Oh, almost forgot - don't get me started on Future's End. 
Shatnertage's Mostly-1st-Time Watch Thread
- Thread starter Shatnertage
- Start date
I don't even see how this episode and Future's End are comparable. One was a fun-with-time-travel adventure while the other was an issue episode that chose to use time travel. This episode could have been adapted to work on an alien world if they wanted.
Some say that Past Tense one of the best episodes of the show, I'd say it's a 6, maybe a 7, out of 10. It is rather preachy and some of the characters are fairly two dimensional. There's a right side and a wrong side in this story, and I prefer it when the issue episodes are more ambiguous. (Which is also why I love Garak.) It's more memorable for me as the episode where The Sisko finally shows up than for its story.
Some say that Past Tense one of the best episodes of the show, I'd say it's a 6, maybe a 7, out of 10. It is rather preachy and some of the characters are fairly two dimensional. There's a right side and a wrong side in this story, and I prefer it when the issue episodes are more ambiguous. (Which is also why I love Garak.) It's more memorable for me as the episode where The Sisko finally shows up than for its story.
He might be equating them because they both try to have some form of social commentary (granted, Future's End does it a much more disorganized, non-committed and unsatisfying way). Past Tense deals with all the problems in the sanctuary districts, while Future's End seems to have the problem of greed as part of its message.
That's a shame.
I loved Past Tense, but I'll wait for you to review part 2 first; maybe that'll work better for you.
I am now thoroughly happy that these two episodes are part of my...
"Past Tense, Part II"
Part I was basically "City on the Edge of Forever" without the romance. Or good writing. Or, to be honest, good acting. Part II references COTEOF, but riffs more on "Dog Day Afternoon" and other hostage movies. And, for my money, it manages to be both really bad television and a rather dubious political statement.
First, the drama. It's bad. There really isn't much substance, so there's tons of padding. Kira and O'Brien go to two different times to look for their missing crewmates. The one I originally thought was the Jazz Age was actually supposed to be the Depression (only a few years difference, but it's an important few years). That wasn't so bad. But the 1960s one...was just the usual cheesy Trek look back at the past. Ugh. Though I was impressed that they licensed the Jimi Hendrix recording of "Hey Joe" instead of a generic clone.
Then there's lots of padding on the main story, when Dax breaks into the sanctuary district, gets captured, loses her combadge, then goes to find it. It was about on par with a seven-part Third Doctor story for padding (capture, escape, get recaptured, escape, wash, rinse, repeat).
In the end the National Guard storms the site of the hostage crisis. Then, instead of rendering aid, they just leave? I've never been involved with a hostage situation, but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works.
Now here comes the dubious stuff. It's never really explained exactly what changes the Bell riots effect, besides "people notice." I think it's pretty naive to assume that unemployment is caused by people "not caring." I think that structural shifts in the economy have a lot more to do with it than intent. So it's a pretty childish solution to the problem: let's riot, and people will help more. Because that's worked so well...pretty much never?
When I read Ira Steven Behr's comments on MA, it became more insidious than just a bad two hours of television. Not just because Behr thought it was great, but because he a) thought BC was a good character and b) plays fast and loose with both justice and truth in the name of justice and truth.
Here's the quote from MA:
First of all, he wasn't a scary, threatening character at all. He was just a goof with a gun. Second, he killed an innocent man. Gabriel Bell. Where was the outrage? Instead, Bell's death is treated like it was caused by a force of nature that no one could have prevented. BC killed a man who tried to stop him roughing up an effete Brit (albeit one with a cool sweater and a nice smile). There's also a hint of potential sexual violence, both against the social worker woman and more obviously against Jadzia, which is played for laughs (disturbingly). Yet Behr would say that this guy gets a pass because he's homeless. Which means that Gabriel Bell, who supposedly made a principled stand and sacrificed his life for others, really shouldn't be hailed as a hero, since if he had a job he probably would have just been washing his car or something that day.
I also think that the only thing worse than people who ignore social problems is people who lambaste other people for ignoring social problems while demanding that they (other people) do something about it.
This episode doesn't even make sense within the established Trek universe, at least as I understand it. I thought that things just kept getting worse until World War III, then after Zephram Cochrane made first contact with the Vulcans, humanity pulled together, and with things like warp travel and replicators was able to eliminate poverty and strife. So if the Bell riots really did chance things wouldn't that mean more evolved humanity-->no World War III--> no Phoenix--> no first contact--> no Federation?
The ironic thing about the episode--and it's a detail that perfectly illustrates everything that's wrong about it--is the end, when Vin agrees to falsify his report and allow Sisko and Bashir to "escape" (though it really isn't clear what they're escaping to, since without their ID cards they'd just end up back in the Sanctuary). He'll claim some other dead bodies are them. Because it really makes no difference whose dead, and its not like these other two dead people are going to have families that deserve to know the truth about what happened to their loved ones.
The kicker is when Sisko, without a hint of irony, implores Vin to "tell the truth about what happened here." Which presumably wouldn't mean telling the truth about the final fates of the two corpses who are subbing for Sisko and Bashir, let alone Gabriel Bell.
Because of all that, and it was legitimately a badly-done episode (IMHO, of course), "Past Tense" has knocked out "If Wishes Were Horses" as my new cellar-dwelling DS9 episode.
"Past Tense, Part II"
Part I was basically "City on the Edge of Forever" without the romance. Or good writing. Or, to be honest, good acting. Part II references COTEOF, but riffs more on "Dog Day Afternoon" and other hostage movies. And, for my money, it manages to be both really bad television and a rather dubious political statement.
First, the drama. It's bad. There really isn't much substance, so there's tons of padding. Kira and O'Brien go to two different times to look for their missing crewmates. The one I originally thought was the Jazz Age was actually supposed to be the Depression (only a few years difference, but it's an important few years). That wasn't so bad. But the 1960s one...was just the usual cheesy Trek look back at the past. Ugh. Though I was impressed that they licensed the Jimi Hendrix recording of "Hey Joe" instead of a generic clone.
Then there's lots of padding on the main story, when Dax breaks into the sanctuary district, gets captured, loses her combadge, then goes to find it. It was about on par with a seven-part Third Doctor story for padding (capture, escape, get recaptured, escape, wash, rinse, repeat).
In the end the National Guard storms the site of the hostage crisis. Then, instead of rendering aid, they just leave? I've never been involved with a hostage situation, but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works.
Now here comes the dubious stuff. It's never really explained exactly what changes the Bell riots effect, besides "people notice." I think it's pretty naive to assume that unemployment is caused by people "not caring." I think that structural shifts in the economy have a lot more to do with it than intent. So it's a pretty childish solution to the problem: let's riot, and people will help more. Because that's worked so well...pretty much never?
When I read Ira Steven Behr's comments on MA, it became more insidious than just a bad two hours of television. Not just because Behr thought it was great, but because he a) thought BC was a good character and b) plays fast and loose with both justice and truth in the name of justice and truth.
Here's the quote from MA:
First of all, he wasn't a scary, threatening character at all. He was just a goof with a gun. Second, he killed an innocent man. Gabriel Bell. Where was the outrage? Instead, Bell's death is treated like it was caused by a force of nature that no one could have prevented. BC killed a man who tried to stop him roughing up an effete Brit (albeit one with a cool sweater and a nice smile). There's also a hint of potential sexual violence, both against the social worker woman and more obviously against Jadzia, which is played for laughs (disturbingly). Yet Behr would say that this guy gets a pass because he's homeless. Which means that Gabriel Bell, who supposedly made a principled stand and sacrificed his life for others, really shouldn't be hailed as a hero, since if he had a job he probably would have just been washing his car or something that day.
I also think that the only thing worse than people who ignore social problems is people who lambaste other people for ignoring social problems while demanding that they (other people) do something about it.
This episode doesn't even make sense within the established Trek universe, at least as I understand it. I thought that things just kept getting worse until World War III, then after Zephram Cochrane made first contact with the Vulcans, humanity pulled together, and with things like warp travel and replicators was able to eliminate poverty and strife. So if the Bell riots really did chance things wouldn't that mean more evolved humanity-->no World War III--> no Phoenix--> no first contact--> no Federation?
The ironic thing about the episode--and it's a detail that perfectly illustrates everything that's wrong about it--is the end, when Vin agrees to falsify his report and allow Sisko and Bashir to "escape" (though it really isn't clear what they're escaping to, since without their ID cards they'd just end up back in the Sanctuary). He'll claim some other dead bodies are them. Because it really makes no difference whose dead, and its not like these other two dead people are going to have families that deserve to know the truth about what happened to their loved ones.
The kicker is when Sisko, without a hint of irony, implores Vin to "tell the truth about what happened here." Which presumably wouldn't mean telling the truth about the final fates of the two corpses who are subbing for Sisko and Bashir, let alone Gabriel Bell.
Because of all that, and it was legitimately a badly-done episode (IMHO, of course), "Past Tense" has knocked out "If Wishes Were Horses" as my new cellar-dwelling DS9 episode.
I think a lot around here would agree with your assessment of Past Tense, though probably not the condemnation of it in the process. Truthfully, when I saw this waaayyy back when it first aired, I had similar thoughts ("Oh yay, a message-heavy, technobabbly, time-travel episode of Trek. Who cares?").
A funny thing happened along the way though. After watching the series in the following years, and going back to see Past Tense again, I saw two things that I hadn't noticed before, and put this episode in a new light.
1. As mentioned, some lines of dialog become more poignant. Granted, the writers probably never intended them to be as such when they were written, but, like S1's Vortex, it does end up making the DS9 canvas that much more richer.
2. Godben said it: The Sisko finally shows up here. As in, this is the first point we see the character of Sisko turning into what he's most often recognized as and favored by the fans.
Being around so many 'contemporary' sets, maybe Brooks was re-channeling Hawk from the Spencer series (they were filming a few TV movies around this time too), but whatever the reason, he shows far more raw, believable emotion here, a far cry from the affable, bland Sisko of seasons past.
Yeah, those are about my only defenses for this two-parter. Message is nice and all, but definitely heavy-handed. Hey, it's Message Trek, after all!
A funny thing happened along the way though. After watching the series in the following years, and going back to see Past Tense again, I saw two things that I hadn't noticed before, and put this episode in a new light.
1. As mentioned, some lines of dialog become more poignant. Granted, the writers probably never intended them to be as such when they were written, but, like S1's Vortex, it does end up making the DS9 canvas that much more richer.
2. Godben said it: The Sisko finally shows up here. As in, this is the first point we see the character of Sisko turning into what he's most often recognized as and favored by the fans.
Being around so many 'contemporary' sets, maybe Brooks was re-channeling Hawk from the Spencer series (they were filming a few TV movies around this time too), but whatever the reason, he shows far more raw, believable emotion here, a far cry from the affable, bland Sisko of seasons past.
Yeah, those are about my only defenses for this two-parter. Message is nice and all, but definitely heavy-handed. Hey, it's Message Trek, after all!
Dang Shatnertage, you just about summed up all my problems with Past Tense - from the fact that B.C. is a cold-blooded killer who gets a pass just because he's homeless to the fact that homelessness and poverty are solely caused by people "not caring."
I would add though that the Sanctuary Districts aren't examples of what happens when people at large stop caring, it's what happens when governments stop caring. What we have here is a situation where the government has forcibly relocated people it deems "undesirable" into special areas that are separated from the rest of the public. It then forces those people to remain there and violently reacts when they try to change their lives. Does that excuse the residents' violence? No. But the extreme overreaction of the government to the situation (storm the place with guns blazing) isn't justified either.
We also have a situation where the government is using rationing to control the public. When Sisko and Bashir are first caught, they're asked to produce their "U.H.C. cards." When they can't do that, their immediately assumed to be vagrants and carted off to the District by men who work directly for the government. And yet, amazingly, the episode never makes mention that if it wasn't for these government programs the problems wouldn't exist in the first place. No, instead it's the fault of the general public for "not caring."
You get the distinct impression that the episode's ultimate message is that the government needs to come in fix the problems even though it was the government that caused them to begin with.
Now that being said, I wouldn't say the acting is terrible. Brooks, in particular, has finally started to open up and become the more animated character that Sisko has come to be known for - thankfully. It also has some solid performances from the guest stars, particularly Dick Miller (who plays a character that does care but has been ground down by circumstance - but again, who's responsible for grinding him down?!)
All in all, I'd say these episodes are average - maybe 4 or 5 out of ten. It does have the unintended consequence of showing how governments can destroy their own societies (which I appreciate) and, hey, it's The Sisko's premier after all.
I would add though that the Sanctuary Districts aren't examples of what happens when people at large stop caring, it's what happens when governments stop caring. What we have here is a situation where the government has forcibly relocated people it deems "undesirable" into special areas that are separated from the rest of the public. It then forces those people to remain there and violently reacts when they try to change their lives. Does that excuse the residents' violence? No. But the extreme overreaction of the government to the situation (storm the place with guns blazing) isn't justified either.
We also have a situation where the government is using rationing to control the public. When Sisko and Bashir are first caught, they're asked to produce their "U.H.C. cards." When they can't do that, their immediately assumed to be vagrants and carted off to the District by men who work directly for the government. And yet, amazingly, the episode never makes mention that if it wasn't for these government programs the problems wouldn't exist in the first place. No, instead it's the fault of the general public for "not caring."
You get the distinct impression that the episode's ultimate message is that the government needs to come in fix the problems even though it was the government that caused them to begin with.Now that being said, I wouldn't say the acting is terrible. Brooks, in particular, has finally started to open up and become the more animated character that Sisko has come to be known for - thankfully. It also has some solid performances from the guest stars, particularly Dick Miller (who plays a character that does care but has been ground down by circumstance - but again, who's responsible for grinding him down?!)
All in all, I'd say these episodes are average - maybe 4 or 5 out of ten. It does have the unintended consequence of showing how governments can destroy their own societies (which I appreciate) and, hey, it's The Sisko's premier after all.
Wow, I couldn't disagree with you more. I loved Past Tense as the best example of dark and gritty time travel. And it's a great episode for both Sisko's and Bashir's characters.
Objectively, it isn't perfect, but I found it extremely enjoyable to watch, and for my money, Part 2 is the stronger part: more happening.
I hate to agree with Eyes, but in this circumstance I have to. Past Tense shows some of the really dark sides of DS9, and strengthens Sisko as a character so much.
That's true, but it looks like as a result of the government not caring, the people stop caring because it's too painful to care, therefore the people are blamed, which isn't fair, but that is realisticly what happens.
B.C is just messed up, I don't have many excuses for him, only the fact that he seemed to have changed by the end, and he was in a very bad situation.
I would add though that the Sanctuary Districts aren't examples of what happens when people at large stop caring, it's what happens when governments stop caring.
We also have a situation where the government is using rationing to control the public. When Sisko and Bashir are first caught, they're asked to produce their "U.H.C. cards." When they can't do that, their immediately assumed to be vagrants and carted off to the District by men who work directly for the government. And yet, amazingly, the episode never makes mention that if it wasn't for these government programs the problems wouldn't exist in the first place. No, instead it's the fault of the general public for "not caring."
That's true, but it looks like as a result of the government not caring, the people stop caring because it's too painful to care, therefore the people are blamed, which isn't fair, but that is realisticly what happens.
This seems to indicate that it's not the people's fault, it's just unfortunate for them because of the time that they live in, in much the same way we'd see peasants in the 15th or 16th century. I'll agree, the government has to be corrupt, that's almost obvious, but I don't remember when the residents of the sanctury were given blame, aside from B.C.
B.C is just messed up, I don't have many excuses for him, only the fact that he seemed to have changed by the end, and he was in a very bad situation.
Gotta go with Eyes. Rather enjoyed this two-parter. Although Shatnertage certainly does nail the problems with BC, which hurts the episodes a good bit. I'd give the first part two-and-a-half stars and the second one... er, maybe the same score. Maybe three. BC is what keeps them pretty average.
Argh, typing lengthy statements when I'm on the PS3 browser is a perpetual no-go or I'd say more right now. Basically, and this is a good go-to guide for why I don't type volumes often lately in general, every time I click 'submit' on a forum site there's like a one-in-five chance or so I lose all my writing somehow. And there doesn't seem to be a way to rectify it. As it stands, I'm fingers-crossed at the moment that this gets through.
Next time I'm on the laptop I'll try to speak up more on why I like these episodes as much as I do.
Argh, typing lengthy statements when I'm on the PS3 browser is a perpetual no-go or I'd say more right now. Basically, and this is a good go-to guide for why I don't type volumes often lately in general, every time I click 'submit' on a forum site there's like a one-in-five chance or so I lose all my writing somehow. And there doesn't seem to be a way to rectify it. As it stands, I'm fingers-crossed at the moment that this gets through.
Next time I'm on the laptop I'll try to speak up more on why I like these episodes as much as I do.
I'm going to agree with Admiral Shran...it seems to me like this is what happened because people pushed this off on the government, and government being government, they came up with a completely off-the-mark and inhumane solution in the name of all sorts of good stuff. Any time the government decides it's the solution to the problem, what do we get? A bigger problem. That said, I do think private individuals and churches need to do what they are supposed to do and step up to the plate in a far bigger way than they currently do, not push off poverty and homelessness as if it's the government's job to fix it. It's not. That is abdication of responsibility, plain and simple.
But if that was a point this episode was somehow supposed to get across, it failed--because, I'm sorry, a riot does not accomplish anything except one's credentials for violence.
BTW, Shran, your new avatar scares me. I keep thinking you're a certain mod.
But if that was a point this episode was somehow supposed to get across, it failed--because, I'm sorry, a riot does not accomplish anything except one's credentials for violence.
BTW, Shran, your new avatar scares me. I keep thinking you're a certain mod.
I'd rather be a peasant during the Renaissance than live Trek's 2020s. At least the peasants didn't have to deal with a government that actively threw them into camps like this and stifled all attempts to overcome their obstacles.
It's not that the residents were blamed. It's that the general public outside the Districts - people like Chris Brynner and his friends - are blamed. That's the fundamental flaw of these episodes, IMO. It misplaces the blame. The episode clearly implies that if Brynner and people like him would just stop worrying only about themselves and start caring about others, then things would improve. But, they're not ultimately at fault. The government is because it has 1.) herded the residents into the District in the first place, 2.) denied the residents some pretty basic human rights, and 3.) convinced the public that they don't need to care since the government is handling the situation.
BTW, Shran, your new avatar scares me. I keep thinking you're a certain mod.
I'm just kidding around. Though sometimes I do feel like going insane when I'm defending myself in threads about real-life politics, religion or my preferences for certain types of women in the Babe of the Week threads in the TV & Media Lounge.
Maybe I should use this one instead....
The conditions are bad, and as I said, the government is corrupt, but that doesn't take away from the episode, it's just what the story's built on. What we have here is greed. Somehow people who want to be extremely rich have got into power, so much, that they abandon their morals, and to gain their wealth, they take away from ordinary citizens. I'd guess that if citizens don't have ID, everything they own may be taken as well.
Well, some his 'class' if you will, ought to know something about it, and although they're not to blame, they're not doing much about it either. Besides, I'm pretty sure the episode makes Chris out to be a good guy. There are some ignorant ones, and equally some arrogant ones, but ultimately the government is to blame, and I think that shows.
They're the ones with guns, at the end killing some innocents, ("Micheal Webb" being one) and from what I remember, their representative wasn't very flexible when she was negotiating with Sisko, which was fair enough, because she couldn't make any decisions, but when she talked to her superiors they weren't very helpful either, meaning the government is shown to be at fault, and that's the message I got. I never got the feeling that Chris was being blamed by the writers.
Waiting on Netflix again?
Nah, I had to travel for a few days. Back now.
Ah good. I was worried this thread might be heading to the DS9 review thread graveyard, where so many seem to go.
Well, for a while there this thread was on...
"Life Support"
This was a flawed episode that had some good acting but just didn't come together. Funnily enough, I remember watching this one a long time ago--I knew it as "the one where Kira's boyfriend gets a brain transplant."
I hate to say it, but Bariel actually kind of needed a personality transplant. Nice guy, but dull.
Right away I said, "Kai Winn is off in this one--something's not right." My wife agreed that she was flat. I just went to MA and learned that Louise Fletcher was sick with the flu. Things make a lot more sense now.
Of course, her character was all over the place. In a way, it's showing a different side of Winn--she now respects and needs the help of Bariel. In another, it's just inconsistent with the character as established so far. I don't think she even got to call Kira "child," which is always a highlight for me.
My biggest problem with this episode is that it's a completely standard TreatyTrek plot--the ambassador who must, MUST be kept alive/awake/alert to handle the negotiations. I know we saw this at least twice in TNG--with the young/old ambassador in that episode with the young/old ambassador and, of course, "Sarek." I still don't know why Crusher didn't give Picard a sedative to knock him out for a few hours instead of letting him rave like a loon, but that's neither here nor there.
As I was saying, the set-up is absolutely contrived--Bariel is the only one who has any idea what's been going on...because naturally the Bajoran government would entrust negotiations to just one guy. And wasn't he unjustly tarred as a collaborator when we last saw him? Seems like they'd want to keep him away from the negotiating table, lest the Bajoran supremacists claim he sold them out.
Winn is written as being pretty dumb in this episode--how couldn't she realize that Cardassia's claim to "all property" would include 70 years of civic improvements and, well, Deep Space Nine itself? She's way too smart for that. I guess Winn had the flu, too, and was out of it.
One funny moment. When Winn said she was going to call Legate Turrel, I piped up, "And have him leg it over here."
You'd think that there would already be pretty strict protocols for something like brain transplant surgery, but Bashir seems to be making it up as he goes along. And, naturally, the Federation is going to entrust the health of a man who's critical to the future of that part of the Alpha Quadrant to one doctor on a space station--they wouldn't send their best and brightest to consult.
And I'm still wondering who the Bajoran nurse with the unusual hair was. It was good hair, at least. Kira got a new style in this episode that somehow manages to be even more butch-looking than her last cut. Very unflattering, IMHO.
So the A-story was forced, but there still was some good acting, mostly from Siddig and Visitor, who really shine here. It's a shame they didn't have better material to work with.
The B-story is a good one, but I agree with MA that it didn't quite jell with the serious A-story. There's one transition, in particular, between Jake and Nog having a laugh to Bariel screaming in the infirmary. Very jarring.
So at the end Bariel dies, but again, everything feels very forced. The actors did as good a job as the could with what they had, but this was not one of the better episodes I've seen.
"Life Support"
This was a flawed episode that had some good acting but just didn't come together. Funnily enough, I remember watching this one a long time ago--I knew it as "the one where Kira's boyfriend gets a brain transplant."
I hate to say it, but Bariel actually kind of needed a personality transplant. Nice guy, but dull.
Right away I said, "Kai Winn is off in this one--something's not right." My wife agreed that she was flat. I just went to MA and learned that Louise Fletcher was sick with the flu. Things make a lot more sense now.
Of course, her character was all over the place. In a way, it's showing a different side of Winn--she now respects and needs the help of Bariel. In another, it's just inconsistent with the character as established so far. I don't think she even got to call Kira "child," which is always a highlight for me.
My biggest problem with this episode is that it's a completely standard TreatyTrek plot--the ambassador who must, MUST be kept alive/awake/alert to handle the negotiations. I know we saw this at least twice in TNG--with the young/old ambassador in that episode with the young/old ambassador and, of course, "Sarek." I still don't know why Crusher didn't give Picard a sedative to knock him out for a few hours instead of letting him rave like a loon, but that's neither here nor there.
As I was saying, the set-up is absolutely contrived--Bariel is the only one who has any idea what's been going on...because naturally the Bajoran government would entrust negotiations to just one guy. And wasn't he unjustly tarred as a collaborator when we last saw him? Seems like they'd want to keep him away from the negotiating table, lest the Bajoran supremacists claim he sold them out.
Winn is written as being pretty dumb in this episode--how couldn't she realize that Cardassia's claim to "all property" would include 70 years of civic improvements and, well, Deep Space Nine itself? She's way too smart for that. I guess Winn had the flu, too, and was out of it.
One funny moment. When Winn said she was going to call Legate Turrel, I piped up, "And have him leg it over here."
You'd think that there would already be pretty strict protocols for something like brain transplant surgery, but Bashir seems to be making it up as he goes along. And, naturally, the Federation is going to entrust the health of a man who's critical to the future of that part of the Alpha Quadrant to one doctor on a space station--they wouldn't send their best and brightest to consult.
And I'm still wondering who the Bajoran nurse with the unusual hair was. It was good hair, at least. Kira got a new style in this episode that somehow manages to be even more butch-looking than her last cut. Very unflattering, IMHO.
So the A-story was forced, but there still was some good acting, mostly from Siddig and Visitor, who really shine here. It's a shame they didn't have better material to work with.
The B-story is a good one, but I agree with MA that it didn't quite jell with the serious A-story. There's one transition, in particular, between Jake and Nog having a laugh to Bariel screaming in the infirmary. Very jarring.
So at the end Bariel dies, but again, everything feels very forced. The actors did as good a job as the could with what they had, but this was not one of the better episodes I've seen.
Regarding "Sarek," I'm not sure a mind meld with an unconscious person would have the same efficacy as with a person who is fully conscious and able to hold up his own end of the meld.
As for Bareil being labeled a collaborator...you sure that's not something that didn't get some play with the Cardassians and make them more willing to listen to him?
As for Bareil being labeled a collaborator...you sure that's not something that didn't get some play with the Cardassians and make them more willing to listen to him?
Similar threads
