Discuss Star Trek: The Next Generation

Did you see the Prime Directive as a legitimate rule of non interference or did you see it as a cop out to do noting?

I am on the fence with that one.

52 replies (on page 3 of 4)

Jump to last post

Previous pageNext pageLast page

The Voyager people really had almost no interaction with that planet, especially compared to the Orville episode. I would say that "Mad Idolatry" is more like how "Blink Of An Eye" should have been done, if Voyager had had better writers. That the Voyager episode was made first, isn't terribly relevant. Orville did it better.

Recent stories may have better special effects, but I don't think writing would necessarily be better. Most of the best science fiction stories were written in the 1950s and 1960s, when Heinlein, Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke, Dick, and Leguin were all active. It was FILMED science fiction that was primitive. And with the exception of Philip K. Dick ( BLADE RUNNER, MINORITY REPORT, MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE), Hollywood has largely ignored those writers).

"And since VOYAGER was also written back in the mid 90's, is it really fair to compare it to something else written recently???"

What does that have to do with it? The "Prime Directive" is supposed to be some immutable, supreme law.

OK, so your point is that the Orville episode was a retread of other earlier series episodes. Granted. That is a fairly common occurrence in Hollywood, either remakes of movies or new twists on old series, re-treading or ripping off the scripts of previously done episodes from other shows, etc.
I don't necessarily see this as wrong or unethical. Is it an homage to the work of earlier writers? Perhaps that is part of it. Are the writers trying to stick with stuff the audience is familiar with? Perhaps that is it. If the remake of earlier work is presented as original then that would be unethical and wrong, of course. But if not, I am not bothered by it. At any rate, it is a very common thing in Hollywood to do that. So I don't have any argument with you about that issue. You are right. They used plot lines from earlier shows, mixing them and creating something similar but with their own flavor I guess.

But that is a really a different issue to the one we were discussing before, the one that started this thread. What do I think of the prime directive? Is it a cop out? My answer to that still goes like this:

The mission Star Fleet gave to the Enterprise (and the similar missions of starships in subsequent spin off series based on the original) is to "explore new worlds". This will necessarily bring the crew in contact with races, peoples, cultures, etc. which are less developed technologically, and which have cultures very different to that of the starship crew. And (for reasons already discussed and agreed upon by both of us previously) such contact will impact the development of the culture of the new world denizens, to some degree. This is especially true of young, technologically less advanced, cultures.

Star Fleet (aka the Federation) insists that the captain sacrifice his life and that of his crew in order to avoid breaking the "Prime Directive" i.e. influencing the cultures of the 'new worlds' the star ships are sent to explore.

This means that the star ships are sent on missions which ensure they will break the 'prime directive'. To "explore new worlds" means the crew is going to break the prime directive, period.

BUT THIS IS DONE INTENTIONALLY. THE WRITERS PUT THIS CONFLICT BETWEEN THE MISSION AND THE PRIME DIRECTIVE INTO THE PLOT ON PURPOSE. The REASON they did this was to create conflict, to put the crews into impossible situations, in order to engage the viewing audience, people like you and me. They WANT us to struggle with this conflict along with the crew, to wonder how they will be able to resolve the problems created by this conflict, how they will be able to extricate themselves from these problems without breaking the 'prime directive'. And they use various gimmicks to do that. For example, as you pointed out, Picard made that statement about the necessity of exceptions. There is an inherent conflict between the prime directive and the mission of the starship; but it was created by the script writers on purpose. (The viewers are not supposed to realize this.)

If these shows represented real life situations then there would have to be changes made. You could not send out crews of people with such diametrically conflicting directives in real life. It would be unethical to put them in situations which required them to give up their lives to avoid doing what you sent them there to do.

Concerning retreads: I don't usually mind them, but sometimes they go so close to somebody else's story that I immediately know the solution to the mystery/problem. One was on JAG, and was based on Agatha Christie's WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION, so I guessed the twist ending . Another was on THE ORVILLE: and was based on an episode of HERCULES' LEGENDARY JOURNEYS, so I guessed that twist too.

Remark on the real-world origin of the PRIME DIRECTIVE: Star Trek was invented in the 60s. That was precisely the era where historians were starting to argue about the bad effects of European exploration on native cultures. Roddenberry wanted to make a series about exploration, but wanted to make it "good" exploration, so he wrote the Prime Directive into the story. ( Note: science fiction writer Isaac Asimov had the same conflict, but came up with a different solution: Earth was the only planet in the galaxy to produce intelligent life, so there were no alien species in danger of harm.)

@CharlesTheBold said:

Concerning retreads: I don't usually mind them, but sometimes they go so close to somebody else's story that I immediately know the solution to the mystery/problem. One was on JAG, and was based on Agatha Christie's WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION, so I guessed the twist ending . Another was on THE ORVILLE: and was based on an episode of HERCULES' LEGENDARY JOURNEYS, so I guessed that twist too.

What bugged me about that JAG episode (2-parter) was that all of those LAWYERS would never have seen "Witness." COME. ON!

A lot of the posts here, and the Orville episode, are based on the premise - the assumption - that all religions are false. Which may not necessarily be the case. But just for a fictional example, let's take the Bajorans. THEIR religion was unquestionably true, even if "the prophets" didn't actually create them but were just "guides" etc. Should the Federation have insisted that the Bajorans stop practicing their faith based on the assumption that religion is always just something to grow out of? It almost sounded at times like that might be a requirement of Federation membership.

"What's even more interesting is how the PRIME DIRECTIVE doesn't even APPLY to the rest of STARFLEET's CITIZENS who are NOT members of the FEDERATION's MILITARY.

So again, WHY even have it in the first place if one's NON MILITARY CITIZENS are allowed to BREAK IT and you can also do NOTHING about it if they do???

Doesn't that seem to be even more of a CONTRADICTION???

Because it also indicates that they're going to run into situations where it's been broken quite often."

Good points. I had not even considered that non military people were not covered by the law. That makes it even more absurd that the captain should give up his life and sacrifice his entire crew rather than break the 'prime directive'.

"Star Trek was invented in the 60s. That was precisely the era where historians were starting to argue about the bad effects of European exploration on native cultures. Roddenberry wanted to make a series about exploration, but wanted to make it "good" exploration, so he wrote the Prime Directive into the story. "

Yeah I knew this was a reflection of criticism of the spread of western culture into third world nations and an early expression of "multiculturalism" generally. That is probably why it was elevated to being the "prime directive", to promote and validate the criticism of western influence.
The script writers also used the conflict of the prime directive and the mission statement to create conflict in plots, i.e. put crew members in dilemmas.

"Should the Federation have insisted that the Bajorans stop practicing their faith based on the assumption that religion is always just something to grow out of? It almost sounded at times like that might be a requirement of Federation membership."

This is another expression of the promotion of leftist political thought; the old "religion is the opiate of the masses" tune, there is no God, etc. The leftist political influence in Hollywood is very strong and it is reflected in the shows. Traditional values, western culture, etc. are normally attacked by the left as part of their social engineering agenda. It is seen as necessary to tear down the old value system in order to replace it with a new philosophy, new beliefs, new viewpoints. The dominant religion of the western world is Christianity so you mainly see it attacked in programming, though it is done in a subtle fashion.
Treating religion as 'false' and "something to grow out of" is a reflection of the leftist political dominance in Hollywood.

I really dislike watching TV or movies which push such viewpoints. The best shows are those which don't attempt to sell us on such issues with one viewpoint or the other. I like my entertainment to be free of politics, not agenda driven. But you don't see many of those shows. As long as they don't get too heavy handed I can stand to watch. But when they try to push such viewpoints too hard I usually turn to something else.

Gene Rodenberry died two years before DS9 premiered, maybe that's why they were able to present a society with a religious basis that wasn't explicitly dismissed as false.

Well we are getting off topic a bit here. Yes, leftists now go by the name progressive. They have historically changed names a lot. (The "New Party" was nothing more than the communist party re-labelled.)

I know that leftists were not the first to attack religion or Christianity in particular. If my comments seemed to imply that then I was imprecise, as I did not intend to give that impression. I won't get into a debate with you about Christianity. I can see you have certain views about it, and I am sorry if your experiences with it have been negative. For many people, their experience has been different than what you describe. In any large population of people of course, there will be some who behave poorly, and that includes religious people. I don't get into defending the actions of the various individuals or groups who claim that Christianity supports their poor behavior.

At the same time I don't believe in ignoring the positive influence and changes in the lives of many people who have decided to follow Christ, nor do I see the value in attacking them.

That Voyager did a similar kind of story before, doesn't mean that they did it better. And as indicated before, my argument is that they really, really didn't. The Voyager crew didn't have nearly as much interaction with the "slow planet" people, and the "slow planet" people weren't really even shown as much as with The Orville. The resolution shown in The Orville was also much better.

Also, Friedrich Nietzsche was just a person, and thus was no more inherently or automatically correct about anything, just because he espoused what you may now agree with, than any other person. Even people you may currently DISagree with. Who may, after all, be correct; and you - and Friedrich Nietzsche - would be wrong.

And finally, if there is a Christian God, then indeed people ALWAYS ARE as children in comparison.

To Invidia: You replied: "And the claim that PROGRESSIVES are or were once COMMUNISTS at one time is simply ABSURD.

In fact it's TRUMP and the rest of his CULT FOLLOWING who's busy BROWN NOSING PUTIN and WORSHIPS the KREMLIN.

Instead of watching the TRUMP TV CHANNEL (formerly known as FOX NOISE) try getting an EDUCATION by other more LEGITIMATE means."

You misquoted me. Did I say that Progressives were once communists? No, I did not make that claim. Get an education? I have two degrees and am a member of Mensa.
You appear to have made some assumptions about me. There is no reason for personal replies.

I am distressed by what I see in the present cultural current. I see a great many younger people who take offense when others fail to see things the same, when they have different points of view. I am aware that the educational system currently places high value on group conformity and discourages individualism in students. The vociferous attacks on people suspected of supporting conservative politicians are one example.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion" was once a commonly held belief in America. In the days of personal freedom and individuality, no teacher would ever dare imply that your opinion or belief was "politically incorrect", and neither would your fellow students. There was no ridicule or group stalking of students who held different beliefs or opinions by other students, and such behavior would have been stopped by the teachers. Everyone has the right to his own opinion, but not the right to abuse someone for disagreeing with him. I have chatted with people online who became upset when I did not agree with them, and they began insulting me and, without basis, accused me of various things. I am distressed when I see young people get so angry simply because someone else fails to agree with their point of view. I cannot see why this would threaten them or make them angry. I won't trade insults with people. If they become angry and combative over differences of opinion I wish them well and stop interacting with them.

Camus was also just another fallible human being.

And so on.

one more time.

I said "The New Party was nothing more than the communist party re-labeled". The communists are one group in the larger group generally called "leftists". The history of leftist groups changing names, re-inventing themselves in attempts to appeal to people is simply a matter of fact. I am not sure why that offends you.

But I did not say that the "PROGRESSIVES are or were once COMMUNISTS". You can check it again if you like. I simply did not say that. You are inferring what I did not imply.

But I am done with this. I am not spending any more time debating or arguing over what I said, what I meant, etc.

Can't find a movie or TV show? Login to create it.

Global

s focus the search bar
p open profile menu
esc close an open window
? open keyboard shortcut window

On media pages

b go back (or to parent when applicable)
e go to edit page

On TV season pages

(right arrow) go to next season
(left arrow) go to previous season

On TV episode pages

(right arrow) go to next episode
(left arrow) go to previous episode

On all image pages

a open add image window

On all edit pages

t open translation selector
ctrl+ s submit form

On discussion pages

n create new discussion
w toggle watching status
p toggle public/private
c toggle close/open
a open activity
r reply to discussion
l go to last reply
ctrl+ enter submit your message
(right arrow) next page
(left arrow) previous page

Settings

Want to rate or add this item to a list?

Login