Picard says something like, 'I don't know how you made it onto the Enterprise...' which got me thinking: who had the final say in her getting the Enterprise assignment? Obviously it wasn't Picard. Does Riker get to approve most of the transfers, etc? How does this process work exactly? Does a division head make a submission and Riker (or other senior officer) gets final approval?
Why didn't Picard know Sito Jaxa ['Lower Decks'] was on his ship?
- Thread starter DostoyevskyClone
- Start date
Yeah, stupid question. I forgot about what he said later. I saw a clip on YouTube that only had the quote I posted. Thanks.
It wasn't a stupid question, no one can remember every detail of every episode all the time.
I can!
yeah, you'd be surprisedIt wasn't a stupid question, no one can remember every detail of every episode all the time.
Furthermore, he mislead her as part of the overall test of her character for the mission.
The use of her in that episode was very, very well done. Lower Decks is one of TNG's better episodes. (Though one wonders how she graduated and got a commission on the Enterprise before Wesley did.
)I believe Riker (and Troi, for whatever reason) often oversaw the actual crew as seen by the crew evaluations and such that are seen throughout the series, which Picard isn't involved in. I would imagine this is relatively consistent with how it would operate in the real world as well.
IIRC they were the same year and both held back a year following the incident in "The First Duty."
another gem of an episode and one of my all time favorites.
A
Amaris
Guest
Yeah, I'm good from TOS all the way up until the end of DS9, and then my knowledge goes all "bits and piecey" on me.
(Though one wonders how she graduated and got a commission on the Enterprise before Wesley did.
She was less annoying than Wes.
The use of her in that episode was very, very well done. Lower Decks is one of TNG's better episodes. (Though one wonders how she graduated and got a commission on the Enterprise before Wesley did.
I've always kind of felt the opposite myself. The first part of Sito's story, about her finding redemption, is indeed very good (especially since she's one of the only two LD crewmembers who will ultimately matter - Ogawa being the other
). But I think the way the mission was handled and that she was apparently killed was poorly done, because it pretty much ruined the development they had going IMO. One could always argue that it proved she had what it took to be a good officer, but I don't see why that would necessitate her sacrifice. I also found it puzzling that Picard would mention her death to the crew when the mission was classified and presumably would have had strong repercussions for the politics between the Federation and the Cardassians. If she'd survived, it's likely that neither she nor the senior staff would have been able to give a lot of details, so why would they toss the secrecy away when it seemed Sito had been lost? Many real clandestine missions don't work that way.
Her mission was classified, but that doesn't mean she can just disappear and no one will ask questions. Picard didn't say what happened, only that she was "lost in the line of duty".
Picard has two options; to inform the crew that Sito was KIA, or lie and tell them that "Sito was reassigned, and will never contact any of her friends ever again so don't look for her or ask about her."
Picard has two options; to inform the crew that Sito was KIA, or lie and tell them that "Sito was reassigned, and will never contact any of her friends ever again so don't look for her or ask about her."
True, but the second answer in some respects seems more plausible. People can naturally ask questions, as Lavelle brings up while she's preparing for the mission, but that doesn't mean necessarily that he would receive answers as a junior officer.
To me, the real problem isn't the question of Sito being brave or lacking responsibility, by any means; the problem is that the way her implied death is described, there's no way of knowing if she died bravely trying to complete the mission, or if she just had bad luck and got killed trying to do the escape part. It's the same issue I have with Tasha's death in "Skin of Evil." Armus kills her just because he can, in a manner befitting a nameless redshirt, and the fact that she's a major character doesn't give her death any more meaning. It's purely arbitrary because the script requires it to be.
People can naturally ask questions, as Lavelle brings up while she's preparing for the mission, but that doesn't mean necessarily that he would receive answers as a junior officer. To me, the real problem isn't the question of Sito being brave or lacking responsibility, by any means; the problem is that the way her implied death is described, there's no way of knowing if she died bravely trying to complete the mission, or if she just had bad luck and got killed trying to do the escape part. It's the same issue I have with Tasha's death in "Skin of Evil." Armus kills her just because he can, in a manner befitting a nameless redshirt, and the fact that she's a major character doesn't give her death any more meaning. It's purely arbitrary because the script requires it to be.
A
Amaris
Guest
True, but the second answer in some respects seems more plausible.
To me, the real problem isn't the question of Sito being brave or lacking responsibility, by any means; the problem is that the way her implied death is described, there's no way of knowing if she died bravely trying to complete the mission, or if she just had bad luck and got killed trying to do the escape part. It's the same issue I have with Tasha's death in "Skin of Evil." Armus kills her just because he can, in a manner befitting a nameless redshirt, and the fact that she's a major character doesn't give her death any more meaning. It's purely arbitrary because the script requires it to be.
I think that's one of the reasons why the episode works. People die in the line of duty every day, and it can be in the most unheroic way. So many heroes die to silence, instead of fanfare, and this show expresses that point.
True, but the second answer in some respects seems more plausible.
To me, the real problem isn't the question of Sito being brave or lacking responsibility, by any means; the problem is that the way her implied death is described, there's no way of knowing if she died bravely trying to complete the mission, or if she just had bad luck and got killed trying to do the escape part. It's the same issue I have with Tasha's death in "Skin of Evil." Armus kills her just because he can, in a manner befitting a nameless redshirt, and the fact that she's a major character doesn't give her death any more meaning. It's purely arbitrary because the script requires it to be.
That's EXACTLY what Roddenberry wanted for Tasha. Main character or redshirt, he wanted a pointless, meaningless death to show that not all death is dramatic and heroic, even from the heroes we watch every week.
Guinan even describes it that way later on, echoing his thoughts.
It was intentional, you're not supposed to read any more into it.
It wasn't a stupid question, no one can remember every detail of every episode all the time.
I can!
Get a life!
Similar threads
