Worst Character Assassination Episodes
- Thread starter Oddish
- Start date
"A Night In Sickbay"!!! For the whole episode, Archer behaves like a complete ass!!! Not once does he admit that he was the cause of Porthos's illness by bringing in a delicate mission with people he previously had a problem with and he needed some sensitive equipment that they weren't forced to give them!!! I mean when you ask a favor of someone you try not to offend them. Bringing Porthos was a mistake. Not once does he admit that!!
I did not ignore your case. I just don't agree with it.
But in the story it’s true.
Just like in the story, changing a person’s DNA makes them instantly transform into the body they would have had if they were born with that DNA. As opposed to, you know, cancer.
A valid point. But Eddington spared Starfleet personnel that he could have killed on multiple occasions. That suggests that he adheres to certain principles.
Well ... ok then. Never mind reasons, I guess. All right, cheers!
The only principle Eddington adhered to was his own ego.
His ego was massive for sure, but I believe he had legitimate feelings for the girl in "Blaze of Glory" and in his last stand, there was a little more to him than pure ego. But you're not exactly wrong: ego has to be the first line on his epitaph, no doubt
I'll say "Fury" too. I never ever liked the Kes character, but if there was ever a middle finger to her fans, that was it. I can sympathize with that. I've read comics for years and they've done, and continue to do things to established characters where there is no basis or evidence for the behavior.
Some posters have noted Picard's callousness and strict interpretation of the prime directive in Homeward and Pen Pals. That was totally contrary to Kirk's interpretation of the PD. If a planet was facing extinction due to a natural disaster, Kirk went out of his way to help while minimizing any disturbance to the planet's natural social development. Examples were The Paradise Syndrome and even Star Trek Into Darkness.
Apparently, in the TNG era, or maybe it's just Picard's interpretation of the PD, non-interference extends to being hands off wrt a species extinction. Why? Maybe I'm wrong, but, as one of the crew argued (I think it might have been Dr. Crusher), if there's a plan for the universe, then the Enterprise may be meant to save the planet. This was an interesting argument for me since all the characters in TNG seemed to be atheists (except for Worf). And yet, here they are talking about fate or a cosmic plan. It seemed contrary especially to the sensibilities of GR and later ST writers like Brannon Braga who characterized ST as a mythology or something like that for atheists. It was kind of an absurd argument. The right answer, of course is to try to help if you can without interfering if it's a natural extinction level disaster because that's always the moral thing to do. So, imo, neither of those episodes made the TNG characters look good (except for the ones who argued to help, of course).
But I blame the writers. It's just not well thought out.
Some posters have noted Picard's callousness and strict interpretation of the prime directive in Homeward and Pen Pals. That was totally contrary to Kirk's interpretation of the PD. If a planet was facing extinction due to a natural disaster, Kirk went out of his way to help while minimizing any disturbance to the planet's natural social development. Examples were The Paradise Syndrome and even Star Trek Into Darkness.
Apparently, in the TNG era, or maybe it's just Picard's interpretation of the PD, non-interference extends to being hands off wrt a species extinction. Why? Maybe I'm wrong, but, as one of the crew argued (I think it might have been Dr. Crusher), if there's a plan for the universe, then the Enterprise may be meant to save the planet. This was an interesting argument for me since all the characters in TNG seemed to be atheists (except for Worf). And yet, here they are talking about fate or a cosmic plan. It seemed contrary especially to the sensibilities of GR and later ST writers like Brannon Braga who characterized ST as a mythology or something like that for atheists. It was kind of an absurd argument. The right answer, of course is to try to help if you can without interfering if it's a natural extinction level disaster because that's always the moral thing to do. So, imo, neither of those episodes made the TNG characters look good (except for the ones who argued to help, of course).
But I blame the writers. It's just not well thought out.
Beverly Crusher "Sub Rosa" The CMO of the Federation Flagship has sex with a lamp
Yeah, that was an awful episode too.
Gotta say though, I thought her granny coming out of the grave was kinda creepy.
Yeah, it's definitely a violation and I think you can tell that the crew didn't like it. They tortured Valeris, basically. It's no different than a bad cop going in to tune up a suspect they know did it to get a confession.
Do the ends justify the means?
IMO, Spock didn't act out of character, though. They were running out of time and he made the call. It's another example of the TOS characters being more flawed and more liable to go over the line for the greater good.
I'd say you're right. I can't remember "For the Uniform," but Equinox was great.
Not at all. Valeris didn't know where the conference was. They then phoned Sulu who gave them the missing information.
Are you suggesting if she had known then the ends would justify the means? They couldn't know she didn't know nor that Sulu did, right? I have no problem with a little Jack Bauer in the Start Trek but I would also be fine with a Section 31 show as well.
The one thing I will say to purists is that timing matters. No one blinked that Scotty shot a phaser in a direction that led to the direct killing of the sniper, but Valeris suffers for a while under a forced mind meld and a lot of people don't like it.
Also, if we had seen her do horrible acts all the way through like some movies and TV shows do, focus groups are much more likely to be ok with the justifiable suffering of a character whose evil deeds are directly imprinted in their mind as opposed to a character who has been nothing but pleasant and the evil deeds actually unseen - merely proven. These are much more likely to be not ok with suffering for a greater cause as apparently you are with Valeris' meld.
Please use the multi-quote function, rather than posting 4 times in a row.
Thanks.
Remember, the conference's location wasn't the first question. They wanted to know who was in the conspiracy.
Please use the multi-quote function, rather than posting 4 times in a row.
Thanks.
My apologies! Very sorry!
First or last, what difference does it make?
I'm surprised no one has brought up Lorca. I know it's a little different because the plan was always for him to be evil, but the way it was handled completely ruined his character. He starts out interesting and ambiguous and then ends up as a cartoon character with no depth or subtlety.
I agree. They took him from dark but relatable to disposable.
