Then if you're stupid enough to believe in "morals", that's your own business.
Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"
- Thread starter WesleysDisciple
- Start date
- Status
Then if you're stupid enough to believe in "morals", that's your own business.
I though it was one of, if not the best episode in the season/series. Gene Roddenberry had an ideal universe, where humanity eventually evolved to the point of avoiding conflict. However, humans will always be humans. We can built great things such as the pyramids, or reach for the stars, but we can still be capable of doing horrible things to each others a well.
Yeah, so all unrealistic artistic works have to be canned....
Whenever arguments like this come up, I think of a line from Encounter at Farpoint...
Jean-Luc Picard said:
Sorry to add a late reply, but there is a subtle discussion of Romulan perceptions of Vreenak's demise in Una McCormack's Treklit sequel to the episode, Hollow Men.
More to the point, Hollow Men is a wonderful examination of espionage in Trek, as well as the Sisko's guilt and sense of honour, the utilitarian attitudes of Starfleet (& S31) during war and, most of all, McCormack's excellent recurrent treatment of Garak (see also the Never-Ending Sacrifice and The Lotus Flower).
Then you're probably autistic or something and don't have an imagination. Do you think this of all supposedly "unrealistic" art works?
I personally don't give a crap if any art work has to be realistic. The Roddenberry vision can be seen as it is, as a hope and dream.
Unrealistic TV shows are fine. But don't be surprised when a long-running franchise like Star Trek that depicts an unrealistic humanity eventually examines the flip-side. Don't be surprised when they eventually examine the cost such a society would have, the the things people would be willing to do to protect it.
When they present an "unrealistic" humanity, they open up other storytelling options in the process.
I don't care. Since I see works for what they are in their context. Nobody in this thread has frankly mentioned why all artistic works need to be realistic.
then you're weak if you endorse the contrary.
then you're weak if you endorse the contrary.
Stop it! You're killing me!
Look, even Roddenberry created situations where humans did despicable things out of greed, fear, etc... He may have a utopian future in his mind, but even he relented to human nature. Roddenberry created Harry Mudd after all. He created a world where Kirk was a womanizer and was weak to control his lust. He created a future where his heroes allowed a good woman die so the world will be a better place. He created a world where his heroes too had to acquiesced to thievery and treachery in order to steal the Romulan Cloaking device, just so they can protect their precious Federation. Look at any piece of art out there and you'll see that there's no absolute black or white, but there are also shades of grey. Sometimes there are no good decisions, just the least bad decision and Roddenberry understood that. Sisko's least bad decisions brought the Romulans into the war, and prevent an epoc of genocide and tyrannical rule from the Dominion.
Just because you hate certain aspects of the episode does not give you the right to force others to think the same way. If that's your goal, you should give up now because I know what I like and no one can convince me otherwise.
Last edited:
That why I gte confused when certain people cry about Rodenberry "vision" I mean look at the TOS you had crew bullying (ok that may be abit extrme), a man slut who liked to bend the rules and a universe full of theives and criminals.
By the time TNG is created Rodenberry seems to have become retarded. HE hippie lala land trek is boring. It may be Art but it sucks, which is why TNG first 2 series sucked and nearly killed it. Art all well and good but when you are makeing a TV show you have to be consistant and make something people want to watch.
- Status
Similar threads
