Drop the S31 show for a Captain Pike show?

[Jadeb]

But yeah - My point: That type of thing seems like something EVERY post TOS writer's room feels they need to include to gain the stamp of: "Gene Roddenberry's: Star Trek™"

Yeah, that’s exactly what Burnham’s genocide speech felt like — an obligation. And that’s partly why it seemed so tired to me. In the age of serialization and prestige TV, we need to move past by-the-numbers Trek tropes. They have an unprecedented opportunity to tell adult, sophisticated stories that really deliver on Trek’s untapped potential, but instead they’re giving us “genocide is bad” and Terminator retreads. I hope they step it up in a big way.

 

[fireproof78]

I hope they step it up in a big way.

I certainly hope so. Hopefully with all the BTS nonsense eased it will continued to improve.

 

[Lord Garth]

This came up in another recent thread. With the addition of these quotes, it seems that Behr was just totally hung up on this one idea from early TNG to the very end of DS9 "What ugly secrets are hiding in the foundation of paradise?"

Here or in another forum? Out of curiosity.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I certainly hope so. Hopefully with all the BTS nonsense eased it will continued to improve.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

TNG doesn't deserve all the plaudits it receives when it comes to morality, and sense people are discussing genocide, Discovery really did better than TNG on this subject.

In the third season of TNG, Rick Manning and Hans Beimler wrote a script in which Picard and the Enterprise encountered a planet actively engaged in a genocide and were confronted with whether to disobey the prime director. Gene Roddenberry, the so-called Great Bird, refused the script. To put the cherry on top, he said, "if the Enterprise came to a planet where they were shoving Jews into ovens, the Enterprise would have to leave."

What was TNG's--or at least Gene's--solution to genocide? Fuck 'em. Let 'em die.

This was definitely a case where Discovery one-upped TNG, even if the lesson may seem obvious.

 

[Prax]

Here or in another forum? Out of curiosity.

I believe it was the "TNG vs DS9" thread

 

[Rahul]

TNG doesn't deserve all the plaudits it receives when it comes to morality, and sense people are discussing genocide, Discovery really did better than TNG on this subject.

In the third season of TNG, Rick Manning and Hans Beimler wrote a script in which Picard and the Enterprise encountered a planet actively engaged in a genocide and were confronted with whether to disobey the prime director. Gene Roddenberry, the so-called Great Bird, refused the script. To put the cherry on top, he said, "if the Enterprise came to a planet where they were shoving Jews into ovens, the Enterprise would have to leave."

What was TNG's--or at least Gene's--solution to genocide? Fuck 'em. Let 'em die.

This was definitely a case where Discovery one-upped TNG, even if the lesson may seem obvious.

DIS was barely able to say "WE probably shouldn't do genocide" - while at the same time the threat of genocide was the actual thing ending the war.

That's probably the most simplistic, idiotic angle you can manage to come up with on the topic of genocide, and to pretend it would be even marginally better than even the dumbest thing said on TNG on this topic is quite pretentious.

 

[Jadeb]

DIS was barely able to say "WE probably shouldn't do genocide" - while at the same time the threat of genocide was the actual thing ending the war.

That's probably the most simplistic, idiotic angle you can manage to come up with on the topic of genocide

It’s right up there with “maybe we shouldn’t torture living creatures to navigate our ship.”

 

[fireproof78]

The fact that morally questionable things are presented in any Star Trek does not bother me. Star Trek has had genocide, and murder, and rape and all other kinds of moral issues that are not presented in the best way, or even in a way that invites comment. First thought that sprung to mind was "The Man Trap," with the only solution to kill a creature that is the last of its kind. Does that invoke such moral outrage and condemnation?

For me, I don't expect Star Trek to get it morally right or present the issue in a perfectly acceptable manner. What matters is how the audience engages with the material.

 

[Prax]

With the Tartigrade, there seemed to be a disconnect between the script, direction, and post-VFX that might account for that. We, the audience see that this Tardigrade is in absolute agony, but none of the characters seem to notice. Even Burnham, who does figure it out, doesn't seem to see what we're seeing. She notices from the Tardigrade's behavior when it's in its cage, and from her dreams.("It's not eating its food. Something must be wrong.")

Otherwise, at the very first jump, the characters would be like Oh My God! Oh My God! Who designed this sadistic contraption?! That thing's gonna die!"

I bet even Lorca would thinking "The agony booth is peanuts compared to this"

 

[fireproof78]

With the Tartigrade, there seemed to be a disconnect between the script, direction, and post-VFX that might account for that. We, the audience see that this Tardigrade is in absolute agony, but none of the characters seem to notice. Even Burnham, who does figure it out, doesn't seem to see what we're seeing. She notices from the Tardigrade's behavior when it's in its cage, and from her dreams.

Yeah, that was definitely a weird scene. Not sure if it was willful blindness (kind of like what I saw on Farscape and how the crew could treat Pilot at times) or what, but it was disconcerting, and really irritating at how the characters treated it.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

DIS was barely able to say "WE probably shouldn't do genocide" - while at the same time the threat of genocide was the actual thing ending the war.

That's probably the most simplistic, idiotic angle you can manage to come up with on the topic of genocide, and to pretend it would be even marginally better than even the dumbest thing said on TNG on this topic is quite pretentious.

Here's the scorecard:
Discovery addressed it twice. First rethinking it's decision, the second time clearly defending the victims against the perpetrators.

TNG wouldn't even touch the issue.

 

[Rahul]

Here's the scorecard:
Discovery addressed it twice. First rethinking it's decision, the second time clearly defending the victims against the perpetrators.

TNG wouldn't even touch the issue.

If a creator hasn't any insights to offer, it's often better to shut up about a topic, than to badly fumble it. DIS would have improved by avoiding that topic altogether.

It's the same with stupid revenge movies that kill the protagonists wife in the beginning. They always throw in rape as well. It never adds anything, in fact it actually dumbs down any real discussion about actual rape, and is usually quite to the detriment of each movie as well, because it's such a dumb cliché at this point.

Just because you put an ugly topic in your work to be 'edgy', doesn't mean it actually adds anything of value to the work.

 

[eschaton]

Here's the scorecard:
Discovery addressed it twice. First rethinking it's decision, the second time clearly defending the victims against the perpetrators.

TNG wouldn't even touch the issue.

I dunno about that. I mean, remember that Picard had the chance to genocide the Borg with Hugh, and he explicitly refused to do so, even though it was the "easy way" to solve the threat.

 

[fireproof78]

I dunno about that. I mean, remember that Picard had the chance to genocide the Borg with Hugh, and he explicitly refused to do so, even though it was the "easy way" to solve the threat.

Yeah, but then there are episodes like "Homeword" or "Pen Pal" where the Prime Directive is pretty much used as an excuse to allow a civilization to be wiped out. And the ending of "Homeward" bothers me even more because one of the natives commits suicide, thus cemmenting the noninterference policy rather than actually figuring out another way to deal with people who end up encountering the Enterprise D.

Never mind the civilizations Kirk and company permanently altered.

 

[DaveyNY]

Isn't it funny how Star Trek isn't any more perfect than the people creating it or the folks watching it.

 

[fireproof78]

Isn't it funny how Star Trek isn't any more perfect than the people creating it or the folks watching it.

It's really weird, that. I mean, I thought TV writers were a better class of people...

 

[CorporalClegg]

The prime directive is stupid. Using contextless theoretical philosophy as the rule of law is just bad policy.

 

[Rahul]

The prime directive is one of Star Trek's best ideas.

 

[DaveyNY]

The prime directive is one of Star Trek's best ideas.

Yes, because over the last 53 years It has been the perfect foil to show that nothing is ever as 'Black & White' as some folks would like it to be.
Even in the imagined, "perfect" 24th Century.