The Measure of a Man
- Thread starter Willieck
- Start date
Ha. I nearly said Stewart rather than Picard but I did not want to upset anybody's sensibilities by comparing ST to say Shakespeare or Waiting for Godot.
A shining beacon of hope for things to come in later years, but also a classic 'top ten' episode standing on its own. I thoroughly enjoyed this one.
I'll unashamedly tell you I not only compare Star Trek to Shakespeare, but rate it head and shoulders above. I'm sure I'll garner sniffy derisory comments, but for me, Shakespeare is mind numbingly boring. Haven't seen Waiting For Godot, but from the news coverage I saw at the time, I don't think it's going to float my boat either, sorry.
I think this was my favorite part:
Agreed.... Shakespeare is boring as frozen dog snot.
I guess in the last day or so in Toronto, in the news there were washed out actors looking for some work (I think they were either in college or just out of college) who took it upon themselves to stroll on the subways to act out Shakespeare plays either with another partner, or just by themselves..... yelling and proclaiming crap in old english jibberish, flailing their arms around and dothing this and protesting that, while everybody just looked at them and shook their heads.... I think one in the news said she was kicked by some old lady.
I would have told them to STFU, it's a Subway and I haven't had my coffee yet to put up with their annoying crap..... but then it's a good thing I don't live in Toronto :P
Last edited:
Yes, but threads can often be embryonic in nature before meandering back to topic. However, I'll expedite the situation by stating I too think Measure Of A Man is an all time Trek classic.
IMO Shakespeare is everything but boring... But it may be a good idea to acquaint yourself with his works by reading them or watching a really good stage or movie/TV adaptation... rather than through watching a bunch of bad actors in the street.
However, I have to admire them if they actually talked in 'old english gibberish'... they took upon themselves to translate Shakespeare's works from their original Modern English into Old English? Wow!
I knew about people translating it into Klingon, but... Seriously though - a lot of Trek is nothing like Shakespeare, because it has very specific messages, gets a bit too preachy, and the characters aren't nearly as complex. Some of the best of Trek, however, is as complex and colorful as Shakespeare's tragedies, histories and tragicomedies... and many of Trek comedy episodes are built on premises that are just as stupid as those of Shakespeare's comedies (magic love potions/magic space love dust, etc.).
Death, murder, betrayal, incest, romance.....
I think this was my favorite part:
Agreed.... Shakespeare is boring as frozen dog snot.
I guess in the last day or so in Toronto, in the news there were washed out actors looking for some work (I think they were either in college or just out of college) who took it upon themselves to stroll on the subways to act out Shakespeare plays either with another partner, or just by themselves..... yelling and proclaiming crap in old english jibberish, flailing their arms around and dothing this and protesting that, while everybody just looked at them and shook their heads.... I think one in the news said she was kicked by some old lady.
I would have told them to STFU, it's a Subway and I haven't had my coffee yet to put up with their annoying crap..... but then it's a good thing I don't live in Toronto :P
Many of the main ingredients to just about all of Shakespeare's plays. IMO Shakespeare is anything but boring. Most of DS9 is written like a Shakespearean play as well as many of the titles. Some don't appreciate Shakespeare because they can't understand the language.
However, I have to admire them if they actually talked in 'old english gibberish'... they took upon themselves to translate Shakespeare's works from their original Modern English into Old English? Wow!
Nice
Anyway, Shakespeare? Come on - King Lear, Hamlet, Macbeth, that's some good stuff!
The Measure of a Man is superb, I think it's head and shoulders above anything else in Season 2. It's a highlight for Data, Riker and especially Picard and the plot is beautifully structured. I'd go so far as to say it's one of the best TV episodes I've ever seen.
I don't mean to drag this into a long debate about Shakespeare and just figured I'd throw my two cents out there on a tangent someone else brought up in the topic..... but the last thing I'll say about Shakespeare is that yeah it might have all that stuff in it, but it's still dry, boring and predictable.... and in the end, everybody dies. One can bastardize his plays by making new-age and hip movies for the kiddies with teen's heart throbs of the day, but it's still the same, boring, predictable crap.
Now that's just my opinion of course and if other's like them, all the power to them and I won't think of them any less, to each their own..... I just can't stand the over-hyped crap.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back on topic.... Measure of a Man was an impressive episode, and not only was it one of the best of the season, but one of the best representations of TNG they made. It didn't just focus on a touchy subject such as personal rights and humanity's superiority complexes of being the "Measure" for all others to adhere to.... it didn't just draw you into the conflicts each character had to deal with..... it also made you think..... I mean really think.
It wasn't your typical MacGyver entertainment of lame stunts, explosions and just spoon feeding you the story & plot and then sending you one your way..... They laid it all out on the table and asked the viewer "What makes you really think you're more special then anyone or anything else?"
Machines, androids, holograms, animals, insects, plants..... people think they're nothing like us and either just interact/react to their programing or mere instincts..... nothing more.... yet we interact and react based on, as Picard tossed out, Electrochemical stimuli and response... our brain registers the sensory input given to us from the outside world, our programmed brain determines what that input is and how we should react to it.
People claim that plants don't feel "Pain" and therefore it's better to kill and eat them then animals, because animals have a circulatory system and a brain...... yet studies over the years have proven that when you damage a plant, such as when a bug begins to eat the leaves of a tomato plant, the plant reacts to the signals detected from being damaged and respond by changing the chemicals in the leaves to make them harder for the insect to digest...... and when you send electric currents through a potato, the potato produces more anti-oxidants..... when certain plants detect fire (like a forest fire) many have various shells around their seeds (pine cones for example) that shut to protect their seeds...... if plants were not aware of their own mortality and the dangers surrounding them, why would they produce poisons, or have thorns, etc.?
Some people argue that jellyfish don't sense what we call "pain" and can not suffer because they're just a collective of cells working together and they have no brain.... yet studies have also shown that when they're attacked or they sense they're being damaged, they begin to release their eggs/sperm so that their population will still thrive. Many don't even realize that Jellyfish have eyes and can detect obstacles in their surroundings, to either avoid something or attack it.
Just mere instincts? Perhaps
All our lives we're brought up to react, think, interact, feel a certain way towards something.
Some people would argue that there are some basic elements that are things we are born to do or born to believe..... our instincts if you will..... yet one could argue that our instincts are no different then the BIOS of a computer, where what we're taught and what we learn through experience is the OS for the computer......
A computer's BIOS basically tells it how to turn on and how to use it's basic elements.... where the OS and the software you install with it, tells that computer how to use other elements, such as the sound card, video card, ethernet card, USB ports, etc. etc..... the computer grows from an infant, to an "advanced individual" that can perform many tasks the infant can't in normal circumstances.
Just because a human designed a computer or an android to process information, to think and react a certain way by many various forms of interpreting code which may simulate emotions or some level of caring, doesn't make those expressions any less of value then our expressions...... how can one possibly argue that the way we're taught and programmed to think nudity in public is wrong (something I dispute) or that some God created us, or that all drugs are bad, or helping out those in need, etc.... are somehow different?? These are things our parents and society have programmed into our minds since the day we were born.
Now, I'm not saying your computer in front of you is equally alive and aware of the world around them as you and I..... but once we get to the point where computers can interpret the information we provided it in a certain way in which it can develop new codes and new programming all on it's own without our interference, thus evolve through it's own path in life..... it's no longer a box on your desk storing magnetic and electrical data..... in a sense, computers today are still in their infancy..... but have grown from the petri-dish of when the first one, the ENIAC, was created..... then eventually in test tubes of Atari's, Commodore 64's and Vic 20's..... to 286/386 PC new borns...... to the toddlers we have in front of us today.
how can one possibly argue that these things are different?
Nobody can, that's the thing..... sure one can pull out all sorts of mumbo jumbo and try to complicate the situation beyond anybody's understanding.... but they're only fooling themselves and fooling those who are duped by their confusion that we're somehow more special.... because there is no tangible evidence to back any theory up.... including the one I'm presenting right now.
Maybe I don't think we're any different then the things I listed above because of how I interpreted my programming I gained through the years..... then again, perhaps I misinterpreted my programming and experiences, I'm completely wrong and we are more special.
I can't tell you what the real and true answer is, and none of you can tell me what it is.... the answer is for all of us to discover on our own...... just as they said in the Episode in question and why they gave Data his right to choose....... and that's why it's a real "Thinker" of an episode.
Now that's just my opinion of course and if other's like them, all the power to them and I won't think of them any less, to each their own..... I just can't stand the over-hyped crap.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back on topic.... Measure of a Man was an impressive episode, and not only was it one of the best of the season, but one of the best representations of TNG they made. It didn't just focus on a touchy subject such as personal rights and humanity's superiority complexes of being the "Measure" for all others to adhere to.... it didn't just draw you into the conflicts each character had to deal with..... it also made you think..... I mean really think.
It wasn't your typical MacGyver entertainment of lame stunts, explosions and just spoon feeding you the story & plot and then sending you one your way..... They laid it all out on the table and asked the viewer "What makes you really think you're more special then anyone or anything else?"
Machines, androids, holograms, animals, insects, plants..... people think they're nothing like us and either just interact/react to their programing or mere instincts..... nothing more.... yet we interact and react based on, as Picard tossed out, Electrochemical stimuli and response... our brain registers the sensory input given to us from the outside world, our programmed brain determines what that input is and how we should react to it.
People claim that plants don't feel "Pain" and therefore it's better to kill and eat them then animals, because animals have a circulatory system and a brain...... yet studies over the years have proven that when you damage a plant, such as when a bug begins to eat the leaves of a tomato plant, the plant reacts to the signals detected from being damaged and respond by changing the chemicals in the leaves to make them harder for the insect to digest...... and when you send electric currents through a potato, the potato produces more anti-oxidants..... when certain plants detect fire (like a forest fire) many have various shells around their seeds (pine cones for example) that shut to protect their seeds...... if plants were not aware of their own mortality and the dangers surrounding them, why would they produce poisons, or have thorns, etc.?
Some people argue that jellyfish don't sense what we call "pain" and can not suffer because they're just a collective of cells working together and they have no brain.... yet studies have also shown that when they're attacked or they sense they're being damaged, they begin to release their eggs/sperm so that their population will still thrive. Many don't even realize that Jellyfish have eyes and can detect obstacles in their surroundings, to either avoid something or attack it.
Just mere instincts? Perhaps
All our lives we're brought up to react, think, interact, feel a certain way towards something.
Some people would argue that there are some basic elements that are things we are born to do or born to believe..... our instincts if you will..... yet one could argue that our instincts are no different then the BIOS of a computer, where what we're taught and what we learn through experience is the OS for the computer......
A computer's BIOS basically tells it how to turn on and how to use it's basic elements.... where the OS and the software you install with it, tells that computer how to use other elements, such as the sound card, video card, ethernet card, USB ports, etc. etc..... the computer grows from an infant, to an "advanced individual" that can perform many tasks the infant can't in normal circumstances.
Just because a human designed a computer or an android to process information, to think and react a certain way by many various forms of interpreting code which may simulate emotions or some level of caring, doesn't make those expressions any less of value then our expressions...... how can one possibly argue that the way we're taught and programmed to think nudity in public is wrong (something I dispute) or that some God created us, or that all drugs are bad, or helping out those in need, etc.... are somehow different?? These are things our parents and society have programmed into our minds since the day we were born.
Now, I'm not saying your computer in front of you is equally alive and aware of the world around them as you and I..... but once we get to the point where computers can interpret the information we provided it in a certain way in which it can develop new codes and new programming all on it's own without our interference, thus evolve through it's own path in life..... it's no longer a box on your desk storing magnetic and electrical data..... in a sense, computers today are still in their infancy..... but have grown from the petri-dish of when the first one, the ENIAC, was created..... then eventually in test tubes of Atari's, Commodore 64's and Vic 20's..... to 286/386 PC new borns...... to the toddlers we have in front of us today.
how can one possibly argue that these things are different?
Nobody can, that's the thing..... sure one can pull out all sorts of mumbo jumbo and try to complicate the situation beyond anybody's understanding.... but they're only fooling themselves and fooling those who are duped by their confusion that we're somehow more special.... because there is no tangible evidence to back any theory up.... including the one I'm presenting right now.
Maybe I don't think we're any different then the things I listed above because of how I interpreted my programming I gained through the years..... then again, perhaps I misinterpreted my programming and experiences, I'm completely wrong and we are more special.
I can't tell you what the real and true answer is, and none of you can tell me what it is.... the answer is for all of us to discover on our own...... just as they said in the Episode in question and why they gave Data his right to choose....... and that's why it's a real "Thinker" of an episode.
Last edited:
Shakespeare, Star trek and Patrick Steward are all awesome IMO. The great thing about Shakespeare's plays and Star Trek episodes is that we can still debate about them many years later and never come to one unanimous answer.
This episode falls somewhere in my top 20-25 episodes of STNG.
I agree with ST being timeless, we can discuss Let That Be Your Last Battlefield; I, Borg; Tuvix; Similitude; and In the Pale Moonlight and its still entertaining and thought provoking.
Last edited:
"The Measure Of A Man" is my favourite TNG episode. It's good in its own right and good Star Trek and among the very best.
Yes, I think this episode would grip even the most casual/non fans viewing.
Melinda Snodgrass did Asimov proud...despite not getting along with the other producers on the show.
RAMA
I agree that it's a great episode. Seems to be one of the more universally liked eps by fans from what I can tell. It was very well done, and is definitely one of the major standout eps in a pretty weak season 2.
I thought Voyager did a pretty good job with it as well when they gave The Doctor pretty much the same treatment in "Author, Author".
I thought Voyager did a pretty good job with it as well when they gave The Doctor pretty much the same treatment in "Author, Author".
Similar threads
