Sfdebris.net

Deledrius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 09, 2021 10:09 pm

CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Sat Oct 09, 2021 9:02 pm Guys come in, do their thing and pitch their ideas, then leave for other projects or bigger deals. It happened once during Season one's development and again during Season two. The behind the scenes stuff is crazy.

I'm really looking forward to the documentaries about this in twenty years.

I really enjoyed William Shatner's documentary on Season 1 of Star Trek: TNG and what a clusterfuck it was.

But yes, apparently it sort of went:

* Bryan Fuller wanted to do a War on Terror homage with the Klingons as ISIS under T'Kuvma and Voq with the idea of "civilization" versus an inscrutable religious faction. He quit halfway through and you can pretty much tell when his ideas stopped mattering (Mirror Universe).
* Gretchen J. Berg and Aaron Harberts took over to finish Season One and then mapped out Season Two, which they wanted to do as a time travel/Section 31 crossover. Akiva Goldsman also joined (There's like 15 producers on this show). They also pitched a third season.
* Everyone was sacked and Alex Kurtzman took over directly. Kurtzman cancelled the third season that was planned and pitched the idea of moving it to the year 3300 because he wanted to do Andromeda and a fallen Federation and had actually pitched that idea earlier. He hired Michelle Paradise who then rewrote Burnham completely to be a romantic heroine.

CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Sat Oct 09, 2021 10:45 pm Jeri Ryan also has a much revised opinion of Trek due to the money they're throwing at her and creative control.

(Beltrane has even returned to do some Prodigy apparently)

CBS Executives:

With all of Chuck's ranting about the quasi-religious absolutism attached to the Prime Directive (when the plot demands it), I've been thinking that a review of the Season 1 TNG episode "Symbiosis" could be fun.

DoctorWTF wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 9:05 pm With all of Chuck's ranting about the quasi-religious absolutism attached to the Prime Directive (when the plot demands it), I've been thinking that a review of the Season 1 TNG episode "Symbiosis" could be fun.

I think this episode is actually a good example of the Prime Directive being used as whilst it certainly isn't moral what is happening to the drugged up aliens (I forget the names), there is a very good chance that when the drugged up aliens find out what has been going on it could lead to war. Not to mention the fact that the rich aliens probably have very little infrastructure thanks to relying on the drugged up aliens and thus it could lead to a worldwide economic collapse.
It needed to stop i'm not saying otherwise, I just think that it is a far more complicated a situation than it first appears.

clearspira wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 10:39 pmI think this episode is actually a good example of the Prime Directive being used as whilst it certainly isn't moral what is happening to the drugged up aliens (I forget the names), there is a very good chance that when the drugged up aliens find out what has been going on it could lead to war. Not to mention the fact that the rich aliens probably have very little infrastructure thanks to relying on the drugged up aliens and thus it could lead to a worldwide economic collapse.
It needed to stop i'm not saying otherwise, I just think that it is a far more complicated a situation than it first appears.

I think the interesting thing about that is that its Picard making a kind of holier than thou attitude about what could only be called ignoring the neighbors abusing each other. Yes, the Federation staying the fuck out of a problem that could get themselves involved in a war is a rationale decision. However, it wholly lacks justice and is purely a self-interested one. I mean, the "moral decision" is not to tell people about the Sackler family selling opiods that are too strong because it'll piss off the space hillbillies.

I entirely disagree that letting the consequences fall where they may is unjust. Actions have consequences, and sparing people the natural consequences of their evil actions is what would be unjust.

I suspect the druggie planet will ask for humanitarian aid from the Federation, and receive it, while the dealers will get nothing. Then the dealers will face the rightfully-angry planet they subordinated, and will get no help in escaping justice.

You seem to be confusing justice and mercy, CharlesPhipps. And wisdom teaches us that both concepts are more complex than they initially appear.

Frustration wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:03 pm I entirely disagree that letting the consequences fall where they may is unjust. Actions have consequences, and sparing people the natural consequences of their evil actions is what would be unjust.

No, I'm saying they're not doing enough. They're keeping the secret of the drug from the people "because it would be interfering" and Crusher says they had a bunch of drugs that could relieve their withdrawal symptoms but Picard says they can't give those.

I mean it seems silly to not say, "Hey man, you don't have a plague."

CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:24 pm No, I'm saying they're not doing enough. They're keeping the secret of the drug from the people "because it would be interfering" and Crusher says they had a bunch of drugs that could relieve their withdrawal symptoms but Picard says they can't give those.

I mean it seems silly to not say, "Hey man, you don't have a plague."

And the whole thing started when the Enterprise offered the dealers help with fixing their ship (before knowing what was happening). This episode is the perfect example of how the line between "legitimate humanitarian aid" and "interfering" seems to be drawn and redrawn pretty much wherever the plot needs it to be.

Point.

It seems pretty weirdly drawn even by Star Trek standards.

Agreed. Dr. Crusher stated that the people had a right to know what they were actually putting into their bodies, and Picard justified his decision saying that they need to figure out for themselves. Yet he never bothered to offer any semblance of a logical reason why that would yield a better outcome than telling them the truth there and then. A perfect example of the sort of head-up-ass absolutism that Chuck is always ranting about.