Trek's lowest moment

[Nightdiamond]

This sounds like the idea that the more time passes, the worse Starfleet officers get. Like a sliding scale.

By the time we get to DS9 you got a Starfleet admiral trying to set up a military dictatorship on Earth.

I think Starfleet is generally good, but it can get pretty bad. TOS and pre TNG movies, they were made out to be very moral.

It went from 'a Starfleet officer's highest duty is to the truth', to "I've got some powerful friends in Starfleet" (threatening other Starfleet officers to keep quiet).

Although the scale slid pretty low at this point, I generally dont blame Sisko , mainly because the Romulans were being short sighted jerks.

All they cared about was gloating that the Fed was losing instead of realizing after the war, sooner or later something would happen and they would be next.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I don't see that episode as a reversal of established Federation morality, I see it as an establishment of its limits. Sisko has shown a streak of idealism as well. I disagree that Sisko's decision was 21st century thinking. If it was 21st century thinking he would have done as Garak tried to do and blown up the Founders when he had the chance. The Maquis wouldn't have survived season two and he would have stood side by side with the Klingons when they invaded Cardassia. He had plenty of other opportunities to act based on realpolitik and he waited until a last ditch effort was necessary to prevent total defeat. It is not evolved morality to let the entire galaxy be conquered just so you can feel good about yourself.

Section 31, that's 21st century realpolitik. We've got a real life section 31 in the NSA right now.

 

[HaventGotALife]

- DS9: Sisko cheating the Romulans into the war and saying, he is fine with that (Quote Picard: "The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth, whether it's scientific truth or historical truth or personal truth! It is the guiding principle on which Starfleet is based. And if you can't find it within yourself to stand up and tell the truth about what happened, you don't deserve to wear that uniform!" Word.)

This is the basis of the moral conundrum of the war. In war, do you part with your morals, do everything to end the war with you being victorious and save lives OR do you stick to your principles and have a long-drawn out conflict with lots of lost lives and a better chance of the enemy winning?

I think that conundrum is a shade of gray. And that is why I think this is a highlight, not low-point.

 

[AgentCoop]

Also, the main reason the writers pushed back so vehemently against Roddenberry's mandates was that, in addition to many of them being completely unrelateable to 90% of the human race (like his insistance that a young child in the 24th Century should not express grief over the death of a parent), but they also ruled out almost ALL forms of interpersonal conflict. Anyone who's taken even an introductory course in creative writing knows that conflict is what drives fiction. Without it, you have a bunch of bland characters reciting neutral dialogue at each other. I can understand why the writers were pulling their hair out.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Also, the main reason the writers pushed back so vehemently against Roddenberry's mandates was that, in addition to many of them being completely unrelateable to 90% of the human race (like his insistance that a young child in the 24th Century should not express grief over the death of a parent), but they also ruled out almost ALL forms of interpersonal conflict. Anyone who's taken even an introductory course in creative writing knows that conflict is what drives fiction. Without it, you have a bunch of bland characters reciting neutral dialogue at each other. I can understand why the writers were pulling their hair out.

On the other hand, some of the writers noted later that not being able to use the "Two characters get mad at each other for an episode" trope as a crutch forced them to be more creative.

I like the idealism of Star Trek but not even grieving for loved ones was absurd. The kind of situations which should drive that interpersonal conflict are like when Worf refused a transfusion to the Romulan. I'm glad they didn't do episodes where two characters just get mad at each other for a week, sitcom style. The times they did that in DS9 are the times the characters came off as the most childish. (Worf in Hippocratic Oath, UGHHH).

 

[Anwar]

Also, the main reason the writers pushed back so vehemently against Roddenberry's mandates was that, in addition to many of them being completely unrelateable to 90% of the human race (like his insistance that a young child in the 24th Century should not express grief over the death of a parent), but they also ruled out almost ALL forms of interpersonal conflict. Anyone who's taken even an introductory course in creative writing knows that conflict is what drives fiction. Without it, you have a bunch of bland characters reciting neutral dialogue at each other. I can understand why the writers were pulling their hair out.

TOS' style of conflict only worked because there were only three or so main characters: Kirk, Spock and McCoy. It was a classic Freud Trio (Id, Ego and Superego) except the writers in TOS for whatever reason had Spock usually always be right to the expense of McCoy which kind of got tiresome after a while.

If replicated in TNG+, which all had larger ensemble casts of way more than 3 characters, they'd come off as a bunch of morons who couldn't cooperate on any single mission and were always conflicting with one another.

Three guys who conflict sometimes vs 7-8 people are all in opposition to one another, it doesn't really work.

 

[Relayer1]

Somewhere between Trek V and Generations...

 

[Jonas Grumby]

Concerning how our "futuristic" Trek heroes should act, from the 1967 third edition of the Star Trek Writers/Directors Guide:

"AND SO, IN EVERY SCENE OF OUR STAR TREK STORY...translate it into a real life situation.

Or, sometimes as useful, try it in your mind as a scene in GUNSMOKE, NAKED CITY, or some similar show. Would you believe the people and the scene if it happened there?

IF YOU'RE ONE OF THOSE WHO ANSWERS: 'THE CHARACTER ACTS THAT WAY BECAUSE IT'S SCIENCE FICTION', DON'T CALL US, WE'LL CALL YOU."

Roddenberry apparently underwent quite a change of mind somewhere between the 1960s and the 1980s.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Outside of Star Trek, the "fall from Grace" is usually morally instructive. Within Star Trek, it's just a sign of the character's depravity.

 

[Deckerd]

Female Quark.

 

[Anwar]

Concerning how our "futuristic" Trek heroes should act, from the 1967 third edition of the Star Trek Writers/Directors Guide

So they should have acted dismissive of women and racist towards other ethnicity and Jewish people too? There should be absolutely no difference between the two time periods at all?

 

[Jonas Grumby]

^ I don't get your question. Are you asking me to read Roddenberry's mind and defend him? I'm just quoting what he wrote. My only point was that if one wants to use Roddenberry's intentions as an argument for how the characters should act, one needs to pick which Roddenberry they prefer.

I don't know if Roddenberry intended his original Star Trek characters to hate women and Jews, but I kind of doubt it.

If you're asking my opinion on what makes for effective dramatic TV, I vote for portraying the characters as basically contemporary people with fully identifiable and shared motivations and emotions. It gives the audience plenty of opportunity to understand and empathize with the characters and situations. Portraying them as wildly different "evolved" beings reduces the drama to mere intellectual curiosity.

 

[bbjeg]

I don't think this was mentioned (and if it was, I'll reiterate it), Uhura having her mind wiped. It's odd how they just retaught her how to do her job and went on with it. Not even a day off.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I don't think this was mentioned (and if it was, I'll reiterate it), Uhura having her mind wiped. It's odd how they just retaught her how to do her job and went on with it. Not even a day off.

Don't forget, she also knew Swahili without it being retaught to her.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Uhura's retraining scene is one of the most embarrassing scenes in TOS, for sure.

 

[M'Sharak]

Trek's lowest moment

Someplace around here, I think.

Second-lowest goes to any instance of someone blathering smugly about how "we've evolved".

Uh, whoops. Yes, that's who I meant, sorry. Not sure where I got "Ben Murphy" from...

Maybe you were watching Alias Smith and Jones reruns.

Or Gemini Man.

 

[HaventGotALife]

21st century realpolitik.

One core element that has drawn me to Star Trek (beginning with TNG) was the fact, that the concept of the show did not only provide a fictuous evolution of technology in the 24th century, but also a fictuous evolution of mankind's culture. The characters on TNG did not behave contemporary.

When the character of Sisko showed this kind of behaviour, he acted contemporary, like someone in his position would behave today, not a couple hundred years from now. When I first saw it, I was dissappointed, because Sisko was just "the usual". I dont need to see Star Trek to see this kind of characters, another series or film does the same for me.

Today I even know about the subtext of this development, since in so many documentaries about Star Trek the writers complain about the rules Roddenberry set out for the characters, that they should behave different to todays characters. The writers (like Moore or Behr) openly complained about these rules. Mainly, because it made writing for Star Trek difficult, since conflicts had to be solved differently than contemporary characters from today would solve them, so as a writer you really had to set yourself in a complete different mindset. Simply put: It made the writers job for Star Trek extremly difficult - they hated it sometimes.

So now, when I hear Sisko tell these words to the camera, I also hear another subtext: The writers setting the bar lower to make storytelling for Star Trek much easier, because the characters behave much more contemporary. For me it is "Sisko" dismissing the rules once set out from Roddenberry as representive for the writing staff: "See, Roddenberry, I did not behave like you set out a 24th century character should behave. And I (meaning: we the writers) am perfectly fine with that."

It is a personal low moment for me, because it made me lose interest for DS9. It became "just another science fiction show" for me, nothing special. Nice to watch and be distracted and entertained, but nothing really inspiring for me.

I disagree. The TNG morality was a starting point, a contrast to what was happening on DS9--it makes it MORE shocking that it happened in the 24th century. If it was a contemporary concern, he would've just seemed like a man trapped by his circumstances. He has the 24th century morality, and he has a hard time living with this. That's the point of the personal log. The idea that he could "live with it," was a shock to him. DS9 has shown the limits of TNG's morality. We are powerful in our wars with other states like the Klingons and the Cardassians. This is a new animal, and there is a reason people act immorally. Sometimes, it's the lesser of two evils. Sometimes, the universe isn't as simple as always being right. As Behr, in those documentaries said: "It's easy to be an angel in Heaven." It wasn't laziness--they did some truly wonderful things with this show.

 

[Salinga]

I saw the strict Roddenberry rules for TNG always as a bargain chip from him. It would surprise me if Roddenberry didnt know these rules would make story telling sometimes extremly difficult, since it made the main characters pretty anti-contemporary in their behaviours, so for later compromises he took these rules very far at the beginning. And this wasnt the first time: Kirk & Co already was a compromise from him, since the first pilot was dismissed as "too cerebral".

 

[Anwar]

^ I don't get your question. Are you asking me to read Roddenberry's mind and defend him? I'm just quoting what he wrote. My only point was that if one wants to use Roddenberry's intentions as an argument for how the characters should act, one needs to pick which Roddenberry they prefer.

I don't know if Roddenberry intended his original Star Trek characters to hate women and Jews, but I kind of doubt it.

If you're asking my opinion on what makes for effective dramatic TV, I vote for portraying the characters as basically contemporary people with fully identifiable and shared motivations and emotions. It gives the audience plenty of opportunity to understand and empathize with the characters and situations. Portraying them as wildly different "evolved" beings reduces the drama to mere intellectual curiosity.

I'm saying that when most complain about the TNG characters not acting "like people" they mean they don't like that these guys didn't act 100% exactly like 20th century people in every single way.

It really wouldn't make sense for them to act exactly 100% like 20th century people in the first place, let alone 1960s folks. Unless you wanted them to be as xenophobic, racist and sexist as folks from that time really were.

It's like in "the Neutral Zone" the ENT crew get critiqued for not being in awe of the 20th Century people and treating them with utter respect.

I'm sorry, but if the common joe today ran into folks from the 17th century who got time-displaced, they probably wouldn't think all that highly of them either.

 

[Commishsleer]

^ I don't get your question. Are you asking me to read Roddenberry's mind and defend him? I'm just quoting what he wrote. My only point was that if one wants to use Roddenberry's intentions as an argument for how the characters should act, one needs to pick which Roddenberry they prefer.

I don't know if Roddenberry intended his original Star Trek characters to hate women and Jews, but I kind of doubt it.

If you're asking my opinion on what makes for effective dramatic TV, I vote for portraying the characters as basically contemporary people with fully identifiable and shared motivations and emotions. It gives the audience plenty of opportunity to understand and empathize with the characters and situations. Portraying them as wildly different "evolved" beings reduces the drama to mere intellectual curiosity.

I'm saying that when most complain about the TNG characters not acting "like people" they mean they don't like that these guys didn't act 100% exactly like 20th century people in every single way.

It really wouldn't make sense for them to act exactly 100% like 20th century people in the first place, let alone 1960s folks. Unless you wanted them to be as xenophobic, racist and sexist as folks from that time really were.

It's like in "the Neutral Zone" the ENT crew get critiqued for not being in awe of the 20th Century people and treating them with utter respect.

I'm sorry, but if the common joe today ran into folks from the 17th century who got time-displaced, they probably wouldn't think all that highly of them either.

I disagree. The people in all the series were really a reflection of the time that the series were made and were supposed to be. But a nobler, braver version of the 60s, 80s, 2000s people.

TNG people got critiqued for being arrogant bastards in "The Neutral Zone" who couldn't be bothered to save 'inferior' people lives. Not for 'failing to be in awe' of them.
Not only did they only begrudgingly save them then the TNG crew lectured them about how good they were and how morally deficient the 21st century guys were.

If I were Captain of a ship nowadays that found 17th century people dying on say an island I wouldn't say to my crew just leave them we've got better things to do. And then not make the big trip to the infirmary to say 'Hello welcome to the 21st century?" because I was frankly too good too busy too darn important to deal with them (Picard).