CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 12:39 amUnfortunately, once that happens, that's over for Archer as he'll never be able to be a character that's the lead in a television program again. Mind you, we've had the weekly villain Starfleet Admiral who does the imperialist thing before as well.
Nazi planet being one example. The Omega Glory again.
Besides, as we've seen, non-interventationalist messages are also used as RIght talking points. Imperialism was so awful and evil because it was deliberately about destroying lives as well as looting people for financial gain. There was no "misguided good will" there.
Oh there was plenty of misguided "good will" in Imperialism. Christian Missionaries always went out to save souls and bring civilization to the heathens.
Don't chalk up all evil done to evil intent. That's its own sort of silly type of thinking, to imagine the nature of the outcome always matches the nature of the intent.
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs
There's a thing I find somewhat disturbing in the review. I dunno if Chuck realizes it or if I remember the situation wrong, but time was kinda running out on the entire Xindi-thing. The result of Archer failing wouldn't have been "We now know how not to do it and will do better next time!", but rather "There is no next time for the human species!". There was nothing to learn from failing the Xindi-mission other than complete and utter obliteration of the species.
I fail to see the reason in arguing over morals and moral high-ground, when the fail-state is non-existence. In fact, I find it highly justified to use amoral means, to ensure survival of the human species and I'd be utterly disgusted by the Captain of our only chance turning around, shruging and telling me: "I'm sorry, I hit a dead end and my only way forward was fucking with one of the enemy's scientists, but I decided against doing that, because it compromises on our ideals. It was nice seeing you from space, now have fun dying to a weapon that is very likely capable of cutting Earth in half. Byebye, enjoy the spectacle!". I'd make it a damn point to hunt that fucker down before the Xindi superweapon reaches Earth and kill him myself. Very slowly and in a very agonizing way.
"If you get shot up by an A6M Reisen and your plane splits into pieces - does that mean it's divided by Zero?
- xoxSAUERKRAUTxox
Madner Kami wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 1:54 pm
There's a thing I find somewhat disturbing in the review. I dunno if Chuck realizes it or if I remember the situation wrong, but time was kinda running out on the entire Xindi-thing. The result of Archer failing wouldn't have been "We now know how not to do it and will do better next time!", but rather "There is no next time for the human species!". There was nothing to learn from failing the Xindi-mission other than complete and utter obliteration of the species.
I fail to see the reason in arguing over morals and moral high-ground, when the fail-state is non-existence. In fact, I find it highly justified to use amoral means, to ensure survival of the human species and I'd be utterly disgusted by the Captain of our only chance turning around, shruging and telling me: "I'm sorry, I hit a dead end and my only way forward was fucking with one of the enemy's scientists, but I decided against doing that, because it compromises on our ideals. It was nice seeing you from space, now have fun dying to a weapon that is very likely capable of cutting Earth in half. Byebye, enjoy the spectacle!". I'd make it a damn point to hunt that fucker down before the Xindi superweapon reaches Earth and kill him myself. Very slowly and in a very agonizing way.
In some ways there's more you can do with a character who's rather naive like that - no-one would've thought Sisko would hesitate if he was in that situation and thought it was necessary, which to be honest would be a bit less dramatic.
One thing often overlooked with the whole "do whatever is necessary" thing is the judgement as to whether it is necessary. Wimping out and saying "it never is" (which some Trek writers have done from time to time) is a cop-out, the writer contriving events to fit, but heros who resort to that often get too easy a pass for it. Was it necessary? Was there a less unpleasant but harder option? Where do you draw the line - behave much worse for just what better chance of success?
CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 12:39 amUnfortunately, once that happens, that's over for Archer as he'll never be able to be a character that's the lead in a television program again. Mind you, we've had the weekly villain Starfleet Admiral who does the imperialist thing before as well.
Nazi planet being one example. The Omega Glory again.
Besides, as we've seen, non-interventationalist messages are also used as RIght talking points. Imperialism was so awful and evil because it was deliberately about destroying lives as well as looting people for financial gain. There was no "misguided good will" there.
Oh there was plenty of misguided "good will" in Imperialism. Christian Missionaries always went out to save souls and bring civilization to the heathens.
Don't chalk up all evil done to evil intent. That's its own sort of silly type of thinking, to imagine the nature of the outcome always matches the nature of the intent.
A lot of the christianising was just as murderous and power/money hungry as what the likes of Cecil Rhodes did. You just have to look at the power struggles between the English protestants and French catholics in the Kingdom of Buganda, or how Africans lack of christianity (and islam too) was so important in making them the raw materials for the four hundred year triangle trade. We even have examples of it today, evangelical missionaries ally themselves with and allow themselves to be used by rapacious ranchers and miners in the Amazon, allowing the extermination of native peoples and the Amazon ecosystem all in the name of bringing the "good news" to the natives, most of whom want to have nothing to do with christianity (the catholic missionaries gave up about thirty years ago, too many were dying).
Madner Kami wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 1:54 pm
There's a thing I find somewhat disturbing in the review. I dunno if Chuck realizes it or if I remember the situation wrong, but time was kinda running out on the entire Xindi-thing. The result of Archer failing wouldn't have been "We now know how not to do it and will do better next time!", but rather "There is no next time for the human species!". There was nothing to learn from failing the Xindi-mission other than complete and utter obliteration of the species.
I fail to see the reason in arguing over morals and moral high-ground, when the fail-state is non-existence. In fact, I find it highly justified to use amoral means, to ensure survival of the human species and I'd be utterly disgusted by the Captain of our only chance turning around, shruging and telling me: "I'm sorry, I hit a dead end and my only way forward was fucking with one of the enemy's scientists, but I decided against doing that, because it compromises on our ideals. It was nice seeing you from space, now have fun dying to a weapon that is very likely capable of cutting Earth in half. Byebye, enjoy the spectacle!". I'd make it a damn point to hunt that fucker down before the Xindi superweapon reaches Earth and kill him myself. Very slowly and in a very agonizing way.
Ok, two things
1. we're talking about a highly contrived piece of fiction. A paper-thin excuse on the writer's part to justify a certain kind of action, and the idea that someone who would choose to do otherwise would be giving up, rather than trying to get what they need without resorting to such measures, is maybe not a fair assessment of the alternative.
2. the idea that you would spend the twilight of humankind's existence exacting cruel, bloody vengeance on someone who simply didn't fight hard enough, is just... Well, all I can think to say is: what a waste.
Madner Kami wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 1:54 pm
There's a thing I find somewhat disturbing in the review. I dunno if Chuck realizes it or if I remember the situation wrong, but time was kinda running out on the entire Xindi-thing. The result of Archer failing wouldn't have been "We now know how not to do it and will do better next time!", but rather "There is no next time for the human species!". There was nothing to learn from failing the Xindi-mission other than complete and utter obliteration of the species.
I fail to see the reason in arguing over morals and moral high-ground, when the fail-state is non-existence. In fact, I find it highly justified to use amoral means, to ensure survival of the human species and I'd be utterly disgusted by the Captain of our only chance turning around, shruging and telling me: "I'm sorry, I hit a dead end and my only way forward was fucking with one of the enemy's scientists, but I decided against doing that, because it compromises on our ideals. It was nice seeing you from space, now have fun dying to a weapon that is very likely capable of cutting Earth in half. Byebye, enjoy the spectacle!". I'd make it a damn point to hunt that fucker down before the Xindi superweapon reaches Earth and kill him myself. Very slowly and in a very agonizing way.
In some ways there's more you can do with a character who's rather naive like that - no-one would've thought Sisko would hesitate if he was in that situation and thought it was necessary, which to be honest would be a bit less dramatic.
One thing often overlooked with the whole "do whatever is necessary" thing is the judgement as to whether it is necessary. Wimping out and saying "it never is" (which some Trek writers have done from time to time) is a cop-out, the writer contriving events to fit, but heros who resort to that often get too easy a pass for it. Was it necessary? Was there a less unpleasant but harder option? Where do you draw the line - behave much worse for just what better chance of success?
I feel our characters should look for a different way out, but not find always. Have them get an easy out then it an ass pull, it a balance.
The third season of Enterprise was trying to provide a story for Enterprise to give it some focus. However, I remember how choosing to do the WAR ON TERROR didn't go over well because, well, Star Trek has a PRETTY large liberal fanbase and the disaster of RL events of the time meant that Archer saying, "We have to do whatever is necessary" wasn't great.
Nealithi wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 1:11 am
Step two: Screw with the vulcans. I never got disrespect from vulcans in previous shows. They would be logical. Aloof sometimes. And basically be straight men. They don't get jokes, kidding around or similar. These vulcans looked down their noses with a sense of superiority on everyone. They made them another antagonist instead of an ally. And to dial that up, Archer had to treat them as antagonists.
They mirror the snobbish misanthropy of modern elves,ala LOTR movies "Men? men are weak" sentiment. It's something that was injected into the story that was absent in Tolkien's Legendarium. Ironically with Tolkien, he had already considered that angle in elves and covered it in a side dialogue he wrote detailing that it's a human perception of elves many if not most lack and that elves envy Men in many ways.
It would be nice foe Vulxans to have something like that, but much of the creative origins of them is more to highlight human deficiency and the strengths to our weaknesses.
