Man... there are some REAL surprises in here.
I don't consider The Inner Light or Dark Page to be among my TOP favorites, but I would never have thought people hated them so much, either. In no particular order, my 5 worst:
-Code of Honor (season 1) - not just for the whole "is it racist" issue, but simply because it was bad anyway
-Justice (season 1) - stupid premise, stupid costumes, stupid resolution... stupid
-Angel One (season 1) - see notes for Justice, above
-Man of the People (season 6) - it's funny... season 6 was, to me, when they began to finally get a handle on how to do Troi-centric shows that don't suck, yet this may be the worst Troi ep of them all
-The Child (season 2) - Ok... so Man of the People is the SECOND worst Troi ep of them all
As is no doubt obvious, my least favorite season is:
Season one if so awful it's just great fun to watch. It's like they were deliberately trying to recreate the cheese from TOS and it was fantastic.
I agree strongly with the notion that with season 1, they were trying to make it “feel” like TOS, and - whether by accident or by design - ended up reproducing (more than any other aspect) the cheesy, 60’s sci-fi flavored campiness of TOS. I
disagree strongly with the notion that this was in any way a
good thing or made the season fun to watch.
Regarding The High Ground:
Like Rascals, the way the crew of the Ent-D reacted to a security alert is beyond incompetent, and it angers me just watching it.
Rascals did absolutely have a horrible example of lackluster security, but the events in The High Ground don't even come close.
Why does the Chief Engineer just aimlessly wonder near the warp core exposing himself after Picard ordered the alert?
He didn't "aimlessly wander near the warp core". He got up out of his chair, ceasing his normal work, when he heard the alert, in order to visually inspect the area around the warp core for signs of trouble. Makes sense to me. How was he "exposing himself"? By what logic is being in his workstation chair safer than standing near the warp core when your enemy can literally appear anywhere, instantaneously?
Why does the Security Chief have his back to one of the armed terrorists?
This one is TOTALLY unfair; I can only assume you haven't seen the ep in a while. He didn't "have his back" to any terrorists. He was standing at the tactical console as usual, monitoring the situation, when one of the terrorists (who - again - can literally appear anywhere instantaneously) shows up behind him. At which point, he turned around, weapon drawn.
Why is it the bridge crew didn't come to Picard's aid?
I'll grant you this was a little wonky. Trek often has a problem with these kinds of scenes... I get what they were going for, that it all "just happened too fast!" for anyone to do anything (that scene with Data scurrying over to where Picard and Finn were,
just barely not in time to help, demonstrates this), but the pacing of the scene didn't convey that feeling like they wanted it to. Still, I find this to be an oft recurring problem not just in TNG, but in Trek generally.
The Ferengi in Rascals somehow succeeded in taking over the whole ship with a handful of intruders (where was everybody else? So the bridge got taken over... who gives a flying frack? There are ONE THOUSAND people on board). And that's all not to mention that the scene ON the bridge in Rascals was ridiculous. Worf didn't
miss in The High Ground (despite the fact that he was
getting shot as he fired off his own shot). Furthermore, the terrorists objective (destroy the ship) was, in fact, thwarted, despite the significant element of surprise and
enormous tactical advantage they possessed.
Finally, one last point to remember: after they fail to blow up the ship but succeed in kidnapping Picard, the E-D crew cracks the problem of tracing the dimensional shift, gets together with the police forces to organize a raid on the terrorist base, heads on in, and kicks ass, rescuing both Picard and Crusher.
For me, it all boils down to two points. First, it basically glorifies terrorism as a way to achieve an objective. When Finn compares himself to George Washington, I want to vomit. Washington did lead what today would be called an insurgency, but he never did the kinds of things Finn does. Second, the end of the episode seems to be saying that "terrorism ends when one kids choses not fire a weapon." So, it simultaneously says terrorism is an acceptable way to gain independance and also something that needs to stop. Pretty bad story direction, IMO.
How on Earth does it
glorify terrorism? The only scene that even
lets off the gas on the "terrorism is BAD" message is the one on the bridge with Picard and Data, during which Data (who is ALWAYS questioning stuff like this; it's part of his character) asks about the complex history of terrorism. Picard basically ends the conversation by saying he can't give him a definitive answer. Other than that, it's pretty clear to me which side the ep (and the main characters) are on: terrorism is a bad thing. Finn's lines about George Washington made you want to vomit? Good! That seems to be the point; that's how the creators
want you to react. Just because they also gave Finn a real personality and a hobby he's good at doesn't mean we're supposed to take his side, it just means they wanted to portray him as a real person (as many real terrorists - as deplorable as their actions may be - are), rather than a stock "BAD GUY". The scene with the Washington reference pitted two ldealogies against one another, as represented by Crusher and Finn. Why did you assume that the ep as a whole takes his side over Crusher's? Wouldn't the default position be for the episode and the creators to want you, the viewer, to side with the main character, the "good guy" in the room? She was no happier with his actions and comparisons to Washington than you were.
Could someone please explain to me what this woman was thinking?
