Ambivalence and Star Trek episodes

[indolover]

I loved In the Pale Moonlight, but detest it at the same time. Love for its acting, writing,etc. Detest for straying from the Roddenberry vision.

Yes, the Great Bird's vision is not realistic, but that's an incidental criticism. It's art, who says any abstract work has to be wholly realistic? Should there never be another Superman movie, since the idea of a man who can fly, has freeze breath, can lift up huge rocks, has x-ray vision, etc. is unrealistic?

 

[Count Zero]

Re: Ambivence and Star Trek episodes

Our 'heroes' doing things that are morally ambiguous or even objectionable already happened in TOS. After all, the Federation was involved in a Cold War with the Klingons. Arming the natives in "A Private Little War" is certainly morally ambiguous in my book, even more so Kirk's meddling in the inner workings of societies to the point of destroying them like in "The Apple".
Sure, later shows pushed the envelope further than that, DS9 in "In the Pale Moonlight" and a few other episodes, and especially Enterprise during its third season. I remember getting upset about the stuff Captain Archer was doing while watching those episodes but in the end I felt they actually told a very interesting story. In extreme situations it's easy to lose yourself in ethical grey or even darker areas. I appreciated that they also depicted the (long term) effect his own actions had on Archer.
But moral ambivalence was also present in TOS so I kind of wonder what this vision of Roddenberry some people keep mentioning actually was. TOS made it pretty clear already that people in the Trekverse weren't perfect (I mean we had all those crazy Commodores and clueless bureaucrats apart from the morally ambiguous decisions) so the later series were quite in sync with that.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Re: Ambivence and Star Trek episodes

Yep. It was Kirk, not Sisko, who made this speech:

[War] is instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands! But we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers...but we're not going to kill...today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill...today!

That could have been Sisko talking, too.

That was from A Taste of Armegeddon. In the Pale Moonlight simply extrapolated on the theme that "it's easy to be a saint in paradise" - not trying to pretend that morality is easy but examining the ways in which it is far from easy.

TOS and DS9 were the only honest Star Trek series. The others were too gutless to allow the characters any real moral struggles. The writers swooped in and saved their asses by arbitrary fixes and technobabble and allowed them the unearned luxury of easy ethical choices. Feh.

 

[Andymator]

Re: Ambivence and Star Trek episodes

TOS and DS9 were the only honest Star Trek series. The others were too gutless to allow the characters any real moral struggles. The writers swooped in and saved their asses by arbitrary fixes and technobabble and allowed them the unearned luxury of easy ethical choices. Feh.

That isn't true at all, and I think you probably know that. I can list a whole bunch in TNG.

 

[Yevetha]

Re: Ambivence and Star Trek episodes

What about Tapestry?
Its conclusion is fairly ambivalent.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Re: Ambivence and Star Trek episodes

And what about ENT's Damage.

 

[Count Zero]

Re: Ambivence and Star Trek episodes

There are plenty of episodes in all of the Trek shows whose core is a moral dilemma - all those TNG episodes involving the Prime Directive or interfering with other societies come to mind.

 

[Andymator]

Re: Ambivence and Star Trek episodes

I was thinking more along the lines of "The Wounded", "The Enemy", "Preemptive Strike", "The First Duty", "I, Borg", etc. These all place the characters in moral struggles without an escape clause, be it magical technobabble or plot circumstance deciding for them. They have to make incredibly hard decisions, and they do.

I'm not as familiar with Voyager or Enterprise, but I'm certain this applies to many of their episodes as well. I love both TOS and Deep Space Nine, but it's not because they're somehow more honest and ballsy than other Star Trek.

 

[Count Zero]

Re: Ambivence and Star Trek episodes

I was thinking more along the lines of "The Wounded", "The Enemy", "Preemptive Strike", "The First Duty", "I, Borg", etc. These all place the characters in moral struggles without an escape clause, be it magical technobabble or plot circumstance deciding for them. They have to make incredibly hard decisions, and they do.

Those are good examples, especially "I, Borg". I was thinking "Pen Pals", "Who Watches the Watchers", the Edo episode and the episode where Worf's brother tries to save that medieval village (can't remember the names, it's been a while since I last watched any TNG). Just goes to show how many different episodes and dilemmas there are.

I'm not well versed in Voyager, either, but the episodes where working with the Borg, the Hirogen and the former enslavers of the Kazon is the issue come to mind.
I've already mentioned Enterprise's third season which is full of morally ambiguous stuff. Another good example would be "Dear Doctor" which is still quite controversially discussed among fans.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Re: Ambivence and Star Trek episodes

TOS and DS9 were the only honest Star Trek series. The others were too gutless to allow the characters any real moral struggles. The writers swooped in and saved their asses by arbitrary fixes and technobabble and allowed them the unearned luxury of easy ethical choices. Feh.

"Tuvix"?

 

[Enterprise is Great]

Re: Ambivence and Star Trek episodes

Tuvix may have created the long thread in usenet history. That thing is probably still going and going and going...

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Re: Ambivence and Star Trek episodes

Tuvix manages to crash threads totally unrelated to it in VOY rather regularly, LOL

 

[DevilEyes]

I loved In the Pale Moonlight, but detest it at the same time. Love for its acting, writing,etc. Detest for straying from the Roddenberry vision.

Yes, the Great Bird's vision is not realistic, but that's an incidental criticism. It's art, who says any abstract work has to be wholly realistic?

It's art, not a pamphlet, therefore something that has complexity and ambiguity is much superior to something that sticks to "Roddenberry vision". If Trek was just about embodying Roddenberry's visions rather than actual moral dilemmas and dramatic conflicts, it would suck as a piece of art and as entertainment. Even Roddenberry wrote storylines that were about more than his "vision".