5 ms·
DS9 is perhaps not the show to hold up to prove violence is never the answer. In the Pale Moonlight for example is quite explicit. I agree overall Picard was a
by morelisp 4y ago
DS9 is perhaps not the show to hold up to prove violence is never the answer. In the Pale Moonlight for example is quite explicit.
I agree overall Picard was a thematic and narrative mess and Discovery needs someone who can stick the landing they're missing in the last two episodes of every season. But Roddenberry isn't god; some of his future was good in the 70s but naive or trite even by the 80s and regressive by the 90s; and some of it was never good to begin with.
- uxcolumbo 4y agoYes true - Pale Moonlight was a great episode though. Zero violence is most probably a Utopian view and maybe the writers of this episode wanted to pull back a little... after all the whole Alpha Quadrant was at stake. And also good point about Roddenberry. I meant more the principle of showing a better future and how humanity overcame its problems. It made people think.
- Brian_K_White 4y agoI think DS9's violence is just a side effect of one of it's key intentional differentiators that it's "darker". I think it's still fair to say that the violence is portrayed as at best a necessity, and never a goal or a definition of success. The only positive light or satisfaction or pride is maybe that of professionals performing their task well.
- goodpoint 4y agoYou missed the point. Star Trek never showed and endlessly peaceful universe, or a Federation that refused to act in self defense. But it systematically depicts war and violence in general as not being a solution, rather a problem to be solved, a wound to be healed, an understanding to be found. [yes, there has been few shocking exception, including Archer in Enterprise torturing an alien]
- morelisp 4y ago> You missed the point… it systematically depicts war and violence in general as not being a solution With absolutely zero respect, I think you missed the point of the episode I named, widely considered one of the best episodes ever. They literally murder someone in cold blood to start a war, to solve the problem they might not otherwise win it.
- bsder 4y agoWith the end point that this is a horrible thing to have done, will probably win the war, and Sisko will have to live, personally, with the guilt that his actions killed two men. At no point did the episode show this as a good thing.
- morelisp 4y ago> At no point did the episode show this as a good thing. But the question isn't whether it's shown as a good thing, the bar was "Violence [is] the failure to solve a problem, never [a] true solution." Presenting the violence as necessary is still diametrically opposed to this, in some ways even more than showing violence in a positive but unnecessary light. That's a genuinely uncommon attitude in genre fiction. Reducing it to any situation where a show posits "do the ends justify the means? perhaps!" - which is the basis of like, every piece of high-stakes TV today - does a disservice to the original critique and the TNG episodes which argue otherwise (and frankly, also to the deftness with which DS9 does usually present it).
- uxcolumbo 4y agoMaybe it's a goal that the Federation aspires to, but it's not black and white and can't always be achieved, as demonstrated by many episodes in TNG and DS9. Maybe the idea is if you set the bar high it will reduce violence and that's the best we can achieve?
- goodpoint 4y ago> With absolutely zero respect Have you read the HN guidelines? You can spare us and go troll on 4chan.
- morelisp 4y agoBig words for the guy opening a comment with “you missed the point”.