Lonely Among Us (TNG)

[FaxModem1]

I think Lonely Among Us was full of too much pride about eating habits. However, as shown in season 2, Riker and Picard enjoy Klingon food, and think of embracing another culture as a huge opportunity.

Look at this scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoOfjGqo5EY

Picard and Riker are rather excited to be experiencing all this wonderful food(personally, I think you add some soy sauce, and I'd eat that whole table). Pulaski, in contrast, is disgusted by it. But then, Pulaski was never really known as anything but a rude, insensitive jerk.

A few years later, Bashir takes his date to a Klingon restaurant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTpPJm6fouE

In Melora, Bashir is a bit worried that his date, Melora, doesn't like the food because of how it looks. Instead, in contrast, she just wants quality Klingon food instead of whatever subpar stuff he's serving to the newbies. In Playing God, Dax loves the food, and enjoys the experience, while her companion is a bit squeamish about the food.

(Again, you add some sauce to that plate, and I'd try some racht.)

So, when it comes to food, consider Lonely Among Us a VERY strange outlier, wherein they were a tad judgmental about how others ate. The rest of the time? For most of our heroes, they enjoy whatever delicacies others offer, and try to be in the spirit of the occasion.

Of course, the limit comes to what Neelix is cooking. But then, we all know that his kitchen isn't to be trusted.

[Durandal_1707]

Every depiction of religion i can recall is either alien cultures of the week shown to be too dumb to live, or the half-assed at best religion of the Bajorans, which is, itself, not even a religion because it is DEMONSTRABLY TRUE.

I thought the Bajoran religion was pretty cool, up until they turned it into a black-and-white angels-and-demons cliché. The earlier depiction was way more interesting, with the Prophets being one of the few truly alien entities in Trek (as opposed to all the humans wearing various hats). It was ambiguous, and it was a religion, because while it was certainly demonstrably true that the Prophets existed, whether they were gods, or whether they even knew they were being worshipped as gods, or whether they even knew what being worshipped as gods meant was up for question, as were the limits of their abilities. You have no idea how mad "The Reckoning" made me for screwing all this up.

Personally I'm fine with the Pah-wraiths in concept, though I do think the show made them a cliched "religion of evil". It would have been interesting to see it handled sort of as an analogue of real-world satanic ideology: The Prophets are about all sorts of vague intangible transcendental stuff, while the Pah-wraiths can help people right here and now. A gross simplification, I know.

Well, I mean, the paghwraiths as a concept are basically what Stargate's Ori are, and I was fine with them. The thing about the Prophets, though, was that the things that made them neat in their original portrayal were lost with the introduction of the wraiths, and that would have still been a shame even if the wraiths had been introduced in a non-stupid manner.

[ScreamingDoom]

Well, I mean, the paghwraiths as a concept are basically what Stargate's Ori are, and I was fine with them. The thing about the Prophets, though, was that the things that made them neat in their original portrayal were lost with the introduction of the wraiths, and that would have still been a shame even if the wraiths had been introduced in a non-stupid manner.

Given that the wormhole aliens are non-linear entities, I always wonder why the writers didn't take that and run with it by making the Pahwraiths and the Prophets the exact same entities. We just aren't able to grasp the two as being the exact same thing from our limited linear perspective. Imagine the Pahwraiths as being Prophets who are more "experienced" with corporeal beings. Basically, the crotchety old men to the Prophets whipper snappers they used to be.

For extra points, make the key event that has-will lead to the Pahwraiths Sisko's demand that they help during the Dominion invasion. Nice job breaking it, hero!

[Durandal_1707]

Well, I mean, the paghwraiths as a concept are basically what Stargate's Ori are, and I was fine with them. The thing about the Prophets, though, was that the things that made them neat in their original portrayal were lost with the introduction of the wraiths, and that would have still been a shame even if the wraiths had been introduced in a non-stupid manner.

Given that the wormhole aliens are non-linear entities, I always wonder why the writers didn't take that and run with it by making the Pahwraiths and the Prophets the exact same entities. We just aren't able to grasp the two as being the exact same thing from our limited linear perspective. Imagine the Pahwraiths as being Prophets who are more "experienced" with corporeal beings. Basically, the crotchety old men to the Prophets whipper snappers they used to be.

For extra points, make the key event that has-will lead to the Pahwraiths Sisko's demand that they help during the Dominion invasion. Nice job breaking it, hero!

And then John Sheridan could show up and yell, "Get the hell out of our galaxy!"

That would certainly be better than what we got, but I still think the idea of the wraiths just doesn't work in the universe that the early seasons built. How can beings that don't experience linear time have a civil war? How can some of these beings live in the wormhole, and then not, and then come back again? That requires linear progression. And how in heck could beings that don't experience linear time leave into our normal time-space, and interact with things linearly?

[rocklobster]

I still think "Too Short a Season" was actually not bad.

[Beastro]

Spoil what, though? The TOS portrayal of the Klingons could be almost completely summed up as "one-dimensional moustache twirlers."

I actually like IIIs portrayal of Klingons. They're the right mix of conniving TOS Klingon with the fatalistic, warrior TNG Klingons except their "honour" is a twisted sort that comes off as alien to Western Federation reasoning.

Every depiction of religion i can recall is either alien cultures of the week shown to be too dumb to live, or the half-assed at best religion of the Bajorans, which is, itself, not even a religion because it is DEMONSTRABLY TRUE.

I thought the Bajoran religion was pretty cool, up until they turned it into a black-and-white angels-and-demons cliché. The earlier depiction was way more interesting, with the Prophets being one of the few truly alien entities in Trek (as opposed to all the humans wearing various hats). It was ambiguous, and it was a religion, because while it was certainly demonstrably true that the Prophets existed, whether they were gods, or whether they even knew they were being worshipped as gods, or whether they even knew what being worshipped as gods meant was up for question, as were the limits of their abilities. You have no idea how mad "The Reckoning" made me for screwing all this up.

Personally I'm fine with the Pah-wraiths in concept, though I do think the show made them a cliched "religion of evil". It would have been interesting to see it handled sort of as an analogue of real-world satanic ideology: The Prophets are about all sorts of vague intangible transcendental stuff, while the Pah-wraiths can help people right here and now. A gross simplification, I know.

Now I'm wondering if there is a group that worships the Q somewhere in the Star Trek universe...

I don't like them because distracted the shows themes away from the more deeper, profound conflict of gods of the Alpha and Gamma Quadrants.

The Prophets were the gods of the Alpha Quadrant reflecting a more Western idea of deity being aloof, impenetrable beings who withhold acting on behave of those to whom they are benefactors in order to allow them to grow and develop unless it is absolutely necessary to protect them that wants them to be independent beings in their own right. That contrasted with the Founders who only looked out for the own good and actively interfered and oppressed less beings to further their owns without any regard for their welfare.

Both acted very different, the Prophets being gods in the "spirit" of what we think gods are by demonstrating it through their very few, miraculous actions that showed their transcendent nature (never coming into direct conflict with the Dominion at all, only acting at Sisko's behest), like when the Dominion was coming through the wormhole, while the Founders actively played the role of gods while being very little of what a god is, using technology and lies to make people think they were something more than what they were.

Even the way they intervened in Sisko's life through their non-linear existence and how strangely they acted to his reaction to it was a contrast to the Founders.

Picard and Riker are rather excited to be experiencing all this wonderful food(personally, I think you add some soy sauce, and I'd eat that whole table). Pulaski, in contrast, is disgusted by it. But then, Pulaski was never really known as anything but a rude, insensitive jerk.

That's because the main cast was idealized. Riker is suppose to be in the right against the Anticans, because meat is murder, but when it comes to Klingon food, they have to be tolerant, accepting and open minded, so them being all for the cuisine is good in contrast to narrow minded, judgemental (overr the "wrong" reasons) Pulaski.

Well, I mean, the paghwraiths as a concept are basically what Stargate's Ori are, and I was fine with them. The thing about the Prophets, though, was that the things that made them neat in their original portrayal were lost with the introduction of the wraiths, and that would have still been a shame even if the wraiths had been introduced in a non-stupid manner.

Given that the wormhole aliens are non-linear entities, I always wonder why the writers didn't take that and run with it by making the Pahwraiths and the Prophets the exact same entities. We just aren't able to grasp the two as being the exact same thing from our limited linear perspective. Imagine the Pahwraiths as being Prophets who are more "experienced" with corporeal beings. Basically, the crotchety old men to the Prophets whipper snappers they used to be.

For extra points, make the key event that has-will lead to the Pahwraiths Sisko's demand that they help during the Dominion invasion. Nice job breaking it, hero!

I'd rather take it the other way, make them into a living Old Testament/New Testament contrast, but we're showing our bias' here.

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

Spoil what, though? The TOS portrayal of the Klingons could be almost completely summed up as "one-dimensional moustache twirlers."

I don't know. Maybe they were one-dimensional in the sense that they were always the antagonists, but in TOS I didn't get the same sense of monoculture that I did in the TNG era. Kor was basically Kirk without scruples, Koloth was a moustache twirler (I think he suffered as a result of being a stand-in for Kor), and Kang was the closest to a 24th century Klingon with his sense of duty and honor and willingness to work with Kirk. Granted, the rest of the TOS Klingons fall under your description, but Kor and Kang at least are well-acted, strong characters.


I'd agree with what seems to be the consensus, that TNG did not do politics well. If you think about the rules that were imposed on the series, there's no reason to think that they could do well. Interpersonal conflicts were basically not allowed, which means that the message or theme has to be preached, sometimes literally in a Picard speech, to the antagonists who oppose them. Michael Piller came and saved the show, but by then its tone had been set and the show excelled in other areas. Writers who were capable of great stuff (Ron Moore most obviously) when it comes to politics, moral ambiguity, and actual character and story depth would have to wait until DS9 to really show their stuff, although there were occasionally a few hints of that in TNG.

There's a telling quote from Rene Echevarria on Memory Alpha-

"In a lot of ways, I find it much easier and much more enjoyable to write for ST:DS9. I think the characters feel more real to me and more vivid. I remember sitting down to write a scene between Geordi and Beverly and not knowing what these people have to say to each other. After seven years, we really don't know that much about them. ST:TNG was pitched at a sort of heroic level – like a fable. In the end, these characters were all wonderful, nice people who got along with each other. On ST:DS9, I think the characters are much more real people who have back stories and problems and ways of looking at the world. The problem of writing a scene between Riker and Geordi was that you just didn't know what they would say, and you couldn't keep going. On ST:DS9, when you sit down to write a scene between Bashir and O'Brien, they talk to you as you write them. Their voices are so clear. You find yourself thinking, 'Oh no, what have I done? I've written a nine-page scene. It should only be two! As a writer I find that more satisfying

The politics stuff in TNG is grating because it's written exactly in that tone, with no room for a reasonable, or nice, person to disagree.

[FaxModem1]

Picard and Riker are rather excited to be experiencing all this wonderful food(personally, I think you add some soy sauce, and I'd eat that whole table). Pulaski, in contrast, is disgusted by it. But then, Pulaski was never really known as anything but a rude, insensitive jerk.

That's because the main cast was idealized. Riker is suppose to be in the right against the Anticans, because meat is murder, but when it comes to Klingon food, they have to be tolerant, accepting and open minded, so them being all for the cuisine is good in contrast to narrow minded, judgemental (overr the "wrong" reasons) Pulaski.

Or, you know, since Riker is willing to try out the slutty guy outfit in Angel One(under the excuse of diplomacy), maybe Riker and most Starfleet people are willing to broaden their horizons, and Lonely Among Us is this weird outlier. Or how about when Paris and Chakotay try out all the alien dishes offered by Annorax? They're only repulsed when they find out they're eating the equivalent of a graveyard of civilizations.

[Crowley]

I don't know. Maybe they were one-dimensional in the sense that they were always the antagonists, but in TOS I didn't get the same sense of monoculture that I did in the TNG era. Kor was basically Kirk without scruples, Koloth was a moustache twirler (I think he suffered as a result of being a stand-in for Kor), and Kang was the closest to a 24th century Klingon with his sense of duty and honor and willingness to work with Kirk. Granted, the rest of the TOS Klingons fall under your description, but Kor and Kang at least are well-acted, strong characters.

One contrast I find interesting is that on a certain level Romulans and Klingons are reversed between TOS and TNG: The TOS Klingons are much more willing to resort to treachery, and the Romulans are more of an honorable, worthy opponent.

[Dindu]

Not sure I'd agree with them being treacherous, really. Under-handed, sure, but I don't recall them turning on each other. Might not be remembering that all too well, mind you. I think they were mainly straight adversaries who were happy to do 'bad things' and so were the enemy.
If anything the Romulans are; they kill a shedload of Federation people in their first outing without warning, or seemingly, motive, their use of cloaking devices is seen as damned unbritish. We get to see not-Sarek's being unhappy with the mission etc, but if even he is opining how it seems uncivil to just float around blowing people up when they can't fight back, then you have to question exactly how honourable they are.

I think changing the protagonists in ST3 from Romulan to Klingon was a mistake - it makes MUCh more sense with Romuloids doing what they do, their demeanor is more akin to what we know of the Romulini at that point and it sent the Pastyheads off in a direction that felt unsuitable.
I would think that having the Klingiards eschewing cloaking devices would fit them better, for example.

I'd have liked to see more of Klingon civilians, get an idea there are a LOT more of them than there are warriors, how their honour system works across civil strata, had it made more clear that Worf's not just 'a' Klingon but the defacto head of a MAJOR house in the council long thought lost, and, obviously, disgraced. There are hints about how the society works, but only glimmers, and what we got left with seems childishly simple.

I also would prefer the Romulans to have more screen time outside of inane plotting. I've always liked the idea that the Vulcans were a whack-a-doodle splinter group that split from the Empire, then somehow became embroiled in this Federation thing, essentially deceiving by omission their actual place in the Galaxy, so when the Romulans come out of hiding they see a bunch of aliens species being guided by the Romulan equivilent of the Branch Davidians and are consequently amused, annoyed and quite ready and willing to kick the crap out of them.

"I thought you said your two societies split?"
"They did."
"Into two halves?"
"Yes."
"Two equal halves?"
"In a strictly binary sense..."
"In the strictly binary sense of there were either Romulans OR Vulcans..."
"In that sense, yes."
"But in the sense of finite numbers of individuals..?"
"Well, in that sense, not so much halves."
"How many Vulcans actually left the Empire?"
"Well, records are not entirely clear..."
"Roughly?"
"About one hundred and six."

Then again I'd also VERY MUCH liked to have found out exactly what the Romulans were dealing with that meant they disappeared, twice, for very long periods of time. I'd quite like to imagine it was the Shelliak, but I've always liked those bin-bag wearing goons.