Is the devil in the details or is it the message

[Tommy J]

Last night I was flipping through the channels and happened upon a re-run of the ST Next Gen Episode First Contact.

For those of you who forget or who have never seen it, it's the episode where the Enterprise is dispatched to a planet who's on the verge of attaining Warp Drive and Star Fleet has observers on the planet who are covertly monitoring and trying to ascertain that best way to make first contact.

Commander Riker gets injured somehow and is brought to a regional medical facility. While SF altered his facial appearance they didn't change his hands or feet and the indingenious population has only 3 fingers and fewer toes than humans. The Dr.'s are stunned and don't buy Riker's explination that he's a genetic anaomoly.

Meanwhile the Enterprise cannot find him because he's lost his communication badge and makes contact with the world's government. Initially making contact with a scientist who warmly embraces the alien vistors they make contact with the world's 'chancellor,' who is more skeptical of their intentions.

Riker through all of this trys to escape, has sex with a local female to get a favor and is disabled in a struggle for his phaser with the zenophobic Security Director.

Of course all is saved, they find him, and save the zenophobic Security Director as he was accidently shot by the phaser. The world's chancellor elects to not proceed forward with the Warp program and asks the federation and the enterprise to leave.

---------------------------------------------------


Ok, here's the questions, and please bare with me. I've read every single page of criticism on Mike's website. Many of his criticims I agree with and some I do not. But last night I was thinking of this episode in relation to some of the lively debates we've all had recently about poor tactics, bad science, poor plot devices etc. in some of the ST movies and Episodes.

However, the more I watched this episode the more I liked it for the following reasons:

1. It's still topical today -- part of the message was about zenophobia. A quote in the episode from the alien was something to the effect, "Malcorians" consider themselves the center of the universe the center of the galaxy to find out otherwise would shatter our populations views of ourselves.

Now isn't that so true of Americans, Europeans, and in general the population of this planet. It's a mirror back onto ourselves.

2. The Zenophobic security officer in the episode was willing to do anything to stop the Warp program from continuing to include making it look like Riker was trying to assisinate him.

Now isn't that so true even today in America. Sometimes or over zealous military, CIA etc. steps over the line out of what they believe is an effort to protect our citizens from themselves. Just look at John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act.

3. Conspiracy theory central. Another theme was the populations fear of change and how it stirs conspiracy theories through different segments of society. In the episode a brawl breaks out attacking Riker because he's trying to escape. He's hit out of fear by several security officers.

Now isn't that sooooo very true today. Look at the prisnor abuse in Iraq from overzealous military police officers.

4. Mike is often critical of sci-fi in general as depicting scientists often as evil, misguided, single minded etc. Yet in this Episode in Trek, the scientist who is trying to break the warp barrier is beautiful and depicted as open minded.

I could go on and on.

Obviously some of the plot holes are in the details:

1. Why couldn't the enterprise have simply scanned the planet for Rikers different physology

2. If he was lost why didn't they look immediately in hospital facilities.

3. Why didn't Picard just send another group of people re-made to look like the Malchorians

etc. etc.


And the plot holes are in the details.

However, is it really the details that makes ST good or not? And the more I thought about it, the more I thought that IT IS NOT. It is rather, Star Trek unique ability to address social issues, that are even VERY relevant today, nearly 20 years after the show was filmed.

Many of the Episodes are shit, but the more I think about it the more I'm coming to believe that they weren't SHIT because of the numerous detail problems either related to bad science, techno babble, or bad tactics -- rather they were SHIT because they don't do what ST does do best.

Star Trek is at its best in this episode and many others when it addresses re-life problems today staged in the future and makes us think.

So, I'll ask again -- Is the Devil in the Details or is it the Positive Message?

Thanks for reading, and thoughts?

[brianeyci]

1. It's still topical today -- part of the message was about zenophobia. A quote in the episode from the alien was something to the effect, "Malcorians" consider themselves the center of the universe the center of the galaxy to find out otherwise would shatter our populations views of ourselves.

Now isn't that so true of Americans, Europeans, and in general the population of this planet. It's a mirror back onto ourselves.

Perhaps. So what, that doesn't have anything to do with the validity of Mike's arguments.

2. The Zenophobic security officer in the episode was willing to do anything to stop the Warp program from continuing to include making it look like Riker was trying to assisinate him.

Now isn't that so true even today in America. Sometimes or over zealous military, CIA etc. steps over the line out of what they believe is an effort to protect our citizens from themselves. Just look at John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act.

Perhaps. That doesn't have anything to do with the validity of Mike's arguments.

3. Conspiracy theory central. Another theme was the populations fear of change and how it stirs conspiracy theories through different segments of society. In the episode a brawl breaks out attacking Riker because he's trying to escape. He's hit out of fear by several security officers.

Now isn't that sooooo very true today. Look at the prisnor abuse in Iraq from overzealous military police officers.

And your point is? He wasn't hit out of fear by security guards, he looked just like them and average security guards probably wouldn't be briefed on Riker being an alien other than him being a hostile prisoner. They used excessive force, but how do we not know that is not the norm for security forces of their society.

4. Mike is often critical of sci-fi in general as depicting scientists often as evil, misguided, single minded etc. Yet in this Episode in Trek, the scientist who is trying to break the warp barrier is beautiful and depicted as open minded.

I could go on and on.

I don't see how that makes Mike wrong. Mike is not painting all scientists in sci-fi with the same brush. I could bring up the Voth scientist who was fighting to get humanity recognized as the common ancestor of the Saurians. Again, so what.

Obviously some of the plot holes are in the details:

1. Why couldn't the enterprise have simply scanned the planet for Rikers different physology

Interference.

2. If he was lost why didn't they look immediately in hospital facilities.

Incompetence. Also infeasibility as they only have redshirts and have no dedicated extraction team and there could be thousands of such facilities on a planet.

3. Why didn't Picard just send another group of people re-made to look like the Malchorians

etc. etc.

Riker failed, so why risk more men.

And the plot holes are in the details.

However, is it really the details that makes ST good or not? And the more I thought about it, the more I thought that IT IS NOT. It is rather, Star Trek unique ability to address social issues, that are even VERY relevant today, nearly 20 years after the show was filmed.

Star Trek's ability to address social issues is hardly unique. If they had it, they lost it. ST:VI was addressing social issues with an underlying cold war theme. I don't see how Star Trek is any more revolutionary than say, Bablyon 5 or Stargate SG-1.

Many of the Episodes are shit, but the more I think about it the more I'm coming to believe that they weren't SHIT because of the numerous detail problems either related to bad science, techno babble, or bad tactics -- rather they were SHIT because they don't do what ST does do best.

Two positives don't make a negative, or in Star Trek's case a few positives don't make many negatives. I agree that Star Trek should have be used to explore the human condition, but in many episodes they didn't do that and the new Enterprise actually has a couple of morally repulsive episodes.And you can have good action as well, I consider ST:FC pretty good even though its an action movie. Picard's inner conflict with the Borg was written well.

Star Trek is at its best in this episode and many others when it addresses re-life problems today staged in the future and makes us think.

Yes. ST:VI was one of the best Trek movies, if not the best. It had technology (cloaked BOP), tension, and an epic plot about stopping an interstellar war without coming across as contrived.

So, I'll ask again -- Is the Devil in the Details or is it the Positive Message?

Thanks for reading, and thoughts?

It doesn't matter if the "devil in the details" or "the devil is in the positive message", there are still certain things wrong with Star Trek and pointing them out in a debating forum is to be expected.

Brian

[Tommy J]

1. It's still topical today -- part of Perhaps. So what, that doesn't have anything to do with the validity of Mike's arguments.

Perhaps. That doesn't have anything to do with the validity of Mike's arguments.


And your point is? He wasn't hit out of fear by security guards, he looked just like them and average security guards probably wouldn't be briefed on Riker being an alien other than him being a hostile prisoner. They used excessive force, but how do we not know that is not the norm for security forces of their society.


I don't see how that makes Mike wrong. Mike is not painting all scientists in sci-fi with the same brush. I could bring up the Voth scientist who was fighting to get humanity recognized as the common ancestor of the Saurians. Again, so what.


Star Trek's ability to address social issues is hardly unique. If they had it, they lost it. ST:VI was addressing social issues with an underlying cold war theme. I don't see how Star Trek is any more revolutionary than say, Bablyon 5 or Stargate SG-1.


Two positives don't make a negative, or in Star Trek's case a few positives don't make many negatives. I agree that Star Trek should have be used to explore the human condition, but in many episodes they didn't do that and the new Enterprise actually has a couple of morally repulsive episodes.And you can have good action as well, I consider ST:FC pretty good even though its an action movie. Picard's inner conflict with the Borg was written well.


Yes. ST:VI was one of the best Trek movies, if not the best. It had technology (cloaked BOP), tension, and an epic plot about stopping an interstellar war without coming across as contrived.


It doesn't matter if the "devil in the details" or "the devil is in the positive message", there are still certain things wrong with Star Trek and pointing them out in a debating forum is to be expected.

Brian

The lionshare of Mike's arguments in his canon database are related to science related criticism, tactical criticism, over-use of technology criticism, and cultural criticism. I stated I liked this episode for none of those reasons when Trek frequently fucks up. Furthermore, I stated that if one can over look many of those things and see the message behind the screwed up science, tactics, technology and culture .... it's topical and not bad writing.

I pointed this out too debate the issue.

[brianeyci]

The lionshare of Mike's arguments in his canon database are related to science related criticism, tactical criticism, over-use of technology criticism, and cultural criticism. I stated I liked this episode for none of those reasons when Trek frequently fucks up. Furthermore, I stated that if one can over look many of those things and see the message behind the screwed up science, tactics, technology and culture .... it's topical and not bad writing.

I pointed this out too debate the issue.

Technobabble that doesn't make sense is not the killing blow, but a lot of nonsensicial technobabble is bad writing. Making Data have a perpetual energy device is bad writing. Ignoring your own science advisors is bad writing. Making the Klingons seem like space vikings is bad writing. Making Riker look like an idiot in Generations is bad writing. ST:Insurrection is bad writing. ST:Nemesis is bad writing. Overall bad writing in ST is not topical, it is abundant. There's good episodes here and there, but that's okay. There is nothing to debate. There are good episodes and bad episodes, and I don't see what you're trying to get at by pointing at specific good episodes as if they make the bad ones go away.

Brian

[Tommy J]

There is nothing to debate. There are good episodes and bad episodes, and I don't see what you're trying to get at by pointing at specific good episodes as if they make the bad ones go away.

Brian

Because if you read some people posts on other semi-related topics one gets the impression that with Next Gen, Voyager, DS9, and Enterprise -- there isn't even one decent episode -- and if they had the control and power, they'd shovel the entire lot of it into the trash can. Further, there isn't one redeeming aspect to the series save one exception ST6.

My debate point is I'm more of the 30% Good/70% Bad for all the series; and the ones that were good, it was about the story and I'm willing to forgive the technobabble, bad tactics etc.

Yet some want to say even the good ones were 'bad' because of the nitpicks.

[Tommy J]

There is nothing to debate. There are good episodes and bad episodes, and I don't see what you're trying to get at by pointing at specific good episodes as if they make the bad ones go away.

Brian

Yet some want to say even the good ones were 'bad' because of the nitpicks.

I'll give you a great example. There's a DS9 Episode that I thought was EXCELLENT (actually I think several are brilliant for different reasons) I forgot the name of it at the moment and don't feel like going to the ST Website and finding it.

Story line was about Sisko being caught in a Warp anamoly yet Jake thinks he's dead. So they follow Jake through his life with his father appearing every 10 years or so. Through the course of the story Jake becomes increasingly obsessed with the death of his father and his inability to help him that he changes his career and essentially completely alters his life.

The episode has technobabble, bad science and kind of a storybook ending. And I'm willing to bet that people would nit-pick that show to death; but if one can ignore those aspects about it, they'd find it to be absolutely outstanding in terms of a story.

[Darth Wong]

My debate point is I'm more of the 30% Good/70% Bad for all the series; and the ones that were good, it was about the story and I'm willing to forgive the technobabble, bad tactics etc.

Yet some want to say even the good ones were 'bad' because of the nitpicks.

Now you're just exaggerating the position of the other side in order to save your argument. No one around here is saying that 100% of TNG and beyond Trek episodes are bad.

As for the episode in question, I remember that episode and it was not a bad one, but it felt contrived. It starts with a realistic political and ideological split in the government, and suddenly turns into a psychotic villain scenario where the opposing politician is willing to kill himself in order to frame Riker for his own murder.

And which argument of mine does this refute anyway?

PS. That Sisko episode you describe was a complete waste of time. Lots of dramatic over-acting and self-conscious emoting, but in the end it's just another damned reset-button nothing-happens episode.

[Tommy J]

My debate point is I'm more of the 30% Good/70% Bad for all the series; and the ones that were good, it was about the story and I'm willing to forgive the technobabble, bad tactics etc.

Yet some want to say even the good ones were 'bad' because of the nitpicks.

Now you're just exaggerating the position of the other side in order to save your argument. No one around here is saying that 100% of TNG and beyond Trek episodes are bad.

As for the episode in question, I remember that episode and it was not a bad one, but it felt contrived. It starts with a realistic political and ideological split in the government, and suddenly turns into a psychotic villain scenario where the opposing politician is willing to kill himself in
order to frame Riker for his own murder.

And which argument of mine does this refute anyway?

PS. That Sisko episode you describe was a complete waste of time. Lots of dramatic over-acting and self-conscious emoting, but in the end it's just another damned reset-button nothing-happens episode.

*Just an impression regarding the majority of the posts regarding Trek and conceded it's perhaps an exageration. I'm some what new to this BBS, thus my exposure has been in the past primarily to the Trek ones which are the complete opposite.

*Disagree with your second point about the psychotic villian. They deliberately exagerated how a right wing government security Dir would take his power to an extreme to make a point about fanaticism within some elements of the American government. A la Watergate. Thus, liberal license in writing to make a point.

*Doesn't per say refute any of your arguments in your canon database other than to say lets not throw the baby out with the bath water on the good episodes and say the good ones as above are shit because Data spouted a bunch of technobabble, Pacard gives one of his infamous selfrighteous speeches, or some of the tactics are ill conceived.

[I guess what's missing in my mind Mike is an acknowledgent by some of Hey -- this was a good episode because xxx reason, but regardless I didn't like these elements, as opposed to I hated this and that without pointing out anything positive]

*Perhaps the Sisko episode is a taste issue. I personally give Avery Brooks a little more of a break because he before ST was a theatre actor and the style fits the stage well and not TV. He got better as time went on and by the 7th season in my opinion completely toned it down. Regarding the reset button, I personally don't like it, but I'm befuddled on how a TV series that runs week after week kills main characters off consistently and survives.

[Fraiser Crane, The Seinfeld Show etc. are great shows. How could they continue if Seindfeld got in a car accident and died which is real life....even the Cop shows don't kill of main characters which is real life.....how do you do write for these shows like ST w/o pressing the reset button?]

[Darth Wong]

*Just an impression regarding the majority of the posts regarding Trek and conceded it's perhaps an exageration. I'm some what new to this BBS, thus my exposure has been in the past primarily to the Trek ones which are the complete opposite.

Yes, I'm familiar with the habit some people have of praising everything Trek does.

*Disagree with your second point about the psychotic villian. They deliberately exagerated how a right wing government security Dir would take his power to an extreme to make a point about fanaticism within some elements of the American government. A la Watergate. Thus, liberal license in writing to make a point.

Writing something which is unrealistic in order to make a point is exactly what Trek does far too much of. Write the story and a message might flow out of it. Don't write the message and then shabbily concoct a story around it. Probably the absolute worst example of a message-driven story was the one about the androgynous species, where Riker fell in love with the girl/boy creature. That episode was an utterly intolerable hour-long gay-rights soapbox rant, and I say this as a gay-rights advocate.

*Doesn't per say refute any of your arguments in your canon database other than to say lets not throw the baby out with the bath water on the good episodes and say the good ones as above are shit because Data spouted a bunch of technobabble, Pacard gives one of his infamous selfrighteous speeches, or some of the tactics are ill conceived.

Let me guess: every time you read me talking about how unrealistic something in Trek is, or how it indicates far more limitations to their technology than Trekkies acknowledge, you hear "Trek sucks" in your mind, don't you? Think about that.

[I guess what's missing in my mind Mike is an acknowledgent by some of Hey -- this was a good episode because xxx reason, but regardless I didn't like these elements, as opposed to I hated this and that without pointing out anything positive]

The Canon Database is not an episode review, so stop treating it like one. It is a source of information for technical analysis.

*Perhaps the Sisko episode is a taste issue. I personally give Avery Brooks a little more of a break because he before ST was a theatre actor and the style fits the stage well and not TV. He got better as time went on and by the 7th season in my opinion completely toned it down. Regarding the reset button, I personally don't like it, but I'm befuddled on how a TV series that runs week after week kills main characters off consistently and survives.

[Fraiser Crane, The Seinfeld Show etc. are great shows. How could they continue if Seindfeld got in a car accident and died which is real life....even the Cop shows don't kill of main characters which is real life.....how do you do write for these shows like ST w/o pressing the reset button?]

Nice false dilemma between pressing the reset button and killing off the main character. I guess there's no such thing as events which have lasting ramifications in your world other than death, right?

[Tommy J]

^^^^^^

*Agreed the Episode where Riker falls in love with the boy/girl was TERRIBLE. I can speak as a gay man and other ST fans who are gay and not only did they hate that episode for as you mentioned it was some attempt to be on the gay-rights soap box but also they didn't even do it well. If ST wanted to integrate gay characters it could have been done a #of ways better, not the least of which is having an ongoing character who just happens to be gay and has the same dating/love issues that any other ST person would have.

*Disagree about themed shows. While ST did do it often so does virtually every other episodic TV show. Many well regarded TV shows us the theme genre.

*Not giving you a false dilemma. In a TV show that routinely puts characters in extreme harms way what other possible 'ramification' less than death could there be? ST did have main characters become ill -- sometimes severly. (Picard's experience with the Borg and the lasting effects on him from that) On several occassions they deal with characters going through psychological turmoil.

All I was saying is for what ever reason- from a stubbed toe to be-heading people how can you jettison a main character and have a successful TV show that maintains viewer interest based on character famalrity?

[Petrosjko]

*Disagree about themed shows. While ST did do it often so does virtually every other episodic TV show. Many well regarded TV shows us the theme genre.

Appeal to popularity. If you construct a good story with certain elements in mind, the message will flow naturally. Simply stating 'We need to show that gay people should be treated equally' and then wrapping it with a bunch of crap does the viewers, the story, and the message no justice.

Stop and go back to your point

If ST wanted to integrate gay characters it could have been done a #of ways better, not the least of which is having an ongoing character who just happens to be gay and has the same dating/love issues that any other ST person would have.

If you start with the premise that you have a gay character that you intend to flesh out as a realistic, normal person with all the realistic, normal person issues, then as part of the craft of the story you likely will be sending messages. Among them that, hey, gay folk are folk just like hetero folk. And you do it without clubbing people over the head with pious homily.

*Not giving you a false dilemma. In a TV show that routinely puts characters in extreme harms way what other possible 'ramification' less than death could there be? ST did have main characters become ill -- sometimes severly. (Picard's experience with the Borg and the lasting effects on him from that) On several occassions they deal with characters going through psychological turmoil.

All I was saying is for what ever reason- from a stubbed toe to be-heading people how can you jettison a main character and have a successful TV show that maintains viewer interest based on character famalrity?

The psychological turmoil you reference was typically handled within the constraints of a single episode, and the next episode you could count on Geordi being Geordi, Worf being Worf, etc.

You don't have to kill main characters left and right, but you can occasionally kill one or two to keep a realistic flow to the story. Weren't you the one who made the point in the other thread about how Law&Order proved that a rotating cast could work if done properly?

The main problem with TNG's format was that there was no suspense. Beyond killing Yar, something that everybody coming into the episode knew was going to happen, we knew that our heroes will survive essentially unchanged from episode to episode. There was nothing really dynamic about TNG, which rendered it fairly dull to me.

Finally, could you please utilize the quote function in your replies? It's easier on the reader to see precisely what you're replying to. Thanks.

[Patrick Degan]

Writing something which is unrealistic in order to make a point is exactly what Trek does far too much of. Write the story and a message might flow out of it. Don't write the message and then shabbily concoct a story around it. Probably the absolute worst example of a message-driven story was the one about the androgynous species, where Riker fell in love with the girl/boy creature. That episode was an utterly intolerable hour-long gay-rights soapbox rant, and I say this as a gay-rights advocate.

Actually, in fiction writing, you really do have to start with the core idea or message underpinning the script in order to set the direction of the story. Both TOS and the other great American telefantasy series, The Twilight Zone, structured all their episodes in this manner.

The problem with "The Outcast" was that the episode was quite simply a piece of shitty writing from top to bottom. The situation offered no real involvement for the audience in Riker's wholly out-of-left-field attraction for the androgyne because we knew that she wouldn't be affecting Riker's life beyond his not getting his rocks off that night. Yes, her problem was the denial of her right to be different, but in and of itself this is not a dramatic device that needed to be tied particularly to the issue of sexual orientation, and because the writer made Riker the focus of the story instead of the character in question, this put a whole level of seperation between the audience and the character's plight. This on top of the fact that there was no real "story" but just an hour-long soapbox rant. It takes a talented writer to try to make something like that work, and Jeri Taylor (I believe this was one of hers) decidedly didn't have the requisite qualification.

A similar idea was the basis for Rod Serling's "Number Twelve Looks Like You" (The Twilight Zone season five). In this tale, a plain-looking girl (Collin Wilcox) in a society of beautiful people is resisting the Transformation —the mandatory procedure scheduled for one's eighteenth birthday which will make her beautiful in both body and mind. She knows that being like everybody else is the same thing as being nobody, and that beauty and physical perfection is the excuse for the society she lives in to crush every form of non-conformity in its subjects. When she persists in her refusal to undergo Transformation, she is imprisoned in the hospital. She is utterly unable to make her mother, her uncle, the doctors, and her best friend Val (60s bikini-model Suzy Parker) understand why she refuses to lose her individuality. Later, she attempts to escape the hospital only to find herself in the Transformation Room where the medical staff are all very courteously waiting for her and have the operation all set up and ready to go. Later, she comes out every bit as beautiful and identical as her friend Val and with all the personality of a turnip —just like Val.

The reason why the story works on The Twilight Zone is that the whole focus was on the central character and her plight. There was no out for her or the viewer, and in the end no happy or even remotely hopeful ending. "Number Twelve Looks Like You" had its soapbox moments, but they didn't overwhelm the human story of the girl and her desperation not only to remain herself but also over her total inability to make anybody else understand her perspective. By contrast, there is no real human story in "The Outcast" very largely due to the fact that the central character is little more than a symbol instead of a human being you could care about.

It also helped that the authour was Rod Serling and not a third-rate office hack like Jeri Taylor.