Fair enough. I can agree to disagree.
In defence of Shades of Gray
- Thread starter AntonyF
- Start date
I am not really a fan of "Shades Of Gray" either, but I will say one thing in its favor that is unique to itself.
It was a final reminder of how dangerous space exploration really is, which was a sort of background theme of TNG season 2. Obviously other episodes in other seasons of other shows show how dangerous space is, but TNG season 2 probably was the best showcase of it. At least, in tone.
We start off the season with "The Child", which has an alien explore life itself, only it being deadly for the crew to stay aboard. The very next one, "Where Silence Has Lease", has the Enterprise trapped in a giant lab while exploring a new region.
We get microbes that eat away the hull in "A Matter Of Honor", the mysterious hotel for the human in "The Royale", the anomaly in "Time Squared", the Borg in "Q Who".
All of that in the season topped off with exploring a new planet that has predatory, parasitic vines that nearly kill Riker.
For all this episode's faults, and they are numerous, I have to give it credit for being the danger cherry on top of the danger sundae.
It was a final reminder of how dangerous space exploration really is, which was a sort of background theme of TNG season 2. Obviously other episodes in other seasons of other shows show how dangerous space is, but TNG season 2 probably was the best showcase of it. At least, in tone.
We start off the season with "The Child", which has an alien explore life itself, only it being deadly for the crew to stay aboard. The very next one, "Where Silence Has Lease", has the Enterprise trapped in a giant lab while exploring a new region.
We get microbes that eat away the hull in "A Matter Of Honor", the mysterious hotel for the human in "The Royale", the anomaly in "Time Squared", the Borg in "Q Who".
All of that in the season topped off with exploring a new planet that has predatory, parasitic vines that nearly kill Riker.
For all this episode's faults, and they are numerous, I have to give it credit for being the danger cherry on top of the danger sundae.
I disagree with the fact that most of the characters seem to be OK with this planet's system of exterminating its elderly and "obsolete". Involuntary euthanasia, which that effectively is, leads to a very slippery slope.
Two better "tragic" episodes, IMO, are "The Outcast" and "Repentance". The former rightly condemned the "treatments" as what they were: despicable, evil violations carried out by smugly self-righteous people who "know what's best for you". And the latter made it very clear that the execution of Seven's friend was essentially lynch mob vengeance, returning suffering for suffering with no regard for actual justice. Neither episode condoned the actions of the society they were featuring. "Half a Life", IMO, did.
I don't think "Half a Life" condoned it. At least, none of our regular characters or Federation people did. Picard rightly stayed out of their internal affairs, because it wasn't his world or a Federation world. (I certainly don't condone their practice, but we don't have the right to alter their society, just as they wouldn't have the right to alter ours.) Lwaxana did the only thing she could do... be with him at the ceremony as a loved one, honoring him and his beliefs.
It's also why I respect Picard greatly in "The Enemy" and in "Ethics", because he respected Worf's personal beliefs and choices. It's also why I did not like Beverly when she was trying to force the decision on Worf to use the joint emitters. Her duty was to give her patient options and abide by the patient's wishes, not make them live with a disability if they do not desire it.
Regarding "REPENTANCE", I'm actually more in agreement with their policy of letting the victims have a say in sentencing. Let's say someone murdered your child. Would you be fine with allowing that murderer to live behind bars, eating meals every day (food that could otherwise be given to people in actual need), sleeping on a bed (again, a bed that can be for someone in real need), getting to read things, etc. for who knows how many years while your child never got to take another breath because their life was snuffed out before their time? I know I wouldn't be fine with it.
Iko murdered multiple times over. And while that was a good episode, and he did change because of that procedure, it still doesn't change the fact other people didn't get to live because he killed them without remorse.
Like Degra in ENTERPRISE season 3. He was directly responsible for getting over 7 million people killed. Who knows how many of them were children... definitely a high number. His hands would never be clean, and despite his turning on his beliefs of the Sphere Builders and helping Archer in the end, he ended up getting what he deserved. (And I'm speaking as someone who really liked his character. Randy Oglesby played him very, very well.)
It's also why I respect Picard greatly in "The Enemy" and in "Ethics", because he respected Worf's personal beliefs and choices. It's also why I did not like Beverly when she was trying to force the decision on Worf to use the joint emitters. Her duty was to give her patient options and abide by the patient's wishes, not make them live with a disability if they do not desire it.
Regarding "REPENTANCE", I'm actually more in agreement with their policy of letting the victims have a say in sentencing. Let's say someone murdered your child. Would you be fine with allowing that murderer to live behind bars, eating meals every day (food that could otherwise be given to people in actual need), sleeping on a bed (again, a bed that can be for someone in real need), getting to read things, etc. for who knows how many years while your child never got to take another breath because their life was snuffed out before their time? I know I wouldn't be fine with it.
Iko murdered multiple times over. And while that was a good episode, and he did change because of that procedure, it still doesn't change the fact other people didn't get to live because he killed them without remorse.
Like Degra in ENTERPRISE season 3. He was directly responsible for getting over 7 million people killed. Who knows how many of them were children... definitely a high number. His hands would never be clean, and despite his turning on his beliefs of the Sphere Builders and helping Archer in the end, he ended up getting what he deserved. (And I'm speaking as someone who really liked his character. Randy Oglesby played him very, very well.)
Last edited:
They're not "OK with it." They just recognize that respect for other people's right to their own beliefs has to include the beliefs you disagree with.
I don't see why you think that. The main focus of the episode is on Lwaxana, and she emphatically disapproves of the custom and makes an eloquent case against it. We see little of Picard and the others, but Picard readily gives Timicin asylum and is ready to fight to defend him. At the end, Picard says he would "deeply regret it" if Timicin was returning just to ease tensions, but he accepts it when Timicin insists he has deeper personal reasons.
The ending of the episode is not about endorsing the Kaelons' system. It's about respecting Timicin's right as an individual to make his own choice, even if it's a choice they hate and don't understand. That's how it was for me and my father in his final illness -- I did not agree with his choice to request no extraordinary measures to keep him alive, but I sadly accepted that it was his legal and moral right to make that decision for himself.
Yeah I never had the impression hat Half a Life condoned the planet's death penalty (or at least not more than all the other times they just rolled over and let another party do whatever they wanted because "...respect their culture!")
They spent plenty of time voicing counter-arguments and poking holes into the supposed "need" for the euthanasia of the elderly (of course...some of said arguments could lead to other types of dystopian ideas).
In the end they accepted the guy's decision, not the practice itself.
Most telling, the problem of the dying sun is unresolved by the in, if I remember correctly, with the implication that there might be nobody as qualified as Timicin to make further attempts.
Though one thing that is really painful about the episode is that one scene where Lwaxana is on the bridge and just starts pressing random buttons on Worf's station.
Like...what? That woman is playing around with the tactical station of a Galaxy Class ship...somebody apprehend her already!
They spent plenty of time voicing counter-arguments and poking holes into the supposed "need" for the euthanasia of the elderly (of course...some of said arguments could lead to other types of dystopian ideas).
In the end they accepted the guy's decision, not the practice itself.
Most telling, the problem of the dying sun is unresolved by the in, if I remember correctly, with the implication that there might be nobody as qualified as Timicin to make further attempts.
Though one thing that is really painful about the episode is that one scene where Lwaxana is on the bridge and just starts pressing random buttons on Worf's station.
Like...what? That woman is playing around with the tactical station of a Galaxy Class ship...somebody apprehend her already!
That's all true, but it's not really "they" -- it's "she." "Half a Life" isn't really a story about the Enterprise crew confronting an alien custom -- that's just the backdrop. Picard and the main crew are hardly in the back half of the episode. It's fundamentally a story about Lwaxana Troi and Timicin. It's a personal debate between the two of them and Timicin's daughter, and it comes down to a personal decision.
As far back as the TOS bible, one of the guidelines was that the stories should focus on people, not entire civilizations in the abstract. Whatever's going on in an alien culture, whatever moral or ethical debate it engenders, should be in service to a story about individual people and their emotions and relationships and decisions. That was particularly emphasized on TNG and the other Trek shows overseen by Michael Piller and his proteges. Piller always stressed that every story needed to be grounded in character, to have some meaningful impact on one of the series leads, or in this case on a familiar recurring guest.
I think maybe the consoles have biometric sensors and only accept input from authorized users?
I liked "Shades of Gray."
It may have been a clip show, but at least it wasn't fucking boring. Just the fact that it wasn't boring puts it ahead of some other TNG outings.
Correct.
It may have been a clip show, but at least it wasn't fucking boring. Just the fact that it wasn't boring puts it ahead of some other TNG outings.
Correct.
Clip shows were pretty standard, Shades of Gray gets trouble because it's the only one in Trek (though The Drumhead was originally intended as another).
Taxi did a nice trick; each season was supposed to include a two-part clip show, but the writers always had a five minute mini-episode ready to shoot if there was time left over at the end of an evening recording, so every clip show ended up being made of new flashbacks.
Taxi did a nice trick; each season was supposed to include a two-part clip show, but the writers always had a five minute mini-episode ready to shoot if there was time left over at the end of an evening recording, so every clip show ended up being made of new flashbacks.
Whoa. Talk about a way to ruin an otherwise good episode. I can almost see how something like they might've gone. When Satie grills the crew on the stand about their earlier transgressions, like breaking the Prime Directive or whatever, we flash to a clip, & chew up screen time. Brother, that would've made my blood boil lol
Well, if Satie wanted to come out of retirement again, I think that the Cardassian Empire would welcome her particular style of investigation.
I grew up on 80s sitcoms: clip shows don't bother me.
You had me...
You lost me.
Other than having the hero/captain tortured I don't really see the connection. TNG's was a personal battle between Picard and his tormentor, while B5's was Sheridan struggling against the 1984 style dystopia Earth had become under Clarke.
I'm the exact opposite. Give me a harmless, pointless bit of fluff over character assassination or universe poisoning crap like Homeward, Dear Doctor, Author Author, etc. all day every day.
Hard disagree. This is why the victim's loved ones don't get to judge these things. If some one is rehabilitated, what's the point of killing them or keeping them locked up? Satisfying some old testament desire for vengeance? The dead are still dead. The only reason to keep them locked up is if they're still a danger.
You had me...
You lost me.
Other than having the hero/captain tortured I don't really see the connection. TNG's was a personal battle between Picard and his tormentor, while B5's was Sheridan struggling against the 1984 style dystopia Earth had become under Clarke.
I'm the exact opposite. Give me a harmless, pointless bit of fluff over character assassination or universe poisoning crap like Homeward, Dear Doctor, Author Author, etc. all day every day.
Hard disagree. This is why the victim's loved ones don't get to judge these things. If some one is rehabilitated, what's the point of killing them or keeping them locked up? Satisfying some old testament desire for vengeance? The dead are still dead. The only reason to keep them locked up is if they're still a danger.
Oh, that's brilliant. I remember those episodes, how refreshing it was that the reminiscences were all new, but I had no idea that they came about in that way.
That is the connection. That's not incidental, that's what both "Chain of Command" and "Intersections in Real Time" were fundamentally about. Yes, they differed in plot, but stories are not just about plot; plots exist to convey themes and ideas, to comment on social issues or philosophical questions. Both stories are about illustrating the evils of torture, showing the way that oppressive states use torture as a tool of control, with any pretense of gathering information being nothing more than an excuse for a pure dominance game.
That's just the background. "Intersections" is within the context of that larger story arc, yes, but in and of itself, it's just as much a personal conflict between Sheridan and the interrogator William. Even more so than "Chain of Command," because it has no cutaways to any other subplots.
That was basically Frakes's view: just use Patrick and cast an actress I've worked with who can match him, and let them talk at each other on one set.
You know about the first season episode where Andy Kaufman was cast to play Louie's relative, and eventually sacked?
I don't remember that, no.
One of Kaufman's stand-up characters was cast to be a relative of Louie. Kaufman turned up in character, was loud and obnoxious on set, staying in character. On a day when Kaufman was playing Latka, the producers asked what to do about his alter-ego. "Sack him."
So they did, Kaufman played Latka, another actor took over the other role.
So they did, Kaufman played Latka, another actor took over the other role.
Similar threads
