Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Robert Beltran: "The prime directive is fascist crap."

83 posts in this topic

Posted

Oh, he has never stopped being that. LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

"The idea of leaving any species to die in its own filth when you have the ability to help them, just because you wanna let them get through their normal evolutionary processes is bunk -- it's a bunch of fascist crap," he said. "I much prefer the Cub Scout motto." (The Cub Scout motto, by the way, is about doing your best and helping others.)

Gods... he is so right. I've always hated the Prime Directive when it was used as an excuse to condemn a species to extinction when one had the power to help. It is one thing to be against handing out torpedoes and warp drives to "primitives" and alter the balance of power. But it's another thing to leave an alien species to die because one believes in "fate". For an "enlightened" people, humans often come across as ignorant. Meanwhile, they'll beg Q to step in and help them, but they won't do that for others that see them as a "Q" type (at least in term of power).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well to be fair, I much preferred the prime directive on TOS or TNG when it actually meant something and it wasn't just an excuse for genocide or ignoring the little people as it seemed to be on Voyager.  The scripts he had didn't ever seem to treat the Prime Directive properly in my opinion, so I don't blame him for the opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well to be fair, I much preferred the prime directive on TOS or TNG when it actually meant something and it wasn't just an excuse for genocide or ignoring the little people as it seemed to be on Voyager.  The scripts he had didn't ever seem to treat the Prime Directive properly in my opinion, so I don't blame him for the opinion. 

^
Well, TOS certainly ignored it a lot more than TNG. 

TNG was the first time a ST series seemed to take the PD as something more than just a suggestion or a guideline; it was a way of life.   It seemed like there was a lot more care to be mindful of it in TNG.   

VGR always had the ready excuse of "where on our own out here, blah, blah, blah..."

And to be honest, if ST (any version or series) were to be completely true to the PD?  They would just observe using long-range subspace telescopes instead of starships... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Voyager violated it pretty much at will, laughably so. At least Kirk usually had an extenuating circumstance he could argue that had some weight in order to justify it.

Janeway broke it because going around the space of a sovereign power instead of through would have added two years to the trip home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Voyager violated it pretty much at will, laughably so. At least Kirk usually had an extenuating circumstance he could argue that had some weight in order to justify it.

Janeway broke it because going around the space of a sovereign power instead of through would have added two years to the trip home.

But if some species that had no way to help her in speeding up her trip had a disaster coming their way?  "Sorry...Prime Directive. Out of my hands!"  At least TNG debated the Prime Directive and it's usefulness...it's purpose, whether it was wise or problematic...or was it problematic in spite of being wise.  Questions were wrestled with...Voyager it was either ignored or an excuse for bad behavior. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Voyager violated it pretty much at will, laughably so. At least Kirk usually had an extenuating circumstance he could argue that had some weight in order to justify it.

Janeway broke it because going around the space of a sovereign power instead of through would have added two years to the trip home.

But if some species that had no way to help her in speeding up her trip had a disaster coming their way?  "Sorry...Prime Directive. Out of my hands!"  At least TNG debated the Prime Directive and it's usefulness...it's purpose, whether it was wise or problematic...or was it problematic in spite of being wise.  Questions were wrestled with...Voyager it was either ignored or an excuse for bad behavior. 

Yup.When Kirk, Picard, or Sisko broke it. I could buy it because it was consistent with the character. Janeway did what she was going to do for the expediency of the script.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Voyager violated it pretty much at will, laughably so. At least Kirk usually had an extenuating circumstance he could argue that had some weight in order to justify it.

Janeway broke it because going around the space of a sovereign power instead of through would have added two years to the trip home.

But if some species that had no way to help her in speeding up her trip had a disaster coming their way?  "Sorry...Prime Directive. Out of my hands!"  At least TNG debated the Prime Directive and it's usefulness...it's purpose, whether it was wise or problematic...or was it problematic in spite of being wise.  Questions were wrestled with...Voyager it was either ignored or an excuse for bad behavior. 

Yup.When Kirk, Picard, or Sisko broke it. I could buy it because it was consistent with the character. Janeway did what she was going to do for the expediency of the script.

Everyone in that show did everything for the convenience of the script. It's why it is a hard show for me to enjoy...the characters are mostly flat, boring, and flexible to whatever they needed to be.  Worf had a character...he had a code that he stuck to, at least you understood his stance in an episode.  Data was character and you understood how he would operate in the situations he was put in.  But Harry Kim?  Tom Paris.  I can't think of many character traits of either...and they just seemed like they could be whatever they needed to be in any situation they were put in.  We were talking in some thread about Nimoy skipping out on Generations because his lines could go to any character, and didn't need to be Spock...that was like the whole of Voyager for me.  The only characters with consistent traits seemed to be Seven and the Doctor.  Sadly even Neelix maybe (but his character was pretty useless in all situations so whatever).  Everyone else was just a meatbag for technobabble. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The Doctor...and looking back I know it's why I like Seven so much: I felt like I knew what they'd do, so I felt like I knew them.

Unfortunately Neelix could usually be counted upon to do the dumbest, most unhelpful thing imaginable. Because...funny? Or 'cute' or...something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The Doctor...and looking back I know it's why I like Seven so much: I felt like I knew what they'd do, so I felt like I knew them.

Unfortunately Neelix could usually be counted upon to do the dumbest, most unhelpful thing imaginable. Because...funny? Or 'cute' or...something.

Yeah, and every week there was a new joke about how Neelix's cooking sent people to sickbay... and yet he's STILL the f--king cook??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The Doctor...and looking back I know it's why I like Seven so much: I felt like I knew what they'd do, so I felt like I knew them.

Unfortunately Neelix could usually be counted upon to do the dumbest, most unhelpful thing imaginable. Because...funny? Or 'cute' or...something.

Yeah, and every week there was a new joke about how Neelix's cooking sent people to sickbay... and yet he's STILL the f--king cook??

I'd say they should have just fired him and hooked up the holodeck power to the replicators, but the power was "incompatible" somehow.

Good thing, I guess, otherwise we couldn't have had "Fair Haven." :P 

The worst part of him was that restraining order-level of obsession with Kes.

Edited by prometheus59650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The Doctor...and looking back I know it's why I like Seven so much: I felt like I knew what they'd do, so I felt like I knew them.

Unfortunately Neelix could usually be counted upon to do the dumbest, most unhelpful thing imaginable. Because...funny? Or 'cute' or...something.

Yeah, and every week there was a new joke about how Neelix's cooking sent people to sickbay... and yet he's STILL the f--king cook??

I'd say they should have just fired him and hooked up the holodeck power to the replicators, but the power was "incompatible" somehow.

Good thing, I guess, otherwise we couldn't have had "Fair Haven." :P 

The worst part of him was that restraining order-level of obsession with Kes.

^

Too bad Neelix didn't get slapped with a 'non-interference directive' when it came to being within 500 yards of Kes... :giggle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Sure he's bitter, but in this case I think his bitterness is justified, at least in Voyager's case.

I agree that he had cause to be, considering his character was so poorly serviced.   As was the 7 years-as-ensign Harry Kim.  Garrett Wang pretty much said in a very revealing podcast that he was not on good terms with the producers; I think that was obvious from how Kim was um... 'developed.' 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sure he's bitter, but in this case I think his bitterness is justified, at least in Voyager's case.

I agree that he had cause to be, considering his character was so poorly serviced.   As was the 7 years-as-ensign Harry Kim.  Garrett Wang pretty much said in a very revealing podcast that he was not on good terms with the producers; I think that was obvious from how Kim was um... 'developed.' 

From what I've heard with Wang from all sides, some of that bad behavior comes from both sides.

Beltran was fed up audibly from S6 or so.

Edited by prometheus59650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Beltran has indeed some good reasons to be bitter, and since the Prime Directive doesn't exactly mean much on his show... well can we really blame him for saying this? ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

TOS did indeed have it's share of questionable Prime Directive storylines. Return of the Archons, A Taste of Armageddon, The Apple (which I think was the biggest violator), and A Private Little War are all guilty of the PD being ignored or gone around (even The Omega Glory could be counted). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well to be fair, I much preferred the prime directive on TOS or TNG when it actually meant something and it wasn't just an excuse for genocide or ignoring the little people as it seemed to be on Voyager.  The scripts he had didn't ever seem to treat the Prime Directive properly in my opinion, so I don't blame him for the opinion. 

The thing about TOS is .... I can forgive any mishaps with the prime directive because you can tell the show hadn't quite narrowed it down yet. Hell, didn't they just arbitrarily time travel in one episode?

With TNG, we did have that episode (I think it was called "Pen Pals" - but I could be so very wrong) where they focused on the prime directive. The Enterprise could easily solve the problem with that little alien girl's planet. Originally, Picard said no until Data forced them to hear the voice of the little girl. Now, as you said in a post later on, at least TNG had thought-provoking scenes where they actually discussed it (as this episode did from what I recall).

What is annoying, though, was it was even being contemplated to let her species die out. There is no reason for Starfleet officers to even support such an evil concept. And the crap argument of "The next galactic Hitler might come from that world, though!!!" Who cares? The next galactic Gandhi might come from that world too. Take the risk.

It's another reason I hated that episode in ENT where Archer had a CURE and he let an alien species die out to make room for another alien race. I can stomach that Archer was new to this and didn't know how to "play god" but damn did that sully his character for me a bit.

I agree that in VOY, it is especially discarded with ease by Janeway. In fact, that is one reason I hate her character. In one episode, she chews out Harry Kim for getting involved with an alien woman. In another episode, she says to hell with the rules. The prime directive was especially treated like a joke on VOY. Even moreso than ENT because at least ENT could get away with saying they're new to outer space and didn't have any rules established. But VOY? Even if one argued "they were lost with no back up...." So what? I'm sure deep-space starships like Sulu on his own deep-space mission on the Excelsior didn't have any back ups. But I bet he wasn't committing war crimes all over the place. At least... I don't think he was...

tumblr_n81i2wTyhC1rs6sr9o3_r1_500.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 

It's another reason I hated that episode in ENT where Archer had a CURE and he let an alien species die out to make room for another alien race. I can stomach that Archer was new to this and didn't know how to "play god" but damn did that sully his character for me a bit.


Yes. That episode actually defended the Nazi concept of Social Darwinism: "The strong shall live, the weak must die!". Literally, no exaggeration. That episode was Nazi propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

With TNG, we did have that episode (I think it was called "Pen Pals" - but I could be so very wrong) where they focused on the prime directive. The Enterprise could easily solve the problem with that little alien girl's planet. Originally, Picard said no until Data forced them to hear the voice of the little girl. Now, as you said in a post later on, at least TNG had thought-provoking scenes where they actually discussed it (as this episode did from what I recall).

^
Having just seen this one not too long ago, this was one of the BEST episodes to deal with the subject of the PD the show (any ST show) ever made.  It was also a nice compromise; help out, but don't leave a trace.   Even little Sarjenka's friendship with Data has to be erased as well; a sad but worthy price to pay for saving her world. 

I can see the reason for the PD, but in practice I have to agree with Dr. Pulaski; it seems a bit cowardly, at times.

But I do agree with the general philosophy behind it.  Being in a successful 'federation of united planets' doesn't necessarily give Starfleet the moral prerogative to impose its will on other cultures or civilizations.    Even 'good' intentions can yield unintentionally horrific results.   In STID (one of the most egregious examples), Kirk 'saves' the primitives on Nibiru by 'freezing' a volcano.    But, by exposing them to the starship Enterprise, they now worship it as a god.   Who only knows what kinds of religious wars this will cause.  Will this planet have future conflicts between traditionalists and 'starship worshipers'?   If that is the Nibiru culture's fate, it might've been far more merciful to let them die quickly in their volcano.

And on that subject, were those tribesmen the ONLY sentient life on the entire planet?  Otherwise, how could ONE volcano threaten the entire planet?   Seriously guys; a bit of science might've helped this one.    And please don't get me started on that 'cold fusion' B/S... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 

Yes. That episode actually defended the Nazi concept of Social Darwinism: "The strong shall live, the weak must die!". Literally, no exaggeration. That episode was Nazi propaganda.

I couldn't agree with you more. It really made me lose respect for Archer and Phlox. I know they're just fictional characters, but I was shocked at how badly they could screw up like that.

With TNG, we did have that episode (I think it was called "Pen Pals" - but I could be so very wrong) where they focused on the prime directive. The Enterprise could easily solve the problem with that little alien girl's planet. Originally, Picard said no until Data forced them to hear the voice of the little girl. Now, as you said in a post later on, at least TNG had thought-provoking scenes where they actually discussed it (as this episode did from what I recall).

^
Having just seen this one not too long ago, this was one of the BEST episodes to deal with the subject of the PD the show (any ST show) ever made.  It was also a nice compromise; help out, but don't leave a trace.   Even little Sarjenka's friendship with Data has to be erased as well; a sad but worthy price to pay for saving her world. 

I can see the reason for the PD, but in practice I have to agree with Dr. Pulaski; it seems a bit cowardly, at times.

But I do agree with the general philosophy behind it.  Being in a successful 'federation of united planets' doesn't necessarily give Starfleet the moral prerogative to impose its will on other cultures or civilizations.    Even 'good' intentions can yield unintentionally horrific results.   In STID (one of the most egregious examples), Kirk 'saves' the primitives on Nibiru by 'freezing' a volcano.    But, by exposing them to the starship Enterprise, they now worship it as a god.   Who only knows what kinds of religious wars this will cause.  Will this planet have future conflicts between traditionalists and 'starship worshipers'?   If that is the Nibiru culture's fate, it might've been far more merciful to let them die quickly in their volcano.

And on that subject, were those tribesmen the ONLY sentient life on the entire planet?  Otherwise, how could ONE volcano threaten the entire planet?   Seriously guys; a bit of science might've helped this one.    And please don't get me started on that 'cold fusion' B/S... 

Agreed. At least that episode had a nice ending and a good use of the PD in terms of a debate amongst the officers.

In regards to the philosophy - that is why I make a distinction. I fully agree that the UFP should not just be handing our transporters or quantum torpedoes to anyone. They should also not interfere in alien POLITICAL affairs. Like screwing up elections or something like that.

However, I draw the line on extinction. In regards to the aliens in STID - to me it doesn't matter if they might go onto have religious wars. You're right that they certainly might. But allowing an alien species to die on that possibility still seems cold blooded. If they might have a religious war(s) then they might have an Enlightenment that will lift them out of the conflict and bloodshed and make them great friends to the galactic community. But they need that chance is my point.

Haha, yes the movie did seem to imply the entire species was just that tribe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As far as the volcano, who knows what was really going on? I mean, if the Yellowstone caldera decides to go off, the human race is dead, and that's but a single volcano. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 

Yes. That episode actually defended the Nazi concept of Social Darwinism: "The strong shall live, the weak must die!". Literally, no exaggeration. That episode was Nazi propaganda.

I couldn't agree with you more. It really made me lose respect for Archer and Phlox. I know they're just fictional characters, but I was shocked at how badly they could screw up like that.

With TNG, we did have that episode (I think it was called "Pen Pals" - but I could be so very wrong) where they focused on the prime directive. The Enterprise could easily solve the problem with that little alien girl's planet. Originally, Picard said no until Data forced them to hear the voice of the little girl. Now, as you said in a post later on, at least TNG had thought-provoking scenes where they actually discussed it (as this episode did from what I recall).

^
Having just seen this one not too long ago, this was one of the BEST episodes to deal with the subject of the PD the show (any ST show) ever made.  It was also a nice compromise; help out, but don't leave a trace.   Even little Sarjenka's friendship with Data has to be erased as well; a sad but worthy price to pay for saving her world. 

I can see the reason for the PD, but in practice I have to agree with Dr. Pulaski; it seems a bit cowardly, at times.

But I do agree with the general philosophy behind it.  Being in a successful 'federation of united planets' doesn't necessarily give Starfleet the moral prerogative to impose its will on other cultures or civilizations.    Even 'good' intentions can yield unintentionally horrific results.   In STID (one of the most egregious examples), Kirk 'saves' the primitives on Nibiru by 'freezing' a volcano.    But, by exposing them to the starship Enterprise, they now worship it as a god.   Who only knows what kinds of religious wars this will cause.  Will this planet have future conflicts between traditionalists and 'starship worshipers'?   If that is the Nibiru culture's fate, it might've been far more merciful to let them die quickly in their volcano.

And on that subject, were those tribesmen the ONLY sentient life on the entire planet?  Otherwise, how could ONE volcano threaten the entire planet?   Seriously guys; a bit of science might've helped this one.    And please don't get me started on that 'cold fusion' B/S... 

Agreed. At least that episode had a nice ending and a good use of the PD in terms of a debate amongst the officers.

In regards to the philosophy - that is why I make a distinction. I fully agree that the UFP should not just be handing our transporters or quantum torpedoes to anyone. They should also not interfere in alien POLITICAL affairs. Like screwing up elections or something like that.

However, I draw the line on extinction. In regards to the aliens in STID - to me it doesn't matter if they might go onto have religious wars. You're right that they certainly might. But allowing an alien species to die on that possibility still seems cold blooded. If they might have a religious war(s) then they might have an Enlightenment that will lift them out of the conflict and bloodshed and make them great friends to the galactic community. But they need that chance is my point.

Haha, yes the movie did seem to imply the entire species was just that tribe.

^
The only problem is that we live in a universe in a constant state of eventual entropy and decay; death is (sadly) the ultimate fate of all creatures; sooner or later.  Where do you draw the line?   

Not saying that saving life is a bad thing, but if you prevented a certain asteroid from colliding with Earth 65 million years ago, we wouldn't today have Star Trek... or human beings.  We'd still be in the era of the dinosaurs.   See what I mean?  Life is a chain.  Sometimes we only see the links in front of us, but we don't (or can't) see the points that the chain connects together (or works to keep from colliding).

What if the tribe (the ONLY tribe of people on that entire planet, I guess?  Hehe) on Nibiru were destined to be wiped out to make way for a more promising species?  The universe may never know.   We (as a people) don't possess the wisdom or foresight to know what might eventually happen (or be the best possible thing) for that planet...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0