him personally. And who knows, maybe in the series finale in 6 (or more?) years from now, Pike will manage to save those other two cadets at the last minute, but (unfortunately) still at the cost of his own future.

...I have a long held question about the whole thing: if nothing in the Prime timeline is important, then why is it so important these shows be Prime?

To me, having one big Prime timeline is important because all the events matter; they all contribute to the overall tapestry. If each is just its own potential timeline spinoff, what is the point other than "wouldn't this be cool?" Allowing everything to change in any given episode to meet the needs of the new story, just writing it off as a new universe, robs the story of dramatic weight. If characters' backstories, traits, or knowledge can change at any given time, that means there is very little drama. Nothing is consistent so there are no limitations or consequences.

I do like the occasional "what if" story, if it is good and well-told. For example, "Year of Hell" is my favorite Voyager episode. But it does hurt the show and franchise a little that, for the most part, none of the events really occurred or matter to the Prime timeline. It was a great time travel story on its own, and we the audience learn what our crew is like under that pressure, so not all is lost. But they could have found a way to "reset" the timeline but retain the experiences and developments of the Voyager ship and crew. That would have been some amazing changes - improving the show (actually fulfilling more of its premise and getting some nice character development too) and the overall story arc of the Trek universe.

That said, while each of the canonical stories or arcs are important to the overall fabric, not every single thread is crucial. Sure, you don't want to have an episode that ignores Picard being an intellectual and an accomplished diplomat, or one that ignores Kirk's drive to do what is right in a given situation. But that is a far cry from whether or not Uhura knows who T'Pring is. As long as the show tries to stay within canon (not overtly breaking it by having Uhrua and T'Pring meet; or Kirk and Pike meet before Pike's promotion) and only changes the minor things (like if anyone on SNW Enterprise met T'Pring or Kirk), it is still one Prime universe and all contributes to the whole.

Though, I would like to see some eventual 'in text' explanation of how or why the Gorn from SNW are different from TOS - to at least paper over the differences and the 1960s' limitations of creature effects.

 

[BillJ]

Allowing everything to change in any given episode to meet the needs of the new story, just writing it off as a new universe, robs the story of dramatic weight.

Poor writing robs a story of its dramatic weight, not what universe it takes place in. YMMV.

 

[Ometiklan]

Poor writing robs a story of its dramatic weight, not what universe it takes place in. YMMV.

Yeah, but one type of poor writing is changing or missing crucial details of the characters or setting that establish the dramatic, emotional, or psychological limits on the situation. This could be simply because a writer didn't know the history, or it got messed up in the collaborative process of drafting, editing, etc. Also, in a "what if" movie, for example, a writer might have the time to establish all the rules of situations or character differences that allow the new story to have weight. That time may not be available to a writer of an individual Trek episode (even within the context of a serialized season like Discovery, where writers or writing teams still have limited time and latitude to write everything they "need" for a story) to lay out all the relevant differences and changes - to establish and support the new "reality". The writing quality itself might be excellent, but if it ignores crucial elements of the character or setting (inherent to the universe it is set in), that will undermine the impact of the story. Hence, the setting, the "universe it takes place in" does matter. See, again, "Year of Hell" - great story, but less than it could have been as it doesn't impact the characters in the long term.

 

[BillJ]

Yeah, but one type of poor writing is changing or missing crucial details of the characters or setting that establish the dramatic, emotional, or psychological limits on the situation.

That really isn’t what a multiverse is. A multiverse isn’t anything goes. Watching Star Trek (2009), the characters are recognizable as the ones I grew up with in TOS, just with situations being slightly different allowing new stories to be told without constraints created by previous stories. Even Mirror Spock is recognizably Spock in “Mirror, Mirror”.

I’ve been a fan for a while, I can’t tell you how many end of mission stories I’ve seen, how many beginning of missions I’ve seen. Every time I sit down with Trek, I want to be entertained and the “Prime” timeline is an unnecessary restraint on telling good stories, which Akiva Goldsman has said they aren’t going to allow. They are going to do what they want, while CBS peddles that this is all one thing.

 

[UssGlenn]

I have a long held question about the whole thing: if nothing in the Prime timeline is important, then why is it so important these shows be Prime?

To me, having one big Prime timeline is important because all the events matter; they all contribute to the overall tapestry. If each is just its own potential timeline spinoff, what is the point other than "wouldn't this be cool?" Allowing everything to change in any given episode to meet the needs of the new story, just writing it off as a new universe, robs the story of dramatic weight. If characters' backstories, traits, or knowledge can change at any given time, that means there is very little drama. Nothing is consistent so there are no limitations or consequences.

There's an episode of Bluey called "Shadowlands". In it, Coco, the poodle, wants to change the rules of the game (they can only walk where there is shadow) when one of them has trouble with it. Bluey insists they can't change the rules. By the end of the episode, CoCo has learned that the creativity needed to follow the rules makes the game more fun.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[BillJ]

There's an episode of Bluey called "Shadowlands". In it, Coco, the poodle, wants to change the rules of the game (they can only walk where there is shadow) when one of them has trouble with it. Bluey insists they can't change the rules. By the end of the episode, CoCo has learned that the creativity needed to follow the rules makes the game more fun.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

What rules? It is fiction, not a game. I have no issues with people who want to see it all as one thing, I just don’t. Made 55 years after the original, with none of the creators in front of or behind the camera, makes it a new show to me, independent of what came before.

 

[Mudd]

They're telling good stories on this show. I like it; I like the characters, I like all the visual art. I don't give a fuck where it fits into some hypothetical "tapestry." Life's too short.

 

[Dukhat]

I'm amazed some fans try to claim Star Trek has been soooo consistent with continuity to the point that any small glitch (no larger or smaller than others in the past 55+ years) suddenly causes them to cry :Reboot/Alternate Universe" when some of the stuff in the Berman Trek era was as, or more egregious - yet not many back then were crying out - 'Alternate Timeline'.

The only really consistent thing about Star Trek's continuity is that its always been inconsistent whether its TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, STD, Short Treks, STP, STLD, SNW; or the TOS or TNG feature films.

There's a difference between not being consistent in a 55+ year franchise, and not being consistent on purpose.

The 'visual reboot' was done on purpose. Making a crewmember a descendant of Khan yet having people who served with this person not acknowledge this when they found Khan in Space Seed was done on purpose. Etc., etc.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing. The showrunners are correct to say that things might be inconsistent with the story they are telling because the story is more important than being consistent with a 55 year old show. But then why do they need that 55 year old show as a crutch? Just say it's a reboot and be done with it.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Just say it's a reboot and be done with it.

And they should also be very specific that ONLY THIS SHOW (and maybe Discovery) is a reboot, and the other shows are continuing the TOS/TNG timeline.

Seriously, the producers should say it takes place in the Disco-Timeline and then we can be intrigued by the differences instead of annoyed by them. It'll have zero impact on all the people who just want stories and don't care about timelines.

 

[Dukhat]

And they should also be very specific that ONLY THIS SHOW (and maybe Discovery) is a reboot, and the other shows are continuing the TOS/TNG timeline.

Seriously, the producers should say it takes place in the Disco-Timeline and then we can be intrigued by the differences instead of annoyed by them.

CBS doesn't care about distinguishing that.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

CBS doesn't care about distinguishing that.

I care too much to care that they don't care.