Dear Doctor... How could you do this?

[Yanks]

Looking for something to bash? Even Scotty pointed out how stupid it was. A novel concept but the spaceship could've stayed... in space. The worst the locals would see there is a moving star. You'd still have line of sight directly above the volcano in space for the transporters.

The Enterprise coming out of the ocean shot was just a pure glamor shot and nothing more. It made no sense at all from a storytelling perspective. Take away that silliness and it was a good scene. I particularly liked how Spock logiced himself into breaking the PD... and for once someone got punished for breaking it.

Don't you think looking cool is part of making the movie as well? They do need to put butts in the seats you know.

Just because Scotty thought it was ridiculous doesn't mean there were better options available. Since we didn't witness any discussion resulting in the decision to submerge the ship, we're hardly in a position to judge said decision from an in-universe standpoint.

Exactly my point.

Yeah, I can see how the opinion of the Chief Engineer wouldn't be relevant at all in the situation.

I'm sure you know that's not what I was saying. I'm sure you also know there were times in TOS when Scotty complained about what the ship was/would be going through and yet everything worked out fine.

It's entirely possible for a situation to be both utterly ridiculous and the best course of action available at the time.

Very plausible. And how many times did Scotty(prime) complain over the years?

Unless I missed it, was any reason given for the Enterprise being in the ocean as opposed to being in orbit?

Original intent? I'm fairly sure they went with "how cool would a shot of the Enterprise coming out of the water be!" and tailored the story around that rather than thinking about how the best way to accomplish their task would've been.

Bingo. It was solely done to look "cool", and therefore, pointless.

Sure they did. Why not? It did look pretty cool. No reason was given other than to hide the Enterprise.

Because you don't know the reason does not make it pointless.

Yeah, I can see how the opinion of the Chief Engineer wouldn't be relevant at all in the situation.

How many times has a Captain ignored the advice of those under him/her about the capabilities of a starship in Star Trek? I'm not talking just about TOS but the entire franchise. It's a staple.

Bingo. It was solely done to look "cool", and therefore, pointless.

I think sometimes people forget that Star Trek is suppose to be entertainment. Do I think the driving force behind the Enterprise being submerged was the cool factor? Absolutely. I drooled when I saw the scene the first time in the theater, absolutely drooled. It was one of the coolest special effects sequences I've ever seen in my thirty-five plus years of going to the movies.

Yup, we can most certainly imply that the reason Kirk put it down there was logical as Spock definitely supported it.

Another neat part to that scene was at the end, when the natives drew the Enterprise in the dirt and that silhouette morphed into the real 1701.

My only real beef with the opening scene, was the "cold fusion" thing.

 

[Skywalker]

Unless I missed it, was any reason given for the Enterprise being in the ocean as opposed to being in orbit?

Original intent? I'm fairly sure they went with "how cool would a shot of the Enterprise coming out of the water be!" and tailored the story around that rather than thinking about how the best way to accomplish their task would've been.

Bingo. It was solely done to look "cool", and therefore, pointless.

No.

 

[bluedana]

Guys, there's a different forum for discussion of Trek movies. Can we get this discussion back to the OP's topic, or move on? Thanks.

 

[RandyS]

Yeah, I can see how the opinion of the Chief Engineer wouldn't be relevant at all in the situation.

How many times has a Captain ignored the advice of those under him/her about the capabilities of a starship in Star Trek? I'm not talking just about TOS but the entire franchise. It's a staple.

Bingo. It was solely done to look "cool", and therefore, pointless.

I think sometimes people forget that Star Trek is suppose to be entertainment. Do I think the driving force behind the Enterprise being submerged was the cool factor? Absolutely. I drooled when I saw the scene the first time in the theater, absolutely drooled. It was one of the coolest special effects sequences I've ever seen in my thirty-five plus years of going to the movies.

I didn't forget. It's just that in my 43 years of going to the movies, that particular stunt struck me as stupid.

I dunno. Maybe I'm just too old to appreciate movie stunts anymore....

 

[OpenMaw]

Because why the heck wouldn't you save them? You'd save an injured dog or an animal species about to go extinct.

From Time and Again

JANEWAY: You have no idea what the consequences might be once you involve yourself.
PARIS: The consequences would have to be better than mass destruction.
JANEWAY: You're not to warn these people. That's an order.

Yeah, her response is exactly what you get when something has gone from a "reasoned argument" into "dogma." It's actually a horrible answer.


I have no idea what the repercussions would be if I saved stopped to save anyone from their burning house. None. The people I save could raise the next Hitler. They aren't guilty of that, but they still very well could be indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions of people in the future. It's based on two fallacies, that evolution has a pre-determined goal(that you evolve naturally into death), and that the universe has a "cosmic" plan(That someone is destined to die from a disaster.) Neither of which has any reasoned or scientific basis, and frankly goes against the better parts of Gene's humanist-centric future.

I cannot fathom someone basing their morality on this fundamentally flawed, dogmatic, perspective. Should decisions be made carefully? Should one stay out of the internal affairs of another planet/nation/tribe? Absolutely. That's in fact the much more sensible interpretation of the PD, but, to suggest that helping someone when they're dying or at the risk of massive disaster is somehow wrong has to be considered a totally unacceptable perspective when it is especially so haphazardly applied.

I've often wondered if from the writers perspective this was conceived because aliens haven't ever visited us and thus must have some kind of a non-interference policy, aside from buzzing groups of hippies and mutilating cows, that is.


Again, I find that much of Enterprise had good ideas, but often poorly executed them. They became too formulaic and rigid about what they could or couldn't do. The only reason Dear Doctor has that awful ending is because the original ending was cast aside. TPTB said the crew should always be on the same side of an issue... IE, much like what Gene said with early TNG, that they couldn't have any tensions or drama among the Enterprise crew. Which I think seems awful silly. People are going to disagree. Always. Even in the future.

 

[R. Star]

The only reason Dear Doctor has that awful ending is because the original ending was cast aside.

I've never delved too deeply in the behind the scenes stuff. What was the original ending supposed to be?

 

[OpenMaw]

Don't quote me on this, it's been awhile, but as I recall Phlox was basically supposed to be at odds with Archer over the situation. Instead of them both shaking hands and being cool with genocide. Archer was supposed to want to save the people and Phlox would be holding himself to the equivalent of a prime directive. (Not in so many words.)

Originally, 'Dear Doctor' was supposed to end in a different manner. "The ending that had initially been created I was fairly comfortable with. But the head of the studio suggested some revisions on the ending. What do you do? I wasn't as happy with the revisions, but it's not my show, you have to sort of adjust, even if sometimes it does seem a bit of a contradiction in terms for what your character is supposed to be about."

So how did the ending change? "[In the original version,] in this crisis of conscience, the Doctor essentially does something that violates the standard issue hierarchical obligations of a crewmember to his captain," he explains. "In effect, he makes a decision that's rooted in 'I've got bigger fish to fry,' rather than honoring his captain's wishes. The network essentially felt that no, it was important to essentially make sure that everyone was here to support the captain's decisions. Personally I thought, 'Well, I think you've kind of lost something interesting in this potential tension.' But, that's not my call."

Although disappointed, it's important to note that Billingsley doesn't have a major issue with this. "Everybody's got so many different agendas," says Billingsley, "and I can appreciate that one of the things they want to do - especially in the first season - is to really do whatever they can to support the idea of the captain being a very strong, and in control person. If they feel they undercut that in any way, they get worried. I understand that, but at the same time I think some of what makes the show - what makes any show - so interesting, is creating some of the tensions that exist between the characters."

One of the things I really dug about the 'Dear Doctor' episode were the scenes where we did come in to conflict, and that's why I was kind of wishing they hadn't had to undercut that tension, as it would have been an interesting thing to build on in following episodes."

- John Billingsley

At the very least, this would have been an improvement, because we would have gotten something out of it other than a pat ending. Namely, some good conflict between Archer and Phlox that would have (had the writers made use of it that is) resonated throughout the following episodes. Something potentially interesting.

 

[R. Star]

That would've made Archer more sympathetic to me and less of a bonehead. There's just no saving Phlox as he cheerfully writes in his letter his moral justification for letting all those people slowly die.

But Trek really does bend the arm of coincidence with everyone always backing the captain no matter what they do. Not only does that deprive an episode of good drama, but it turns the characters into two dimensional caricatures and over long periods of exposure, into Chakotay.

 

[Yanks]

Don't quote me on this, it's been awhile, but as I recall Phlox was basically supposed to be at odds with Archer over the situation. Instead of them both shaking hands and being cool with genocide. Archer was supposed to want to save the people and Phlox would be holding himself to the equivalent of a prime directive. (Not in so many words.)

At the very least, this would have been an improvement, because we would have gotten something out of it other than a pat ending. Namely, some good conflict between Archer and Phlox that would have (had the writers made use of it that is) resonated throughout the following episodes. Something potentially interesting.

That would've made Archer more sympathetic to me and less of a bonehead. There's just no saving Phlox as he cheerfully writes in his letter his moral justification for letting all those people slowly die.

But Trek really does bend the arm of coincidence with everyone always backing the captain no matter what they do. Not only does that deprive an episode of good drama, but it turns the characters into two dimensional caricatures and over long periods of exposure, into Chakotay.

I'm not sure I like the original idea either.

As I stated earlier, this episode was supposed to be a "prime directive" episode. Archer's action regardless of why didn't prove the need for one at all. For all we know, they found the cure next month.

He should have helped, and the consequences should have been grim, Phlox's cure should have backfired or had side effects. (or something like that)

 

[R. Star]

Yeah if they wanted to do a Prime Directive episode, Archer should've gone into a situation with all the good intentions in the world and it blew up in his face. Not a situation where you just do something morally questionable at best and cover it up with a directive empowering it.

 

[Yanks]

Yeah if they wanted to do a Prime Directive episode, Archer should've gone into a situation with all the good intentions in the world and it blew up in his face. Not a situation where you just do something morally questionable at best and cover it up with a directive empowering it.

Exactly.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Have Phlox go over his head would have tied in with the theme that species who had been space faring for centuries saw humans as bumbling noobs as well.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

This sums up EVERY Prime Directive featured episode or movie.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Ah comic sans.