Sign in to follow this  
Mr.Picard

Homeward

Recommended Posts

I'm so sorry! If it's any comfort, I ignore this episode as well. Ugh. Dreadful. And to think that we actually have to blame Sir Patrick for it... he was the one who remembered Bok and said "hey we should have a sequel". *facepalm*

That's even worse; to hear that the idea came from Stewart himself. Baaaaaad.... :cylonnono:

Oh he and I would be at each other's throats in no time when it comes to these things. HE was the one who demanded for more "sex and action" for Jean-Luc, which resulted in horribleness like Vash AND Insurrection. HE was the one who demanded this dreadful Bok sequel. HE was the one who had no issues whatsoever with Nemesis and still thinks it's an awesome movie... and so on and so on. Ugh, lol.

Maybe he liked Nemesis because the director was a fellow Englishman (Stuart Baird, former editor of the Lethal Weapon franchise), and he allowed for a proper tea time on the set... :P

No, he liked it because he has completely lost the ability to see Jean-Luc as a separate character. He thinks he and Jean-Luc are interchangable, which they MOST DEFINITELY are NOT.

I think a lot of actors tend to feel this way after awhile.

Shatner has been quoted as saying (in effect) that after a while, Kirk's reactions became his and vice versa. More of himself bled into the character.

I think Stewart may have felt the same way after a time. Which is unfortunate, because as you say, they are clearly not the same person. I wonder if he'd played Scrooge for 15 years, would Scrooge have to start having romantic dalliances and more fist fights? Maybe he could beat up Marley's ghost in a big rough and tumble action scene at the end.... "Christmas Carol 5: Ghost Buster!"

:laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so sorry! If it's any comfort, I ignore this episode as well. Ugh. Dreadful. And to think that we actually have to blame Sir Patrick for it... he was the one who remembered Bok and said "hey we should have a sequel". *facepalm*

That's even worse; to hear that the idea came from Stewart himself. Baaaaaad.... :cylonnono:

Oh he and I would be at each other's throats in no time when it comes to these things. HE was the one who demanded for more "sex and action" for Jean-Luc, which resulted in horribleness like Vash AND Insurrection. HE was the one who demanded this dreadful Bok sequel. HE was the one who had no issues whatsoever with Nemesis and still thinks it's an awesome movie... and so on and so on. Ugh, lol.

Maybe he liked Nemesis because the director was a fellow Englishman (Stuart Baird, former editor of the Lethal Weapon franchise), and he allowed for a proper tea time on the set... :P

No, he liked it because he has completely lost the ability to see Jean-Luc as a separate character. He thinks he and Jean-Luc are interchangable, which they MOST DEFINITELY are NOT.

I think a lot of actors tend to feel this way after awhile.

Shatner has been quoted as saying (in effect) that after a while, Kirk's reactions became his and vice versa. More of himself bled into the character.

I think Stewart may have felt the same way after a time. Which is unfortunate, because as you say, they are clearly not the same person. I wonder if he'd played Scrooge for 15 years, would Scrooge have to start having romantic dalliances and more fist fights? Maybe he could beat up Marley's ghost in a big rough and tumble action scene at the end.... "Christmas Carol 5: Ghost Buster!"

:laugh:

Sir Patrick has said the same thing, that he no longer knows where Jean-Luc ends and he begins. Which is dangerous indeed. He keeps having strange thoughts about the character of Jean-Luc Picard and I just want to tell him to SHUT UP sometimes, lol. In a loving way, of course, he IS my lovely little favorite bald actor, after all. :P

Oh GOD Scrooge and romance, please NO, it's bad enough that these damn ghosts brainwash him like that...!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3/10 Terrible and not the least of which was the completely unnecessary crisis. Since Worf is going in anyway he can take a medical scanner. Scan their physiology, create or modify one of the myriad versions of Knockoutazine that Trek seems to have, pump it into the holodeck as they camp for the night, reset the holodeck, let them wake up and be done with it.

There are too many ways to solve this problem and thus the native's suicide is utterly preventable.

Edited by prometheus59650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this episode. Sure, there are a couple of plotholes (like the one prom mentions) and it is predictable. But I very much like the general idea of resettling a primitive culture via the holodeck, and I especially liked Worf's brother. Good role and actor, and nice to see a little more about Worf's background.

And it's one of the episodes where I don't understand the strict adherence to the Prime Directive. The non-interference rule is supposed to prevent undesirable consequences for a primitive culture due to meddling. They might start religions or wars or later blame the Federation for their flawed development. Okay. But when non-interference means letting them all die, then even a severe "cultural contamination" would still be the obviously better option?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The non-interference rule is supposed to prevent undesirable consequences for a primitive culture due to meddling. They might start religions or wars or later blame the Federation for their flawed development. Okay. But when non-interference means letting them all die, then even a severe "cultural contamination" would still be the obviously better option?

Then we're playing God, and Humans seem to have figured out by then that we're terribly ill-suited to it. That world was going to die because it was meant to. Starfleet's job cannot become one of trying to save every world possible from natural disaster, even civilization destroying ones.

That can cause unintended negative consequences down the road, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The non-interference rule is supposed to prevent undesirable consequences for a primitive culture due to meddling. They might start religions or wars or later blame the Federation for their flawed development. Okay. But when non-interference means letting them all die, then even a severe "cultural contamination" would still be the obviously better option?

Then we're playing God, and Humans seem to have figured out by then that we're terribly ill-suited to it. That world was going to die because it was meant to.

That sounds almost like a religious justification for the Prime Directive. ;)

But yes, I guess that's the idea behind it. But imo, that's another example for the snobbishness of 24th century mankind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then we're playing God, and Humans seem to have figured out by then that we're terribly ill-suited to it. That world was going to die because it was meant to. Starfleet's job cannot become one of trying to save every world possible from natural disaster, even civilization destroying ones.

That can cause unintended negative consequences down the road, too.

No, we are not "playing God". There is no such thing as playing God. By that argument, whenever we are vaccinated or have a life saving surgery, we are "playing God". Why is it right for one but not for the other? If everything should be left to random chance, there should be absolutely no need for medical science. What happens, happens. Same for looking both ways when crossing the street. Just go and whatever happens, happens. Any measure of preventative medicine or act to save one's self is a way of countering random occurrences. Saving an alien civilization from doom should be championed and be an imperative for a civilization that reached the stars and has the power to do so.

This was the argument used by Phlox in that horrible, pro-eugenics (via mass extinction) episode "Dear Doctor". This whole idea of a civilization/people being "meant to" die is humanizing random occurrences in nature. It is trying to ascribe a human idea to "fate". No group is "meant" to die or live. We simply do either or. If the means to avert our extinction can be presented, we do so. That does not mean we are "meant to live". It means, we simply live. Nothing more, nothing less. Ascribing anything more is nothing but Humans trying to project their own feelings on nature.

Not saving Sarjenka's race, the Boraalan's, the Valakian's, or any other primitive species is pretty evil for an organization that prides itself on how moral they are. It is one thing to not conquer an alien species with their advanced technology. I support that. I think what those two Ferengi did on Voyager was pretty evil. But that should be the absolute limit of the PD in terms of interfering with the development of an alien race. What is the point of preventing "contamination" if it leads to their extinction? Seems an utterly pointless rule. It is laughable that Pike was so upset with Kirk in STID because now the aliens may launch wars and kill each other. As opposed to....not being able to do anything because they are all now dead? Is mass extinction preferable to a war between tribes? Things like this solidifies my belief that Starfleet is a fascist military organization that parades itself under the cloak of enlightenment and peace the way America invades nations under the cloak of democracy.

Plus, their hypocrisy is staggering. How many times does Starfleet interfere with aliens to avert mass disaster? In Deja Q - the moon of Bre'el IV was going to crash on the planet. The entire episode (minus the Q shenanigans) is dedicated to the ENT-D crew trying to put the moon back in its proper orbit. Why are they not "meant to die"?

More hypocrisy. In "Observer Effect", Archer begs the Organians to save his dead crew. The Organians had the power to do it EASILY but had to be persuaded. We look at them as being villainous and Archer being a hero for trying to save his people. Sadly, we don't really see the "Archer's" of the pre-warpers. It was nice to see the shoe on the other foot, though.

What really irritates me about the idea in general is...a lot of the times...it is really simple for Starfleet to avert the disaster. It doesn't require anything as complicated as Homeward, although Prometheus proved even that could have been done simply. In Dear Doctor, they HAD THE CURE. It didn't require years of study, nor did it require legions of doctors to come and save this species. Phlox found the cure in like less than a week. Other times, it requires a little rigging of the tractor beam or using a modified probe. Something that can be done quickly without the locals even realizing anything occurred. What is really the issue here?

Again, I get that Starfleet officers swooping down and pulling a Colonel Walter E. Kurtz is bad. But dropping a "cold fusion device into a volcano" doesn't seem that back breaking to Starfleet.

It was the one good thing about Star Trek: Into Darkness that I liked. Kirk and his crew saving that alien race. Any effect on their civilization is negligible. It doesn't matter if they start worshiping an outline of the Enterprise anymore than them worshiping a sacred scroll, tree, or invisible deity. At their stage in development, "The Enterprise!!!" God will disappear and make way for another one over time the same way my ancestors used to worship nature and now worship Jesus. Kirk and co. laid no precepts to follow. Any religious wars over the sacred EnterpriseGod will be the doing of the indigenous aliens ascribing their own desires/flaws/bigotry to the EnterpriseGod.

It doesn't have to be "Starfleet's job", but if they stumble upon it - there is little reason to not help them. It's the equivalent of dangling a cure for a disease in front of a dying person. No one would say that is acceptable behavior. I wouldn't be as hard on Starfleet if they were consistent. If, across the board, they NEVER interfered, but you see them constantly picking and choosing who to save. Almost always, the ones they want to let die, are the poor stupid aliens that didn't make Warp Drive (for some reason that condemns you).

Edited by The Founder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saving an alien civilization from doom should be championed and be an imperative for a civilization that reached the stars and has the power to do so.

And should that lead to the deaths of a few billion down the road because a race is there and takes actions against another or that indirectly affect another when that race would have otherwise gone extinct? How often do you meddle? Should a starship be forever assigned to every system where something like this happens to make sure any potential negatives that come from that choice are mitigated?

The line is where exactly?

Edited by prometheus59650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then we're playing God, and Humans seem to have figured out by then that we're terribly ill-suited to it. That world was going to die because it was meant to. Starfleet's job cannot become one of trying to save every world possible from natural disaster, even civilization destroying ones.

That can cause unintended negative consequences down the road, too.

No, we are not "playing God". There is no such thing as playing God. By that argument, whenever we are vaccinated or have a life saving surgery, we are "playing God". Why is it right for one but not for the other? If everything should be left to random chance, there should be absolutely no need for medical science. What happens, happens. Same for looking both ways when crossing the street. Just go and whatever happens, happens. Any measure of preventative medicine or act to save one's self is a way of countering random occurrences. Saving an alien civilization from doom should be championed and be an imperative for a civilization that reached the stars and has the power to do so.

This was the argument used by Phlox in that horrible, pro-eugenics (via mass extinction) episode "Dear Doctor". This whole idea of a civilization/people being "meant to" die is humanizing random occurrences in nature. It is trying to ascribe a human idea to "fate". No group is "meant" to die or live. We simply do either or. If the means to avert our extinction can be presented, we do so. That does not mean we are "meant to live". It means, we simply live. Nothing more, nothing less. Ascribing anything more is nothing but Humans trying to project their own feelings on nature.

Not saving Sarjenka's race, the Boraalan's, the Valakian's, or any other primitive species is pretty evil for an organization that prides itself on how moral they are. It is one thing to not conquer an alien species with their advanced technology. I support that. I think what those two Ferengi did on Voyager was pretty evil. But that should be the absolute limit of the PD in terms of interfering with the development of an alien race. What is the point of preventing "contamination" if it leads to their extinction? Seems an utterly pointless rule. It is laughable that Pike was so upset with Kirk in STID because now the aliens may launch wars and kill each other. As opposed to....not being able to do anything because they are all now dead? Is mass extinction preferable to a war between tribes? Things like this solidifies my belief that Starfleet is a fascist military organization that parades itself under the cloak of enlightenment and peace the way America invades nations under the cloak of democracy.

Plus, their hypocrisy is staggering. How many times does Starfleet interfere with aliens to avert mass disaster? In Deja Q - the moon of Bre'el IV was going to crash on the planet. The entire episode (minus the Q shenanigans) is dedicated to the ENT-D crew trying to put the moon back in its proper orbit. Why are they not "meant to die"?

More hypocrisy. In "Observer Effect", Archer begs the Organians to save his dead crew. The Organians had the power to do it EASILY but had to be persuaded. We look at them as being villainous and Archer being a hero for trying to save his people. Sadly, we don't really see the "Archer's" of the pre-warpers. It was nice to see the shoe on the other foot, though.

What really irritates me about the idea in general is...a lot of the times...it is really simple for Starfleet to avert the disaster. It doesn't require anything as complicated as Homeward, although Prometheus proved even that could have been done simply. In Dear Doctor, they HAD THE CURE. It didn't require years of study, nor did it require legions of doctors to come and save this species. Phlox found the cure in like less than a week. Other times, it requires a little rigging of the tractor beam or using a modified probe. Something that can be done quickly without the locals even realizing anything occurred. What is really the issue here?

Again, I get that Starfleet officers swooping down and pulling a Colonel Walter E. Kurtz is bad. But dropping a "cold fusion device into a volcano" doesn't seem that back breaking to Starfleet.

It was the one good thing about Star Trek: Into Darkness that I liked. Kirk and his crew saving that alien race. Any effect on their civilization is negligible. It doesn't matter if they start worshiping an outline of the Enterprise anymore than them worshiping a sacred scroll, tree, or invisible deity. At their stage in development, "The Enterprise!!!" God will disappear and make way for another one over time the same way my ancestors used to worship nature and now worship Jesus. Kirk and co. laid no precepts to follow. Any religious wars over the sacred EnterpriseGod will be the doing of the indigenous aliens ascribing their own desires/flaws/bigotry to the EnterpriseGod.

It doesn't have to be "Starfleet's job", but if they stumble upon it - there is little reason to not help them. It's the equivalent of dangling a cure for a disease in front of a dying person. No one would say that is acceptable behavior. I wouldn't be as hard on Starfleet if they were consistent. If, across the board, they NEVER interfered, but you see them constantly picking and choosing who to save. Almost always, the ones they want to let die, are the poor stupid aliens that didn't make Warp Drive (for some reason that condemns you).

I didn't think it through in this detailed and eloquent manner, but what you're saying is pretty much the same thought I had when I scratched my head because of the Prime Directive in "Homeward".

Belief in fate, that some races are just meant to die, as well as warning against "playing God", are religious arguments. They only make sense when there is such a thing as God.

I perfectly understand when Starfleet doesn't have the resources to help all civilizations in distress, and thus limits its engagement. I also perfectly understand they want to avoid or at least minimize contact with pre-warp civilizations -- to prevent bad consequences for the development of these civilizations. Maybe I even understand when they avoid helping a pre-warp civilization facing a crisis that will cause the death of millions, as long as the species in general will survive.

But just letting them die, just because they haven't developed the warp drive yet, although they could easily help them -- that's just unethical.

And even the argument of bad consequences due to cultural contamination doesn't make sense, because total annihilation is always a worse consequence, no matter how bad the contamination may be.

As you say, the "dilemma" presented in ENT "Dear Doctor" was the worst of it all. It made me outright angry. It was plain Nazi social darwinism what Phlox supported here. Evolution is no moral or ethical category. Evolution is nature, and the only thing that sets man apart from nature is that he has culture, which means ethics/morals and the capacity of mastering nature to some degree -- like when treating illnesses or injuries with modern medicine, or stabilizing the continental plates of a planet to stop earthquakes and so on. Evolution is nothing else than such an illness or earthquake, in this context.

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And even the argument of bad consequences due to cultural contamination doesn't make sense, because total annihilation is always a worse consequence, no matter how bad the contamination may be.

And if the natural end of one prevents the unnatural end of another down the road? If planet "A's" natural disaster prevented them from annihilating their hated neighbor 50 years later? Or 10? How much of a galactic cop are you willing to be. You're committing the Federation to more responsibility than it can actually bear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And even the argument of bad consequences due to cultural contamination doesn't make sense, because total annihilation is always a worse consequence, no matter how bad the contamination may be.

And if the natural end of one prevents the unnatural end of another down the road? If planet "A's" natural disaster prevented them from annihilating their hated neighbor 50 years later? Or 10? How much of a galactic cop are you willing to be. You're committing the Federation to more responsibility than it can actually bear.

The way it's presented on-screen, they have no problems helping warp civilizations capable of attacking their neighbors anyway. They only refuse to help pre-warp civilizations facing extinction. And those certainly won't attack their neighbor planet anytime soon.

But then, this is speculative, and doesn't lead anywhere. If we take unforeseeable consequences as a justification to do nothing, whenever we face such a moral decision, we have no choice but doing nothing, ever. And you may even justify the most heinous deeds with it -- after all, they could have good consequences 50 or 100 years later.

Should a doctor refuse to heal a child with a horrible illness, just because the child may one day become the next Hitler?

All we can do when taking a moral decision is weighing the consequences to the best of our knowledge, and with best conscience, in full awareness that we'll never be able to know all consequences for sure. And then take responsibility for it, also when consequences arise we couldn't possibly have foreseen.

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way it's presented on-screen, they have no problems helping warp civilizations capable of attacking their neighbors anyway.

They don't have to be warp capable. Pretty easy to hit a planet with something if you're so inclined.

I just think you have to create a valid line somewhere and that simply has to be the line you stick to, fair or not, otherwise you have a couple...thousand maybe...starship captains with their own set of morality doing what they think needs to be done and end up creating a wholly unworkable, Empire breaking foreign policy.

Edited by prometheus59650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saving an alien civilization from doom should be championed and be an imperative for a civilization that reached the stars and has the power to do so.

And should that lead to the deaths of a few billion down the road because a race is there and takes actions against another or that indirectly affect another when that race would have otherwise gone extinct? How often do you meddle? Should a starship be forever assigned to every system where something like this happens to make sure any potential negatives that come from that choice are mitigated?

The line is where exactly?

The problem with the counter-argument is that you are dooming an alien race to mass extinction on a hypothetical. Yes - the may grow up to be a race of monsters or they may grow up to be a race of peace mongers. They may end up conquering the universe and destroying it by manipulating the wrong anomaly. Or they may end up growing up to be a race that turns the tide on an alien invasion from Andromeda galaxy. Hypotheticals cannot be the standard in which we use our morality.

The line (in my opinion) is not conquering them, influencing them (as in giving them weapons or creating an android of one of them to be a puppet leader for the UFP), or throwing them the formula for warp drive. Things of that nature. Do not "contaminate" them, but saving them from extinction is not "contamination". It's just letting them die.

Hell - it doesn't even have to be pre-warp. I completely get why Picard or the UFP would be against their involvement of shaping Klingon politics. Other aliens should hammer out their own problems (most of the times). But that is not the same as a primitive species being left to die from an oncoming asteroid the Enterprise can blow out of their star system with a torpedo.

I do agree with you that there has to be limitations (as I listed above). But no limitations when it comes to extinction. At least...not when they can easily save the species.

I didn't think it through in this detailed and eloquent manner, but what you're saying is pretty much the same thought I had when I scratched my head because of the Prime Directive in "Homeward".

Belief in fate, that some races are just meant to die, as well as warning against "playing God", are religious arguments. They only make sense when there is such a thing as God.

I perfectly understand when Starfleet doesn't have the resources to help all civilizations in distress, and thus limits its engagement. I also perfectly understand they want to avoid or at least minimize contact with pre-warp civilizations -- to prevent bad consequences for the development of these civilizations. Maybe I even understand when they avoid helping a pre-warp civilization facing a crisis that will cause the death of millions, as long as the species in general will survive.

But just letting them die, just because they haven't developed the warp drive yet, although they could easily help them -- that's just unethical.

And even the argument of bad consequences due to cultural contamination doesn't make sense, because total annihilation is always a worse consequence, no matter how bad the contamination may be.

As you say, the "dilemma" presented in ENT "Dear Doctor" was the worst of it all. It made me outright angry. It was plain Nazi social darwinism what Phlox supported here. Evolution is no moral or ethical category. Evolution is nature, and the only thing that sets man apart from nature is that he has culture, which means ethics/morals and the capacity of mastering nature to some degree -- like when treating illnesses or injuries with modern medicine, or stabilizing the continental plates of a planet to stop earthquakes and so on. Evolution is nothing else than such an illness or earthquake, in this context.

Haha well I've given this a lot of thought. It's probably one of the best moral dilemmas invented by Trek. The issue is, a lot that are presented is laughable and easily solvable.

In the case of Sarjenka, all it took was rigging some probes to save her world. In that other topic about the economics of Trek, we seem to all agree that resource scarcity is not an issue. So...you can't even use the argument that they have finite resources (in this case probes) to use and cannot use them to save all alien worlds.

I agree with you it is unethical. Good analogy between earthquakes. You're right.

And even the argument of bad consequences due to cultural contamination doesn't make sense, because total annihilation is always a worse consequence, no matter how bad the contamination may be.

And if the natural end of one prevents the unnatural end of another down the road? If planet "A's" natural disaster prevented them from annihilating their hated neighbor 50 years later? Or 10? How much of a galactic cop are you willing to be. You're committing the Federation to more responsibility than it can actually bear.

Again, this is a hypothetical. You have no idea they will annihilate their neighbors in 50 years or be in a position to save them from an incoming asteroid (recalling their own near annihilation at the hands of one in the past). It is purely 50/50. They have as much potential to be a Hitler as they do a Gandhi. I'd rather err on the side of ethics.

Should the Federation have left the Klingon Empire to "die" after Praxis? I mean - if any species has a huge chance of being monstrous imperialists, it'd be the Klingon Empire. Yet...for some reason...the moral action was to "save" them.

And even the argument of bad consequences due to cultural contamination doesn't make sense, because total annihilation is always a worse consequence, no matter how bad the contamination may be.

And if the natural end of one prevents the unnatural end of another down the road? If planet "A's" natural disaster prevented them from annihilating their hated neighbor 50 years later? Or 10? How much of a galactic cop are you willing to be. You're committing the Federation to more responsibility than it can actually bear.

The way it's presented on-screen, they have no problems helping warp civilizations capable of attacking their neighbors anyway. They only refuse to help pre-warp civilizations facing extinction. And those certainly won't attack their neighbor planet anytime soon.

But then, this is speculative, and doesn't lead anywhere. If we take unforeseeable consequences as a justification to do nothing, whenever we face such a moral decision, we have no choice but doing nothing, ever. And you may even justify the most heinous deeds with it -- after all, they could have good consequences 50 or 100 years later.

Should a doctor refuse to heal a child with a horrible illness, just because the child may one day become the next Hitler?

All we can do when taking a moral decision is weighing the consequences to the best of our knowledge, and with best conscience, in full awareness that we'll never be able to know all consequences for sure. And then take responsibility for it, also when consequences arise we couldn't possibly have foreseen.

Exactly...

The way it's presented on-screen, they have no problems helping warp civilizations capable of attacking their neighbors anyway.

They don't have to be warp capable. Pretty easy to hit a planet with something if you're so inclined.

I just think you have to create a valid line somewhere and that simply has to be the line you stick to, fair or not, otherwise you have a couple...thousand maybe...starship captains with their own set of morality doing what they think needs to be done and end up creating a wholly unworkable, Empire breaking foreign policy.

I agree that a line has to be made, but it should be reasonable and consistent. It rarely is. The line should be as little interference as possible, but blowing up an asteroid or freezing a volcano can be done rather easily and doesn't require too much interference.

I agree the Federation shouldn't be dedicated to saving every alien species. I meant when they stumble on such a dilemma (and throughout all the shows/movies - they stumble on it a lot). I don't blame the UFP for not saving a species in the deepest corners of the Gamma Quadrant. But why not save them if they're right there and they have the chance? If one must humanize "fate"/Nature/God, then surely a counter argument can be that fate/nature/god put the Enterprise there, at that moment, with the means to save them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this