Nicely put, however Star Trek was never Wagon Train to the Stars. Rodenberry pitched it to the executives with that line because Wagon Train was getting good ratings at the time. But how do you rewrite "The Cage" or "Where No Man Has Gone Before" as Western episodes?
In The Pale Moonlight
- Thread starter Gelnon
- Start date
Nicely put, however Star Trek was never Wagon Train to the Stars. Rodenberry pitched it to the executives with that line because Wagon Train was getting good ratings at the time. But how do you rewrite "The Cage" or "Where No Man Has Gone Before" as Western episodes?
The Cage: Aliens take prisoners in what is ultimately a lost cause. Change it to natives. Out of the billion Western eps I'm sure this has been done before.
I can easily see a Big Valley ep out there where Audra and Victoria are taken prisoner. They convince the Chieftain its a lost cause. He releases the prisoners and resigns himself to the death of their culture*
*Admittedly this would probably be done more like TNG The High Ground. Nick and Heath feel they can settle this amicably but have to work with a hot headed army officer. Things are just about to be settled without bloodshed then the army rides in and shoots the place up..
WNMHGB: An old friend loses his moral compass and our hero stops him in the end
This HAS been done as a Big Valley episode with Heath shooting his friend in the street at the end.
I can easily see a Big Valley ep out there where Audra and Victoria are taken prisoner. They convince the Chieftain its a lost cause. He releases the prisoners and resigns himself to the death of their culture*
*Admittedly this would probably be done more like TNG The High Ground. Nick and Heath feel they can settle this amicably but have to work with a hot headed army officer. Things are just about to be settled without bloodshed then the army rides in and shoots the place up..
WNMHGB: An old friend loses his moral compass and our hero stops him in the end
This HAS been done as a Big Valley episode with Heath shooting his friend in the street at the end.
Of course. But that pie in the sky, "we're so much more evolved" BS isn't that realistic in just 400 years.
As a species, we will be more evolved by then, but not above self-preservation, which has been in our genes for millions of years.
Sisko isn't acting much differently than anyone who just wants to save the lives of his family and friends, along with millions of others, on both sides.
A Western could do a "native americans capture settlers" story, but they couldn't do "they want to create a breeding colony of settlers" let alone "they forgot how their technology works and get their entertainment from watching their prisoners".
Where No Man would have to be pretty different too. The friend who lost his moral compass wouldn't have gotten godlike powers. Maybe become a colonel of the cavalry, with the nearest general 1000 miles away, maybe.
Yes, in fact that was one of the points of TOS "Space Seed", technology improved but the nature of man remains the same (except for the mutants of the Eugenics Wars). And they were more afraid of what would happen by improving man than of leaving man alone.
I tend to disagree. Most characters in DS9 have a trademark conflict of virtues and vices. Even Picard, that many people are referencing as an unrealistic moralist, has that human conflict. I guess what I’m brining attention to is the minimum qualities of a Starfleet Captain or Commander. I may be a ‘Bashir’ on the topic but I view it as an aspiration to be good, not a prude of ethical perfection.
The aspiration to be truly good like Picard (diplomat) or Bashir (doctor) isn't realistic in wartime conditions.
I have taken care of it.
Everyone, please use the spoiler code when referencing events from Season 1 of Picard.
Thanks.
Thanks, I had unfortunately seen that one elsewhere, but didn't want others to get spoiled
Khan was cynical, but was proven wrong in the end of the episode when a harsh sentence was dropped in favor of a comparatively far less harsh one (in part to sidestep the issue of Trek delving into whatever penalty would have been waiting for Khan and McGivers, the latter having at least a court martial and would be seen as appealing to the former, thus showing or at least suggesting humanity had evolved.) Nothing in Space Seed suggests Kirk (or Starfleet) was going to follow up. (Amazingly, given how many logs and supplementals were given, that this decision would not be recorded officially as well in order to set the solar system as "off limits".)
Anyone studied Machiavelli "He must learn how to not be good and use that knowledge or refrain from using it, as neccessity requires."
I think the real key that’s missed here and with DS9 in general is that The Federation was facing, besides the Borg, it’s greatest ever existential threat.
We see Weyoun outright state that he wanted to wipe out the population of Earth, that was the level of the dominions resolve to win the war and hold control over the Federation (and just as a brand new thought, the Klingons would have wiped out as well as they would have never surrendered).
And the thing is we actually see them do it, with a single word they begin exterminating the entire Cardassian population with the only point of contention being how long it may take.
With all that in mind, even with Humanities evolved sense of right and wrong, DS9 asks the question well, if we come up against someone who doesn’t play as nicely and is determined to wipe our every man women and child on our home planet, what are you gonna do?
A lot of people see it as an affront to Genes vision and I can certainly understand that viewpoint, but with that in mind, this is one of the reasons I think DS9 is the best Trek of them all, it what I’m about to say isn’t a poo poo on every other Trek.
But it makes clear that unfortunately we may still run into situations we can’t always solve peacefully, but still doesn’t go quite as far as the ugly, more resembling our own universe that The Picard Series does.
That’s just my take.
The discussion on Sisko being shown as flawed, or simply human is very interesting. However, can anyone name a Captain that hasn't been flawed at one point or another. Sisko stands out because he was open about it...vocal. Sisko didn't let the veneer of the Federation hide his humanity, or at least keep it at bay.
An interesting take. Not one I share, but interesting nonetheless. To me, Ben Sisko was a pained man on the edge of the frontier, confronted with angry and expectant Bajorans on one side and the duplicity of the Cardassians on the other. He then ended up being seen as a messianic figure, to his dismay, and on top of it all, what he had initially hoped to be a relatively quiet and short assignment became something much more intense with the discovery of the wormhole.
He fought for the Federation, believed in it, even whilst acknowledging its flaws, something rarely seen from the likes of Picard. He was more believable as a real person.
Personally I think that even with the actions he took in this episode (which, ultimately, he took to prevent even greater suffering and genocide) Sisko is a very good example of the "evolved" humanity Star Trek liked to advertise.
Think about it, he'd never judge another human by their skin colour, gender, sexuality or economic circumstances. He is not motivated by greed or personal aggrandizement, nor is he seeking personal power.
He does what he does because its the only way he can see to help the Federation (and ultimately the other Alpha/Beta quadrant powers) survive the Dominion Invasion.
War is the ugliest thing humanity has ever invented, and it brings out the ugly side of everything. That's true, always and everywhere, even in the 24th century.
If instead he had done something shifty to allow the Dominion to take Betazed or another Federation world in order to motivate the Romulans to join the war, then I'd say he's a monster, but as it is I don't see him being that morally dark. The Romulans having to fight the Dominion was inevitable anyway, so why not bring them in when they still had a chance of winning?
Frankly Sisko sitting there and allowing the Federation to lose the war just so he doesn't have to sacrifice his principles would have made him a worse person.
In my opinion Picard not using Hugh to destroy the Borg was a lot worse and amoral than anything Sisko did in this episode.
Think about it, he'd never judge another human by their skin colour, gender, sexuality or economic circumstances. He is not motivated by greed or personal aggrandizement, nor is he seeking personal power.
He does what he does because its the only way he can see to help the Federation (and ultimately the other Alpha/Beta quadrant powers) survive the Dominion Invasion.
War is the ugliest thing humanity has ever invented, and it brings out the ugly side of everything. That's true, always and everywhere, even in the 24th century.
If instead he had done something shifty to allow the Dominion to take Betazed or another Federation world in order to motivate the Romulans to join the war, then I'd say he's a monster, but as it is I don't see him being that morally dark. The Romulans having to fight the Dominion was inevitable anyway, so why not bring them in when they still had a chance of winning?
Frankly Sisko sitting there and allowing the Federation to lose the war just so he doesn't have to sacrifice his principles would have made him a worse person.
In my opinion Picard not using Hugh to destroy the Borg was a lot worse and amoral than anything Sisko did in this episode.
Similar threads
