The Communicator
- Thread starter Trekwatcher
- Start date
Pensive said:
Tom Riker said:
I do like Enterprise. I like all Star Trek.
I like YOU.
Awww...aren't you sweet
T'Pol isn't hot unless she's cold.
Hey. Remember the Cage? Menagerie? The communicator they needed back then required a backpack to carry around.
I still find it ridiculous that that the Communicator has always been regarded as the transponder the transporter locks onto, but here in they could only track it's locus down to 2 square miles.
The simplest definition of the Prime Directive is that you don't tell your kids that Santa Claus is fake, to rpreseve their innocence.
Hey. Remember the Cage? Menagerie? The communicator they needed back then required a backpack to carry around.
I still find it ridiculous that that the Communicator has always been regarded as the transponder the transporter locks onto, but here in they could only track it's locus down to 2 square miles.
The simplest definition of the Prime Directive is that you don't tell your kids that Santa Claus is fake, to rpreseve their innocence.
Well, the usual storyline regarding these gadgets in TOS is that you have to activate them (i.e. flip the grid at the very least, and probably push a specific button) in order to make them serve as transporter beacons. I'd suppose the same to hold for the ENT era technology.
As for why that is... Perhaps the hyper-exact beacon function consumes a lot of power, or gives out a lot of nut-assorting radiation, or makes a really annoying high-pitched noise.
The other thing to mind is that transporters and their comm signals don't penetrate thick rock or exotic materials easily. These paranoid natives could have built their meekest outhouses out of unobtainium in preparation for a bombing raid.
Timo Saloniemi
What "no"?
It is a feature of the TOS communicators that they don't act as beacons unless activated. Sure, this can work as a plot device, but not merely for the week of "The Communicator" - it was a plot device for an entire show before that. Scotty was frequently at loss to extract the captured landing party if their communicators were taken away from them. He never went for "let's beam them up just in case, even if it is against their will and judgement", not even when this would have been the tactically wise thing to do (say, in "Cloud Minders"). The reasons for that must have been technical rather than tactical, because Scotty can spring to action the moment the devices are flipped open again.
It is only in the TNG era that the transporter operator can unerringly locate and unwittingly beam up just the removed/abandoned communicator badge.
Timo Saloniemi
It is a feature of the TOS communicators that they don't act as beacons unless activated. Sure, this can work as a plot device, but not merely for the week of "The Communicator" - it was a plot device for an entire show before that. Scotty was frequently at loss to extract the captured landing party if their communicators were taken away from them. He never went for "let's beam them up just in case, even if it is against their will and judgement", not even when this would have been the tactically wise thing to do (say, in "Cloud Minders"). The reasons for that must have been technical rather than tactical, because Scotty can spring to action the moment the devices are flipped open again.
It is only in the TNG era that the transporter operator can unerringly locate and unwittingly beam up just the removed/abandoned communicator badge.
Timo Saloniemi
Fun storyline but poor execution. Archer is willing to sacrifice his life and Malcolm's life over a communicator. There isn't even a Prime Directive for him to hide behind. He couldn't handle being slapped around a little and told the aliens a stupid lie. I think he just would have been better off telling the truth in this case.
I don't get the "willing to sacrifice his life" part. How is Archer volunteering to die? He has been captured by an armed enemy, placed in chains, and is led to the gallows, after which the enemy intends to dissect his body. What can he do about it, except try to talk his way out of it (like he does, without much success)?
There is no point in the story where Archer decides to quit resisting for ideological reasons. There is a point where he and Reed sort of give up on hoping for survival, of course, but that has little to do with any sort of ideology.
Telling the truth is one option he might try (along with comparable things like praying, jumping on one foot, or opening a pizzeria). But he feels Reed's poor handling of the original lie has ruined their credibility for good, and he's probably 100% right on that. No way he could avoid getting dissected no matter what he told.
Timo Saloniemi
There is no point in the story where Archer decides to quit resisting for ideological reasons. There is a point where he and Reed sort of give up on hoping for survival, of course, but that has little to do with any sort of ideology.
Telling the truth is one option he might try (along with comparable things like praying, jumping on one foot, or opening a pizzeria). But he feels Reed's poor handling of the original lie has ruined their credibility for good, and he's probably 100% right on that. No way he could avoid getting dissected no matter what he told.
Timo Saloniemi
He should have just told them the truth and taken his chances. Maybe he could have worked something out. Otherwise, he's just dying over a piece of equipment.
Didn't help matters that he made things worse with his stupid lie because he couldn't take two seconds of being smacked around.
Didn't help matters that he made things worse with his stupid lie because he couldn't take two seconds of being smacked around.
Well, in the sense that he's chosen what he believes is the lesser of two evils, he is "willing to sacrifice his life." He probably would have been spared for a while longer if he had admitted that yes, they were extraterrestrials, rather than experimental soldiers, but that would have likely thrown their entire worldview off kilter, which he wasn't willing to do. You're right though; eventually they would have been vivisected anyway, since this society was not at the space exploration stage yet. Interesting that what upsets him is not his own death so much, but that he's taking Reed with him.
Acutally, I thought that was the point of the jail cell conversation between Archer and Reed. Reed commented on the irony of giving their lives to "protect" people who wanted to kill them and towards the end Archer said they were doing the "right" thing. At the beginning of the convo, they discussed a few options for escape but dismissed them rather quickly (which seemed out of character for both Archer and Reed). But overall, that conversation seemed to indicate that they had bought into this idea that maintaining their silence (even if it led to their deaths) was the right thing to do. And T'Pol further reinforced that idea at the end when she said that Archer had been willing to sacrifice himself to protect the people on the planet, and she would not have expected that.
To me, telling the truth seems like it would have been the most logical and common sense solution at that point. After all, before Reed made up that story about genetic enhancements, their captors already had hypothesized that they were aliens from another world based on the physical exams, surveillance photos, and knowledge of other planets in their system. So why would Archer and Reed just assume the truth wouldn't be believed, especially if they offered other supporting evidence (maybe something from ENT)?
At that point, with damage already done, seems like they should've tried the truth and if possible, worked with the officials on the planet to deal with the ramifications. Yes, this was a pre-warp culture, but from what I remember, there seemed to be some degree of scientific/technological capability as well as sufficient intellect and imagination to accept the idea of life beyond their planet. And like Reed mentioned at one point, maybe the truth would actually have done them some good -- perhaps encouraged them to look beyond whatever grievances were motivating their pending war to focus on the overall progress of their planet.
That's really the main problem I have with the episode (and the reason I really dislike it). To me, they never really presented a compelling case for why these people needed to be protected from the truth, especially once the contamination occurred, so the idea of Archer's and Reed's lives being sacrificed based on that concept seemed silly.
Like "Dear Doctor," this seems like one of those episodes intended to foreshadow the Prime Directive and let us see Archer grappling with a complex issue and gaining/demonstrating broader perspective, but it really doesn't work for me because the rationale and logic behind the decisions seems weak and/or flawed.
For me, the fact that T'Pol at every stage sees the events through Vulcan glasses doesn't mean that any of the other characters would. After all, nobody as much as nods in acknowledgement when T'Pol sprouts her Vulcan propaganda.
I'm curious - which lines suggest that Archer would want to "protect" the planet from the truth, as opposed to Archer simply wanting to maintain his cover identity in hopes of completing his espionage/extraction mission?
As far as I can tell, prior to the "two minutes to gallows" conversation, neither of our heroes cares one iota about the nasty folks down on the planet. During that conversation, Archer is the first to suggest that the two tell the truth, and argues against the Vulcan Way, ridiculing the idea that cultural contamination prevention should come before the lives of his crew and himself. Against all that, Archer's final line in the scene comes off as just that: a final feel-good line to a friend about how it's all right, baby, at least it's not necessarily all bad, always look at the bright side of life, tally ho and jolly good show... There's no sentiment behind it, except perhaps one of amused resignation. The two go to the gallows still thinking that the ugly aliens are the enemy, not a precious resource to be protected.
The final scene between Archer and T'Pol indeed foreshadows a change in Archer's attitudes, but I'd chalk that up to psychological aftereffects from the ordeal. After all, nobody was "sacrificing" anything in the episode: Reed and Archer almost got killed completely against their wishes, best effort and ideological conviction, while T'Pol ordered them rescued on basis of her ideological conviction of protecting the natives (at least outwardly) and the crew executed those orders based on their ideological conviction of really, really wanting their buddies to survive. No sacrifices were necessary for accomplishing that, and indeed no opportunity presented itself for making any sacrifices.
So T'Pol's final line about sacrifices is completely without basis in the events of the episode. But it's well-based psychologically, as part of her ongoing efforts to vulcanize Archer.
Timo Saloniemi
I'm curious - which lines suggest that Archer would want to "protect" the planet from the truth, as opposed to Archer simply wanting to maintain his cover identity in hopes of completing his espionage/extraction mission?
As far as I can tell, prior to the "two minutes to gallows" conversation, neither of our heroes cares one iota about the nasty folks down on the planet. During that conversation, Archer is the first to suggest that the two tell the truth, and argues against the Vulcan Way, ridiculing the idea that cultural contamination prevention should come before the lives of his crew and himself. Against all that, Archer's final line in the scene comes off as just that: a final feel-good line to a friend about how it's all right, baby, at least it's not necessarily all bad, always look at the bright side of life, tally ho and jolly good show... There's no sentiment behind it, except perhaps one of amused resignation. The two go to the gallows still thinking that the ugly aliens are the enemy, not a precious resource to be protected.
The final scene between Archer and T'Pol indeed foreshadows a change in Archer's attitudes, but I'd chalk that up to psychological aftereffects from the ordeal. After all, nobody was "sacrificing" anything in the episode: Reed and Archer almost got killed completely against their wishes, best effort and ideological conviction, while T'Pol ordered them rescued on basis of her ideological conviction of protecting the natives (at least outwardly) and the crew executed those orders based on their ideological conviction of really, really wanting their buddies to survive. No sacrifices were necessary for accomplishing that, and indeed no opportunity presented itself for making any sacrifices.
So T'Pol's final line about sacrifices is completely without basis in the events of the episode. But it's well-based psychologically, as part of her ongoing efforts to vulcanize Archer.
Timo Saloniemi
Here's an excerpt of dialogue from the jail cell scene (bolding mine). For the sake of brevity, I left out a part prior to this during which Archer and Reed talk about escape options and what T'Pol will do after their execution.
Reed: It's ironic...Giving our lives to protect people who want to kill us.
Archer: It's a big planet, Malcolm. I'm sure they're not all like that.
Reed: I'm not afraid, sir.
Archer: What if we did tell them the truth?
Reed: You said it yourself, Captain...they'd never believe us.
Archer: If we show them to the shuttlepod...bring the General up to Enterprise...give them the grand tour...top it off with dinner in the Captain's mess. We'd probably all have a good laugh over how he almost sent us to the gallows. I've gotten plenty of lectures on cultural contamination. But T'Pol never mentioned anything about sacrificing crewmen to prevent it.
Reed: If we did tell them who we are...maybe it would do them a world of good. Look what the Vulcans did for Earth.
Archer: That was different. These people haven't even split the atom yet. The Vulcans waited until we were ready. Until we had the ability to travel to other stars. We're doing the right thing, Malcolm. I'm sorry you won't get a chance to write that report.
Reed: It could still happen, sir. I'm expecting a rescue party to come barging through
that door..any moment.
This conversation is largely about whether they should tell the aliens the truth. And yes, Archer is the first to suggest it and there is even a hint of "gallows humor" to his tone as he talks about bringing the General to ENT and giving him a grand tour.
But after that, Archer's demeanor and tone change, and when Malcolm picks up on the idea of telling the truth and mentions what the Vulcans did for Earth, Archer responds in a more serious and reflective manner. I don't think he's really arguing against or ridiculing the Vulcan Way. (He even comments that T'Pol didn't say anything about sacrificing crewmen.) If anything, he's suggesting that the Vulcans did the right thing by waiting until Earth/Humans were "ready" to make first contact. And by contrast, he's saying that the aliens on that planet are not ready (i.e., haven't split the atom yet), so they are doing the right thing in not telling them the truth.
At that point in the episode, I don't see why Archer would want to maintain their cover in hopes of completing the espionage/extraction mission. That part of the mission had been thoroughly messed up -- they were in alien hands and due to be shortly executed. Completing that part of the mission would've required either an escape or rescue attempt, and Archer seemed to have given up on either possibility.
So it seemed Archer's rationale at that point for maintaining their cover was to protect the aliens from a truth for which he didn't think they were ready. At least, that's how I interpreted the scene.
Well, the general apparently wanted to believe the lie Reed told at Archer's cue. It would be quite difficult to persuade anybody otherwise once that happens...
In the end, what difference would it make for our heroes? They'd be dissected anyway if found to be space aliens. (Unless Archer promised to ally Starfleet with the general's forces and rain death at their common enemy from orbit?)
Timo Saloniemi
In the end, what difference would it make for our heroes? They'd be dissected anyway if found to be space aliens. (Unless Archer promised to ally Starfleet with the general's forces and rain death at their common enemy from orbit?)
Timo Saloniemi
tothebridge, I think your second analysis is spot on. I like this episode for precisely this reason (and therefore, I guess, disagree with your ultimate opinion) - that there is a decision made to protect the culture, and they are willing to follow through with it. In my opinion, though, that decision is the better one.
Similar threads
