Lynch's Spoiler Review: "Conundrum"
Timothy W. Lynch
oxymoron, gang? :-) ] for this week's TNG outing, "Conundrum". Be prepared
for a rude awakening if you don't bail out now.
My word, that was fun!
Well, we've finally got a *really* memorable outing in 1992. The last few
have been interesting, to be sure, but this one really grabs you. At least,
it grabbed me. More on that, after a word from our special correspondent in
Synopsis, CA:
The Enterprise is tracking some odd signals which could be a sign of
intelligent life. Troi and Data are in Ten-Forward: Troi manages to beat
Data at three-D chess and then coaxes Data into paying off his bet. Beverly,
meanwhile, is examining a diver who missed a dive by a little too much.
Riker and Ro, en route to the bridge, are arguing over innovative techniques
and proper procedure. Once they arrive, a ship comes into range, and appears
to be the origin of the signals. It's a one-man craft with minimal armament,
so they hail it and keep shields down. The craft's scans then mimic an
optical data reader and increase more than tenfold in power, so the shields
go up.
Data, behind the bar, offers Troi her winnings: a Samarian Sunset [a drink],
traditionally made. Suddenly, a green flash washes over Data, and then the
rest of the crew in rapid succession. On the bridge, everyone seems oddly
confused...and rightly so, for all have suddenly lost all memory of who they
are!
They quickly realize that they're on a starship, and Ro (at helm..."Looks
like I'm the pilot") finds that the helm is down. Riker and Worf examine
tactical, which is also inoperative. Everyone's ability to do these things
makes it clear that while their identities have vanished, their basic skills
have not. Riker notes that Picard, with four pips, is probably the
starship's leader, although Worf (also decorated, with the sash) points out
that there are other possibilities. Picard, however, points out that who
leads is unimportant right at the moment; the important thing is to find out
their identities and mission. And, as an unidentified person in a
commander's uniform points out, they need to know what happened to them, and
how.
Geordi scans and finds traces of debris in front of the ship. Ro theorizes
that perhaps that ship somehow attacked them and caused all this, and that
return fire destroyed it. If so, Picard reasons, other damage might also
have occurred; but unfortunately, he finds no way to interface with the
computer at present. Geordi calls up general system directories and finds
that communications are out, which destroys any chance of a distress signal.
They decide to talk to the crew, hoping they have their memories--but they
decide to do it carefully, as there may be a boarding party on board. Worf,
taking charge, orders crewmembers to select a representative from each of
their groups and report to the bridge that way, remaining calm.
In sickbay, we find Beverly and her patient equally affected. Bev's basic
medical skills seem intact (she fixes her patient's arm without even thinking
about it), but nothing else--and the patient's even worse off, having no
visible clues to what she does. ("I'm a patient in a bathing suit. That
doesn't say much.") The eventual report to the bridge is that everyone's
been similarly affected.
Worf, in the command chair, gives a rundown of their tactical capability, and
concludes from their formidable armament that they're a battleship. Ro
decides to go to Engineering to try to restore systems; and after Riker stops
her from dashing off half-cocked, they and Geordi all go down (after
receiving permission from Apparent Captain Worf).
Geordi and Ro make rapid progress. Riker suggests Geordi get essential
systems control back up to the bridge [first priority being weapons,
propulsion, and shields, second being personnel files], while he and Ro
survey the personnel decks to see if everyone's all right.
Picard and the unnamed commander report to Worf that there have been no
apparent injuries or deaths, and that all the systems are starting to come
back. Worf says that combat-readiness is top priority, and rejects Picard's
suggestion that the ship's logs are just as if not more important. The
systems come back on line. "Now, we are ready." "The question is, for what?"
After a test of tactical systems reveals no problems at all, Picard suggests
a full diagnostic of command systems. Worf initially objects, but when the
unnamed commander agrees with Picard that damage may still be present,
agrees. (Beverly's need for normal brainscans to compare to current ones,
i.e. medical records, is given next highest priority.)
Riker and Ro finish deck ten and head for Ten-Forward, engaging in a little
flirtatious bantering along the way. When they get there, they talk to the
group's representative (Deanna), who tells them of two anomalies. First, the
bartender is an artificial lifeform (Data); and second, she can sense strong
emotions while the others cannot. She senses something vaguely familiar
about Riker...but then Worf calls down to tell Riker and Ro that they've
finally accessed the personnel files.
The biographical sketches are out of reach, but the crew manifest is there.
The positions are as one would expect, except that Will Riker is now *second*
officer, with the first officer being the heretofore unnamed commander,
Commander Keiran MacDuff. Picard orders the rest of the bridge crew to the
bridge, and tells an apologetic Worf to think nothing of his brusque behavior
earlier.
A bit later, the crew has a conference. They've discovered their situation.
The ship is called the Enterprise, they're all in the United Federation of
Planets, and the Federation has been at war with the Lysian Alliance for
years. It's likely that a new Lysian weapon, which has already resulted in
the capture of over a dozen Federation ships, is responsible for what
happened to them, and that it's turning the tide of the war. Their mission
is to enter Lysian space and destroy the Lysian central command. Troi,
disturbed by the violent nature of the orders, suggests confirmation with
Starfleet; but Geordi and Worf hasten to point out that their orders include
radio silence, and that any attempt to communicate with Starfleet would
result in them being detected and stopped, thus jeopardizing not only their
own safety, but that of all the other ships on other frontiers assisting in
portions of this endeavor. Picard, faced with little choice, orders a course
to the Lysian central command.
Riker shows Troi to her quarters, where she invites him in. She tells him
that the war simply feels wrong to her, but acknowledges that war is likely
to feel wrong in all cases. She again senses something familiar about Riker,
and links it to past, pleasant emotions. Unnerved by the events of the day,
however, she backs off, and Riker bids her good night. He returns to his
quarters, only to find Ro there, dressed for bed. She tells him that "for
all we know, we could be married," and suggests that they see where things
lead them. "What if I snore in my sleep?" "What makes you think you're
going to *get* any sleep?"
Later, the Lysian border is crossed, and 37 hours remain until they reach the
central command. A vessel identified as a Lysian destroyer lies ahead, but
scans show it to be negligibly shielded and poorly armed. The destroyer
hails them, but before Picard can respond, MacDuff argues against it, saying
first that their orders are to destroy all enemy ships, and second that it's
quite possible the new Lysian weapon is transmitted via communications
channels. Before Picard can decide what to do, the destroyer gives up its
attempts at hailing and powers up its weapons. It fires, and the Enterprise
responds, blowing the ship to bits. MacDuff is pleased, but Picard remains
uncertain...
At a conference, Ro then recommends a randomly oriented approach to the
central command in an effort to shake off whatever Lysian pursuit there may
be. Beverly points out that there are techniques which may restore their
memory, but that without the medical records it could be very hazardous to
try. Geordi and Data renew their efforts at locating the records
(speculating simultaneously on Data's origins; why is he the only one among
the crew?), and finally break through to the relevant section. They find,
however, that the mission reports, the crew recordings, the personal logs and
the medical logs are all gone. In short, everything that could possibly give
them a clue to who they are is missing.
Troi, meanwhile, visits Riker in his quarters, feeling restless and claiming
that *everything* feels wrong to her. Riker, to put her at ease, starts
talking about what he's found out about himself: his trombone [which he
appears to play better than he did before] shows he's musical, a souvenir
from "a place called Alaska" shows that he's athletically inclined and
interested in mountain climbing, he's interested in exotic food, and "I
vacation on a planet called Risa," as the horgon makes clear. Troi notices a
book, and opens it to read a dedication: "To Will. All my love, Deanna."
This, as Riker points out, may explain the familiar feelings she's been
having. Suddenly, Ro walks in. Troi and Riker insist nothing was being
interrupted, and a somewhat flustered Troi beats a hasty retreat. Ro asks if
Riker's sure nothing was going on, because "I have a feeling that I used to be
the jealous type."
Geordi tells the others of just how specific and selective the damage to the
computer was, but MacDuff points out that it is consistent with the
information they have on the Lysian weapon. Beverly says that she could try
the procedure without the records, but it would be dangerous; and MacDuff
hastily volunteers for the process. Unfortunately, he appears to go into
convulsions early on: the process is too dangerous, and isn't making any
progress. Beverly concludes she's back to square one.
Picard and MacDuff talk about the mission. Picard is concerned about the
utter lack of corroborative evidence, and the circumstantial evidence against
their orders (namely the lackluster Lysian ship). He compares their
situation to being "handed a weapon, taken into a room, and told to shoot a
stranger", and says he simply can't do it without some moral context.
MacDuff agrees that it would be nice if "all the questions were answered,"
but points out in return that Picard may, simply due to his own moral
discomfort, end up prolonging a war and causing thousands of deaths on both
sides. Picard broods.
MacDuff, meanwhile, calls Worf to his quarters. When Worf arrives, MacDuff
appeals to him as another person "born to combat"; in short, as a fellow
warrior. He says that their skills make them uniquely qualified for the
battle ahead, and implies that Picard's wavering on the issue may force them
to take matters into their own hands. The mission must, after all, succeed.
The Enterprise finally enters the Lysian system, and sails through a barrage
of sentry pods with negligible effort. Riker immediately points out that it
seemed *too* easy, but agrees that no battleships have been seen yet. They
reach the central command, and find no vessels arrayed to defend it, minimal
defenses (a single photon torpedo could destroy it), and over fifteen
thousand people on board.
Picard orders a standby. Troi claims it all is simply wrong, Riker points
out that the Federation's mortal enemies can't be that far behind in weapons
technology, and MacDuff argues that others are depending on them, that they
must attack, and attack now. Picard decides otherwise. "I shall not fire on
defenseless people." He orders a channel open--and MacDuff belays it. He
claims that something is wrong with Picard, claims command, and orders Worf
to fire. Worf refuses, but when he tries to prevent MacDuff from doing so,
MacDuff tosses him aside easily. Riker and Worf fire on MacDuff, stunning
him and revealing him as something not human at all!
Some time later, with the crew's memories restored, the Lysians identify
"MacDuff" as a Suttaran, the Lysians' true enemies and their equal in weapons
technology. "MacDuff" attempted to use the Enterprise to end his race's war
in one swift stroke, and almost succeeded. Picard expresses deep regrets to
the Lysians for what has happened, and Riker tries to deal with the aftermath
of his abortive romances with Troi and Ro, only to find the two of them
together, and seemingly perfectly accepting of everything he did. They leave
him confused and befuddled.
Well, now, that wasn't so bad, was it? Now, onwards:
As I said earlier, something was a little lacking in the last several TNG
outings. I've enjoyed all of them (some more than others, of course), but
none of them really reached out, grabbed the back of my head, and yanked me
in. This one managed it, in spades.
Lots of people tried to excuse "Disaster" [yes, excuse; I thought it was
loathsome] by saying "well, it was fun because we got to see people out of
their element for a change." Fine; that's not how you do it. THIS is.
Far less contrived, far less cliched, and a lot more insightful. Nice.
Very nice.
The core story reminded me slightly of "Clues", in that they're working with
a puzzle where the pieces don't quite fit. I think that with one exception,
however (more on that later), it worked somewhat better than "Clues" did.
Although it was clear shortly into the first act that "Keiran MacDuff" was
behind all of it, there was nothing to indicate *why*. More importantly,
given the situation, there was no reason to expect the crew to figure it out,
so we were free to speculate on KM's motives and examine how airtight he
managed to make his technique.
And it was pretty airtight, I must say. Don't like the orders? Too bad,
thousands of your allies are counting on you. Want confirmation from
Starfleet? Aw, damn; the orders include mandatory radio silence at all
times. The "mortal enemies" might try to contact you? Well hey, the
"weapon" that hit you might just be used VIA the communications; better not
answer! Picard's concerned (and rightly so) about the moral issues at stake
here? Jar him by pointing out the second edge to that sword. Bev's found a
technique which is dangerous but might work? Quick, be a good little first
officer and volunteer for it first (beating Riker to the punch, mind), then
fake convulsions and have no "improvement" in your already-functional memory.
Worried that you're looking one-sided in always agreeing with action-oriented
Worf? Agree with Picard about the diagnostic.
For the first time in a long while, I had to sit back, whistle, and just say
to myself, "Damn. He's good. He's really good."
His slip-up, in fact, was entirely understandable. He appealed to the
obvious side of Worf's nature: the warrior, the defender of the Federation,
the anxious-for-battle Klingon. What he missed was Worf's commitment to
honor and fair play, and his unwillingness to outright disobey his captain.
Had Keiran been around to hear Worf apologizing to Picard for his behavior as
"captain", he might have tried a different tack; but he didn't. He only saw
the Worf who was quick to assume the captain's role, and who was impatient
with Picard when he suggested a course other than that of battle. Very, very
slick work.
As long as I'm on the subject...the whole show was designed to more or less
show what kind of behaviours are deeply rooted in the Enterprise crew. Troi
is still very passionate on the side of life; Riker is still a lech ;-) ;
Picard is still the "accomplished diplomat" unwilling to simply obey orders
he considers unethical; Worf is still a hothead. Intriguing. (I noticed, by
the way, that Keiran's reference to Picard as a diplomat was delivered with
just a slight hint of scorn. A telling statement in its own way, and one
that crewmembers other than Worf might have picked up on.
The most intriguing character trait related to the amnesia was the one that
*didn't* occur, however. Okay, so Picard managed to assume the demeanor of a
leader throughout (though not a pushy one), and Worf asserted himself as much
as he could before his roles were more clearly defined. Rather distinctly
absent from any HINT of command or command interest, however, was our own
Riker, William T. Perhaps Riker was never quite as interested in his own
command as he even believed himself to be--and perhaps THAT's why he's turned
so many of them down. Deep, deep down, maybe he doesn't really think it's
for him. I'm not at all sure it was intended (in fact, I'd be willing to put
money down that it wasn't), but it's something worth thinking about--and
perhaps running with in future storylines.
Oh, before I forget, let's see the one minor objection I have to the plot's
construction. There's one person on board who, based on past history, might
well not have been affected by the memory block, and who certainly would be
likely to have warning bells going off when the "war" was made evident. Her
name, in case you hadn't guessed, is Guinan. A simple line in the teaser to
the effect of "Guinan's off on vacation" [vacationing on Gallifrey, said Lisa
:-) ] would solve that whole problem. As it is, it's a minor hole, and one
I'll assume solved by the above situation.
(I also thought the ending was a *wee* bit on the rushed side, but much of
that was mitigated by the final sequence in 10-Forward. 'Nuff said.)
Let's look at the Riker/Ro/Troi situation, now. Great, great fun throughout,
primarily due to Michelle Forbes diving into the role with incredible zest.
Massive scenery-chewing tends to get on my nerves, but scenery-nibbling [or,
to be honest, other-character-nibbling in this case ;-) ;-) ] is really fun
to watch if done by someone accomplished at it. I finally understand why so
many people were happy about Ro's presence: when given half a chance to
shine, she'll steal the scene. (It helps that she's got a damn sexy presence
when she wants to, too. *whap* I didn't say that. :-) ) And the final
scene in 10-Forward was about the biggest zing! we've had in an ending for a
while. Poor, poor Will; it can be so tough at times. One can only wonder
what other mind games Ro has in store for him now. (Given Bev's conduct at
the end of "Allegiance" about two years back, in fact, I think she and Deanna
ought to bring her in on things. Get those three conspiring together and
Will'll break out in cold sweats at night. ;-) )
(Incidentally, this continues to strengthen my belief that Jonathan Frakes's
biggest acting talent is in somewhat low-key comedy. Between this, the short
scene with Lal in "The Offspring", and various other scenes that I've
suddenly drawn a blank on, the majority of his really memorable and
interesting scenes are lighthearted. Keep that part up.)
A few words on directing...wow, wow, and wow. Les Landau's been uneven here
and there, but he was on the whole time this go-round. Both internal and
external shots got me. Two examples of the internal shots:
1) (Thanks to Lisa's brother Colin, film/TV major, for pointing this one
out.) As the amnesia-flash hits the bridge crew in the teaser, the camera
suddenly changes from being a mounted camera to a hand-held. The resultant
unsteadiness really gives the viewer the same feeling of disorientation the
crew has. Stroke of utter genius, that.
2) Okay, this one's not genius, but it's good presentation. When Picard and
Keiran are discussing the morality of continuing the mission, and Keiran
points out the problem of prolonging a war solely because *they* have
worries, he gets up just then to ask it. Erich Anderson is just a few inches
taller than Patrick Stewart. Keiran doesn't tower over Picard as he asks it,
but he is in a position to stare down at Picard, almost as if Keiran's
managed to seize the high ground in the argument. The effect is subtle, but
very effective.
On the external shots, two of the Enterprise's battle maneuvers grabbed me.
(I'm not talking FX here, I'm talking shots of the model, which is why it's
under directing.) The Enterprise swooping in on the "Lysian destroyer" had a
lot of flair to it, and the approach to the central command looked like a
bloody *shark* surfacing or something. Brr.
All in all, very nice job on directing.
And now, a quote from Riker:
"The rules on this ship do not change just because Ro Laran decides they do."
No, but the *dialogue* sure as hell does. I haven't seen stuff this snappy
in a long, long time. Part of that was the setup (more on that in a bit),
but really, really entertaining stuff was to be found in abundance here.
Much of it was in the Riker/Ro conversations, of course [after the exchange
in Riker's quarters, it was really easy to see why Ro and Guinan took to each
other so fast...both can banter innuendo with Will at the drop of a hat
:-) ], but plenty of others abounded as well. It's not been this brisk for a
while; keep it up!
I can't resist listing at least a *few* of them, though. (Hey, I've got to
justify all that VCR-pausing somehow. :-) )
"I mean, I'm a patient in a bathing suit. That doesn't say much."
"It would be nice if we all had names." [Note: it occurred to me that this
statement would have had incredible in-joke potential if Riker had said it to
O'Brien rather than Geordi. :-) ]
"I know *I* didn't get the wrong room."
"We may regret this."
"Regret WHAT? Aren't you being a little presumptuous?"
"What if I snore in my sleep?"
"What makes you think you're going to *get* any sleep?"
[Ahem! This is a family program! None of that! ;-) ;-) ]
[Riker's whole sequence on his "research" into himself. He's a musician, an
athlete, enjoys exotic food {read: had his taste buds surgically removed
before going aboard the Pagh :-) }, "and I vacation on a planet called
Risa..." while holding up the infamous horgon. Grin.]
"Counselor?"
"Ensign."
"I was just visiting. We'll talk again soon, Commander."
"Of course. Thank you, Counselor."
"...I have a feeling I used to be the jealous type."
"Our captain is undoubtedly an accomplished diplomat." [mrowr!]
"One photon torpedo would have ended their war."
"One almost did."
"The Counselor tells me that at times like that, we might do the things that
we've always wanted to do."
"She said that?"
[..]
"Commander, don't worry about it. As far as I'm concerned, you and I have
shared something that we will treasure forever." [Ro leaves]
"Well...I'm a little confused..."
"Well, if you're still confused tomorrow, you know where my office is."
[DOUBLE mrowr]
Great fun.
A word on Picard's decision not to fire--and on a topic I never quite let go
of back in January. Morality is a double-edged sword, but it's often tough
to realize that unless both edges are honed. Here, in the aforementioned
Picard/Keiran exchange, both sides were. (I particularly liked Picard's
analogy; very apt.) The question wasn't *answered*, it was simply stated.
Actually, that's not quite fair; the question was stacked by having the
villain espousing one side of it. But even so, his point was valid: *is*
the simple fact of your own moral qualms always enough to justify possibly
causing more harm in refusing to do something? This is the way moral
questions like these can be brought up; unlike the protestations of those on
a ST6-related thread, it doesn't need to be "projecting our own morals onto
the writers". 'nuff said about that.
Miscellaneous thoughts:
--The FX were pretty indeed. Nothing incredibly radical, but very pretty
nonetheless.
--The music was fairly typical McCarthy, but had a few interesting "battle"
sequences that caught my ear.
--If the Suttarans [Keiran's race] ever fall in league with the Romulans, the
Federation could be in big, biiiiig trouble. Combine Romulan-style intrigue,
treachery, and weaponry with Keiran's abilities to screw up the crew and
you've got one powdered Enterprise on display in a museum on Romulus.
--Let's see, we've got lots of romance and sex in the air, and cute women
hanging around in swimsuits while a patient in sickbay. Gee, it wouldn't
happen to be sweeps month, would it? Naaaaah. :-)
--The throwaway Data/Troi chess game was very interesting. The Kirk/Spock
games back in TOS were one of the few bits of characterization I always
thought worked beautifully, and this has potential to work just as well.
Hmm.
--The initial appearance of Keiran was very low-key, and very well placed. I
didn't realize anything was wrong about him until his first close-up. "Wait
a second...THREE pips? A full commander? Something is Not Right here..."
--In the like vein: "First Officer: Commander Keiran MacDuff." ('puter)
"Oh, shiiiiiiiiiit." (me)
--Worf looked so *depressed* when he found out he wasn't the captain...:-)
That really should do it; besides, it's getting disjointed as hell. Let's
just leave it at "really really good", shall we? This one's one I imagine a
lot of people will be going back to in years to come.
So, we've had Da Writing, Da Directing, and Da Other Stuff. Da Numbers:
Plot: 9.5. A tick off for no explanation of Guinan's absence, but
otherwise airtight, and gripping throughout.
Plot Handling: 10. The rushed ending isn't even quite enough to drop it to
9.5.
Characterization: Can I give an 11? No? Call it 10.
TOTAL: 10. The first one since "Unification", and a lot less hyped.
NEXT WEEK:
Troi phasering Worf? Data threatening Worf? O'Brien decking Worf over a
console? Man, this isn't Worf's week...
Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET: tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
"What if I snore in my sleep?"
"What makes you think you're going to *get* any sleep?
--
Copyright 1992, Timothy W. Lynch. All rights reserved, but feel free to ask...
Atsushi Kanamori
>WARNING: The following post contains amnesiac spoilers [how's THAT for an
>oxymoron, gang? :-) ] for this week's TNG outing, "Conundrum". Be prepared
>for a rude awakening if you don't bail out now.
>
>Well, now, that wasn't so bad, was it? Now, onwards:
>
>As I said earlier, something was a little lacking in the last several TNG
>outings. I've enjoyed all of them (some more than others, of course), but
>none of them really reached out, grabbed the back of my head, and yanked me
>in. This one managed it, in spades.
This one had the most interesting *premise* in a while, I'll agree.
IMO, however, it fell far short of achieving its potential and dealt with
interesting issues in a trite and simplistic manner.
>Lots of people tried to excuse "Disaster" [yes, excuse; I thought it was
>loathsome] by saying "well, it was fun because we got to see people out of
>their element for a change." Fine; that's not how you do it.
Actually, I "excused it" (your term) because I could see right off that
it was meant to be taken lightly and I took it as such. Here, however,
there was potential for some serious shit -- and they ruined it an utterly
contrived setup with plot holes the size of a moon and simplistic, trite
execution.
>
>The core story reminded me slightly of "Clues", in that they're working with
>a puzzle where the pieces don't quite fit. I think that with one exception,
>however (more on that later), it worked somewhat better than "Clues" did.
>Although it was clear shortly into the first act that "Keiran MacDuff" was
>behind all of it, there was nothing to indicate *why*.
His motives became obvious to me as soon as the crew called up the orders to
attack the Lycians (in fact, given the preview, it should have been obvious
to me even earlier -- but I was tired.)
>More importantly,
>given the situation, there was no reason to expect the crew to figure it out,
That's true -- however, I wish the writers would wake up to the fact that
watching the crew figure out a puzzle whose answer I already know isn't
very interesting. Not that that way by any means this episode's major problem.
>so we were free to speculate on KM's motives and examine how airtight he
>managed to make his technique.
Not very, it might be logged.
>And it was pretty airtight, I must say. Don't like the orders? Too bad,
>thousands of your allies are counting on you. Want confirmation from
>Starfleet? Aw, damn; the orders include mandatory radio silence at all
>times. The "mortal enemies" might try to contact you? Well hey, the
>"weapon" that hit you might just be used VIA the communications; better not
>answer! Picard's concerned (and rightly so) about the moral issues at stake
>here? Jar him by pointing out the second edge to that sword. Bev's found a
>technique which is dangerous but might work? Quick, be a good little first
>officer and volunteer for it first (beating Riker to the punch, mind), then
>fake convulsions and have no "improvement" in your already-functional memory.
>Worried that you're looking one-sided in always agreeing with action-oriented
>Worf? Agree with Picard about the diagnostic.
>
>For the first time in a long while, I had to sit back, whistle, and just say
>to myself, "Damn. He's good. He's really good."
I was sitting back and thinking to myself "Gawd, he's obvious. Keep that
up and even *this* crew's gonna see through you eventually." And that's
exactly what happened.
>As long as I'm on the subject...the whole show was designed to more or less
>show what kind of behaviours are deeply rooted in the Enterprise crew.
And told us very little that was new, IMO. The thing that was largely
emphasized was that Riker and Ro are sex freaks -- hardly an advance
in characterization in my book.
>The most intriguing character trait related to the amnesia was the one that
>*didn't* occur, however. Okay, so Picard managed to assume the demeanor of a
>leader throughout (though not a pushy one), and Worf asserted himself as much
>as he could before his roles were more clearly defined. Rather distinctly
>absent from any HINT of command or command interest, however, was our own
>Riker, William T. Perhaps Riker was never quite as interested in his own
>command as he even believed himself to be--and perhaps THAT's why he's turned
>so many of them down. Deep, deep down, maybe he doesn't really think it's
>for him. I'm not at all sure it was intended (in fact, I'd be willing to put
>money down that it wasn't), but it's something worth thinking about--and
>perhaps running with in future storylines.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Still haven't given up hope have'ya? :-)
>
>(I also thought the ending was a *wee* bit on the rushed side, but much of
>that was mitigated by the final sequence in 10-Forward. 'Nuff said.)
>
>Let's look at the Riker/Ro/Troi situation, now. Great, great fun throughout,
>primarily due to Michelle Forbes diving into the role with incredible zest.
>Massive scenery-chewing tends to get on my nerves, but scenery-nibbling [or,
>to be honest, other-character-nibbling in this case ;-) ;-) ] is really fun
>to watch if done by someone accomplished at it. I finally understand why so
>many people were happy about Ro's presence: when given half a chance to
>shine, she'll steal the scene. (It helps that she's got a damn sexy presence
>when she wants to, too. *whap* I didn't say that. :-) ) And the final
>scene in 10-Forward was about the biggest zing! we've had in an ending for a
>while. Poor, poor Will; it can be so tough at times. One can only wonder
>what other mind games Ro has in store for him now. (Given Bev's conduct at
>the end of "Allegiance" about two years back, in fact, I think she and Deanna
>ought to bring her in on things. Get those three conspiring together and
>Will'll break out in cold sweats at night. ;-) )
The ending was fun -- the rest of it bore me to tears. The sexpot bitch
character is one of the most overused, and least interesting, characterizations
on my list. To paraphrase Michael Rawdon, I wish Ro would go far away.
>(Incidentally, this continues to strengthen my belief that Jonathan Frakes's
>biggest acting talent is in somewhat low-key comedy. Between this, the short
>scene with Lal in "The Offspring", and various other scenes that I've
>suddenly drawn a blank on, the majority of his really memorable and
>interesting scenes are lighthearted. Keep that part up.)
Hmm... you've got a point here (although I thought he was quite good in
THE HOST).
>All in all, very nice job on directing.
The direction was good -- worth a couple of points here.
>"I mean, I'm a patient in a bathing suit. That doesn't say much."
Performed with all the acting skill of a third-grade Christmas play.
>Miscellaneous thoughts:
>
>--The FX were pretty indeed. Nothing incredibly radical, but very pretty
>nonetheless.
Certainly made for a good trailer. Now that I've seen the episode, ahh...
well, it's STILL a great trailer.
>--The music was fairly typical McCarthy, but had a few interesting "battle"
>sequences that caught my ear.
That about says it all.
>--Let's see, we've got lots of romance and sex in the air, and cute women
>hanging around in swimsuits while a patient in sickbay. Gee, it wouldn't
>happen to be sweeps month, would it? Naaaaah. :-)
Exactly. Pander to the lowest-common denominator. And it apparently hooked.
>--The throwaway Data/Troi chess game was very interesting. The Kirk/Spock
>games back in TOS were one of the few bits of characterization I always
>thought worked beautifully, and this has potential to work just as well.
>Hmm.
Annoyed me. Blatant ripoff.
>--In the like vein: "First Officer: Commander Keiran MacDuff." ('puter)
>"Oh, shiiiiiiiiiit." (me)
Yah... one of the few effective scenes in this show.
>--Worf looked so *depressed* when he found out he wasn't the captain...:-)
Awww.... :-)
>That really should do it; besides, it's getting disjointed as hell. Let's
>just leave it at "really really good", shall we? This one's one I imagine a
>lot of people will be going back to in years to come.
Not this puppy dog. Actually, I just might keep it for the snappy looking
POWER PLAY trailer, but that's about it.
>Plot: 9.5. A tick off for no explanation of Guinan's absence, but
> otherwise airtight, and gripping throughout.
How do you explain a device that can selectively mindwipe brains of all
different kinds of Enterprise races (including an android whose brain design
isn't even fully understood?) How can any race which develops such a device
not develop weapons technology less primitive than the Lycians? Does no
one keep handwritten logs or notice the presence of families aboard a
so-called "battleship?" This story didn't have holes, it had gorges.
Plot: 3
>Plot Handling: 10. The rushed ending isn't even quite enough to drop it to
> 9.5.
The way the moral dillema was handled was at least enough to drop it to a 7,
and the sex-freak schtick should remove another 3 or 4 points.
>Characterization: Can I give an 11? No? Call it 10.
I'll take my usual average for the TNG characters (2) and raise it a point
for snappier-than-usual dialog. This episode really told us nothing
new or interesting about the characters though.
>
>TOTAL: 10. The first one since "Unification", and a lot less hyped.
Total: (3 + 3 + 3) / 3 = 3, plus 1 point for direction and FX = 4. That's
about equivalent to my C- (and a lot better than what UNIFICATION 1&2 ended
up as in reruns.)
NEXT WEEK:
>Troi phasering Worf? Data threatening Worf? O'Brien decking Worf over a
>console? Man, this isn't Worf's week...
I'll send him a get-well gift: two cases of condoms.
. . . . .
: : : :. : : :.. .: : . ::.: . ..: : .. : ..
::::::::::.: :::::::.:::::::::::.:::::: ::::::::..::::
------------ -------------------------- --------------------------
TNG Lifelines: From "Yesterday's Enterprise" To "Conundrum" --
"If you're still confused tomorrow, you know where my office
is." -- Troi
Gerald (Jerry) KUCH
In article <1992Feb23.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
[Ach! We preserve Tim's patented spoiler warning.]
WARNING: The following post contains amnesiac spoilers [how's THAT for an
oxymoron, gang? :-) ] for this week's TNG outing, "Conundrum". Be prepared
for a rude awakening if you don't bail out now.
>Well, we've finally got a *really* memorable outing in 1992. The last few
>have been interesting, to be sure, but this one really grabs you. At least,
>it grabbed me. More on that, after a word from our special correspondent in
Agreed here. I missed "The Masterpiece Society" last week due to a nasty
bout of the flu and was pretty much off the net for the entire week. Having
seen the episode without any of the spoilers, I must say I'm kind of relived.
Maybe I'll have to start making a point of not reading the spoilers before
seeing the episodes, although I never bothered before. At any rate, having
just risen from the dead, it's time to trudge through Tim's comments since
I'm too lazy to write my own synopses, and the Lynch ones are detailed enough
there's no point in redundantly doing more.
>have not. Riker notes that Picard, with four pips, is probably the
>starship's leader, although Worf (also decorated, with the sash) points out
>that there are other possibilities. Picard, however, points out that who
>leads is unimportant right at the moment; the important thing is to find out
>their identities and mission. And, as an unidentified person in a
>commander's uniform points out, they need to know what happened to them, and
>how.
The appearance of Macduff was nicely done here. When I saw him at first,
I simply assumed he was another Ensign DuJour. Then I noticed the three
rank pips, and thought that even if one weren't solid, he's still high
enough up that we should have heard of him before. Then I filed it to the
back of my mind, along with Valeris's commander's pin in ST VI...eek, how
can you tell that role was written for an older, promoted Saavik...but
I digress.
>The biographical sketches are out of reach, but the crew manifest is there.
>The positions are as one would expect, except that Will Riker is now *second*
>officer, with the first officer being the heretofore unnamed commander,
>Commander Keiran MacDuff. Picard orders the rest of the bridge crew to the
>bridge, and tells an apologetic Worf to think nothing of his brusque behavior
>earlier.
>
At this point, I still wasn't totally willing to write off Macduff as a plant,
although I'd started suspecting it just a little bit before. The plotting
and direction had just enough things failing to fit properly that I didn't
feel confident in pegging the story before this point. Very nicely done, it's
been a while since we had a TNG episode that kept you guessing at all. "Clues"
comes to mind, and "Future Imperfect" certainly did it, although the final
surprise was so abrupt that it was almost insulting.
>Troi, meanwhile, visits Riker in his quarters, feeling restless and claiming
>that *everything* feels wrong to her. Riker, to put her at ease, starts
>talking about what he's found out about himself: his trombone [which he
>appears to play better than he did before] shows he's musical, a souvenir
>from "a place called Alaska" shows that he's athletically inclined and
>interested in mountain climbing, he's interested in exotic food, and "I
>vacation on a planet called Risa," as the horgon makes clear. Troi notices a
The horgon was a howler. This one cracked up everybody in the room. His
slightly puzzled, neutral handling of it was a credit to Frakes.
>their orders (namely the lackluster Lysian ship). He compares their
>situation to being "handed a weapon, taken into a room, and told to shoot a
>stranger", and says he simply can't do it without some moral context.
Stewart played this scene very well. This redeemed him from going along
with that irritating proselytizing at the end of "Violations" a few weeks
back. I would say this Picard morality trip was well done on the order of
the ones in "Who Watches the Watchers?" a couple of years back.
>MacDuff, meanwhile, calls Worf to his quarters. When Worf arrives, MacDuff
>appeals to him as another person "born to combat"; in short, as a fellow
>warrior. He says that their skills make them uniquely qualified for the
>battle ahead, and implies that Picard's wavering on the issue may force them
>to take matters into their own hands. The mission must, after all, succeed.
This scene was one of the episode's best. The way Macduff twisted and
manipulated Worf, appealing to his innate tendencies was almost chilling.
Especially after the way he'd used an entirely different set of tactics to
try to turn Picard in the previous scene.
>Picard orders a standby. Troi claims it all is simply wrong, Riker points
>out that the Federation's mortal enemies can't be that far behind in weapons
>technology, and MacDuff argues that others are depending on them, that they
>must attack, and attack now. Picard decides otherwise. "I shall not fire on
>defenseless people." He orders a channel open--and MacDuff belays it. He
>claims that something is wrong with Picard, claims command, and orders Worf
>to fire. Worf refuses, but when he tries to prevent MacDuff from doing so,
>MacDuff tosses him aside easily. Riker and Worf fire on MacDuff, stunning
>him and revealing him as something not human at all!
The spots where Macduff "alienifies" whil the phasers are hitting him were
interesting and sort of hinted at the human exterior being a disguise. I
wish we would have got more of a look at what was underneath. At any rate,
it was nice to see they at least intended something, since another set of
homo sapien clone/wanna-be aliens would make the TNG universe even more
uncomfortably crowded with them.
>The core story reminded me slightly of "Clues", in that they're working with
>a puzzle where the pieces don't quite fit. I think that with one exception,
>however (more on that later), it worked somewhat better than "Clues" did.
>Although it was clear shortly into the first act that "Keiran MacDuff" was
>behind all of it, there was nothing to indicate *why*. More importantly,
>given the situation, there was no reason to expect the crew to figure it out,
>so we were free to speculate on KM's motives and examine how airtight he
>managed to make his technique.
Very true. The explicit identification of him as the first officer was about
the first time that he could really be pegged as an outsider. And even then,
knowing that something was wrong with him, but with no clues as to what, kept
the mystery going. In fact, I think this revelation only thickened the mys-
tery a little bit.
>As long as I'm on the subject...the whole show was designed to more or less
>show what kind of behaviours are deeply rooted in the Enterprise crew. Troi
>is still very passionate on the side of life; Riker is still a lech ;-) ;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Aye. Looks like he's had every female in the primary cast now, barring
Guinan. Ro, Troi, Crusher....<tasteless comment about Wesley deleted. :-)>
>Riker, William T. Perhaps Riker was never quite as interested in his own
>command as he even believed himself to be--and perhaps THAT's why he's turned
>so many of them down. Deep, deep down, maybe he doesn't really think it's
>for him. I'm not at all sure it was intended (in fact, I'd be willing to put
>money down that it wasn't), but it's something worth thinking about--and
>perhaps running with in future storylines.
I'd agree on the "unintentional" aspect of the above. The number of
unintentional facets to Riker's personality are interesting if you put them
together. In the first season, he was young, ambitious and eager. Starting
with the second season, he seemed to age very quickly, becoming a lot more
passive, more inclined to brooding, and, not to mention, fatter. :-) One
could almost take a lot of this stuff as evidence that, as he was accused of
in "The Best of Both Worlds", that he's afraid to take charge and advance and
finds Picard's shadow too comfortable to move out of. The possibility that
Riker may have advanced has far as he is capable seems to be a reasonable
one, and the possibility that he's become burned out is also hinted at by
some of the aspects of his behavior: turning down command repeatedly,
occasional counterproductive introspection, and the occasional blunder, like
the one in Darmok.
>(I also thought the ending was a *wee* bit on the rushed side, but much of
>that was mitigated by the final sequence in 10-Forward. 'Nuff said.)
I didn't find it rushed at all. Although I may have become numbed to it
after "Violations". I walked away from the TV not quite glowing, but still
solidly impressed with what I'd just watched. Definitely the best outing since
the New Year, although that's not saying that much. In fact this one surely
ranks up with the best ones from the first half of the season. It'll be
interesting to see if they can sustain the pace through the next few new
episodes.
>
>Let's look at the Riker/Ro/Troi situation, now. Great, great fun throughout,
>primarily due to Michelle Forbes diving into the role with incredible zest.
Agreed. That woman's voice....d'oh.
>while. Poor, poor Will; it can be so tough at times. One can only wonder
>what other mind games Ro has in store for him now. (Given Bev's conduct at
>the end of "Allegiance" about two years back, in fact, I think she and Deanna
>ought to bring her in on things. Get those three conspiring together and
>Will'll break out in cold sweats at night. ;-) )
I do hope they don't drop this entirely. Seeing the guy tormented a little
bit could be fun. Especially the next time he attempts to deal with Ro in
the context of disciplinary action as at the beginning of this episode.
Utterly tasteless comments about "spankings" are deleted and left to the
reader's imagination... :-)
>2) Okay, this one's not genius, but it's good presentation. When Picard and
>Keiran are discussing the morality of continuing the mission, and Keiran
>points out the problem of prolonging a war solely because *they* have
>worries, he gets up just then to ask it. Erich Anderson is just a few inches
>taller than Patrick Stewart. Keiran doesn't tower over Picard as he asks it,
>but he is in a position to stare down at Picard, almost as if Keiran's
>managed to seize the high ground in the argument. The effect is subtle, but
>very effective.
I noticed this too. Quite well done. The casting of Macduff was very well
done. He was serious and competent appearing enough that you could see how
the rest of the crew could have believed him to have been the first officer.
And his attempted manipulations of the crew were masterful.
>On the external shots, two of the Enterprise's battle maneuvers grabbed me.
>(I'm not talking FX here, I'm talking shots of the model, which is why it's
>under directing.) The Enterprise swooping in on the "Lysian destroyer" had a
>lot of flair to it, and the approach to the central command looked like a
>bloody *shark* surfacing or something. Brr.
That zooming out from above the saucer section as the Enterpise approached
the Lysian station is something that I certainly wouldn't mind seeing again
as stock footage. Although not too soon I hope. They continue to put out
some pretty decent views of the Enterprise, and considering that we've been
looking at it for nearly five years now, that's probably no small feat. After
all there have to be angles from which is just doesn't look good.
>"It would be nice if we all had names." [Note: it occurred to me that this
>statement would have had incredible in-joke potential if Riker had said it to
>O'Brien rather than Geordi. :-) ]
I thought this too. When they gave O'Brien a first name last year (was it
in Data's Day? Yeah, I guess so) I had to exclaim aloud to the people in the
room: "Wow! They finally gave the guy not only a first name, but a middle
one too!"
>"Our captain is undoubtedly an accomplished diplomat." [mrowr!]
Sneer, sneer. Very good line.
>"Commander, don't worry about it. As far as I'm concerned, you and I have
>shared something that we will treasure forever." [Ro leaves]
I didn't really know what to make of this line. Hopefully it doesn't get
buried instantly. It's also nice to see the Troi/Riker tensions drifting
up to the surface again, as in "Violations". I was really starting to think
that they were going to retcon that out of existence.
>--If the Suttarans [Keiran's race] ever fall in league with the Romulans, the
>Federation could be in big, biiiiig trouble. Combine Romulan-style intrigue,
>treachery, and weaponry with Keiran's abilities to screw up the crew and
>you've got one powdered Enterprise on display in a museum on Romulus.
True. And I would like another glimpse at what these guys look like. When
Macduff's face semi-melted, we almost saw something...
>
>--Let's see, we've got lots of romance and sex in the air, and cute women
>hanging around in swimsuits while a patient in sickbay. Gee, it wouldn't
>happen to be sweeps month, would it? Naaaaah. :-)
>
Another comment on that injured diver in sickbay. Did you notice she wasn't
even slightly wet? Shit...she must have REALLY missed on that dive....
either she hit the deck, missing the water entirely, or the pool was empty
or something. :-)
>--The throwaway Data/Troi chess game was very interesting. The Kirk/Spock
>games back in TOS were one of the few bits of characterization I always
>thought worked beautifully, and this has potential to work just as well.
>Hmm.
I still don't know if I believe Troi could have beat the combinatorial grind
engine that is Data though...
>--The initial appearance of Keiran was very low-key, and very well placed. I
>didn't realize anything was wrong about him until his first close-up. "Wait
>a second...THREE pips? A full commander? Something is Not Right here..."
Yep. Although I was almost willing to write it off as a costuming screwup
at first.
>That really should do it; besides, it's getting disjointed as hell. Let's
>just leave it at "really really good", shall we? This one's one I imagine a
>lot of people will be going back to in years to come.
I could easily watch it again. That's a nice change. "New Ground" was one
fifth season example of something that while it was survivable (barely)
once, I don't think I could sit through again. Not quite "The Royale" which
sends me running from the room with my heart in the chill clutch of terror's
fist (:-)) but still not a winner.
>Plot: 9.5. A tick off for no explanation of Guinan's absence, but
> otherwise airtight, and gripping throughout.
Concur.
>Plot Handling: 10. The rushed ending isn't even quite enough to drop it to
> 9.5.
I would agree with a 9 or 9.5, although I didn't have quite the same sense
of a rushed ending. This one seemed to fit one hour pretty nicely.
>Characterization: Can I give an 11? No? Call it 10.
Agreed.
>Troi phasering Worf? Data threatening Worf? O'Brien decking Worf over a
>console? Man, this isn't Worf's week...
Oh, give the guy a break, Tim! Although O'Brien isn't exactly the pillar of
physical might, Worf has had bones broken by Counsellor Troi of all people!
Sure she was possessed by some goofball aliens at the time, but I still think
that Worf probably should have committed some kind of ritual Klingon suicide
over that one. What a twinkie. :-)
--
J. Kuch (je...@cs.mcgill.ca) | "Objects are a poor man's Closures." --N. Adams
"I was wrong to play God. Life is precious, not a thing to be toyed with.
Now take out that brain and flush it down the toilet."
--- M. Burns "Treehouse of Horror II"
Timothy W. Lynch
>In article <1992Feb23.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>WARNING: The following post contains amnesiac spoilers [how's THAT for an
>>oxymoron, gang? :-) ] for this week's TNG outing, "Conundrum". Be prepared
>>for a rude awakening if you don't bail out now.
>Here, however,
>there was potential for some serious shit -- and they ruined it an utterly
>contrived setup with plot holes the size of a moon and simplistic, trite
>execution.
The execution seemed masterful for me, given the success of MacDuff's
psychological appeals. As for the "plot holes the size of a moon"...funny, but
none of the ones I've seen so far really seem to amount to much at all. Of
course, when you're coming at it *determined* to find flaws, things do
amplify a bit.
>>The core story reminded me slightly of "Clues", in that they're working with
>>a puzzle where the pieces don't quite fit. I think that with one exception,
>>however (more on that later), it worked somewhat better than "Clues" did.
>>Although it was clear shortly into the first act that "Keiran MacDuff" was
>>behind all of it, there was nothing to indicate *why*.
>His motives became obvious to me as soon as the crew called up the orders to
>attack the Lycians
You mean around halfway into the show. That's quite fair; in fact, I tend to
consider it rather obnoxious to try to make *everything* clear only at the
end.
>>More importantly,
>>given the situation, there was no reason to expect the crew to figure it out,
>That's true -- however, I wish the writers would wake up to the fact that
>watching the crew figure out a puzzle whose answer I already know isn't
>very interesting.
Depends on whether they're made to look like idiots in doing so. Here, they
had a perfect excuse, and watching them try to piece together the puzzle
was just fine for me.
>>so we were free to speculate on KM's motives and examine how airtight he
>>managed to make his technique.
>Not very, it might be logged.
Um...could we have this again in English? I have absolutely no idea what this
is supposed to mean.
>>And it was pretty airtight, I must say. Don't like the orders? Too bad,
>>thousands of your allies are counting on you. Want confirmation from
>>Starfleet? Aw, damn; the orders include mandatory radio silence at all
>>times. The "mortal enemies" might try to contact you? Well hey, the
>>"weapon" that hit you might just be used VIA the communications; better not
>>answer! Picard's concerned (and rightly so) about the moral issues at stake
>>here? Jar him by pointing out the second edge to that sword. Bev's found a
>>technique which is dangerous but might work? Quick, be a good little first
>>officer and volunteer for it first (beating Riker to the punch, mind), then
>>fake convulsions and have no "improvement" in your already-functional memory.
>>Worried that you're looking one-sided in always agreeing with action-oriented
>>Worf? Agree with Picard about the diagnostic.
>>
>>For the first time in a long while, I had to sit back, whistle, and just say
>>to myself, "Damn. He's good. He's really good."
>I was sitting back and thinking to myself "Gawd, he's obvious. Keep that
>up and even *this* crew's gonna see through you eventually."
Nicely put. Give no evidence countering mine, do nothing to "debunk" the
ability I'm claiming he displayed, just claim it's obviously not there. You
can do better than that, Atsushi, and often do; I'm disappointed.
>>(Incidentally, this continues to strengthen my belief that Jonathan Frakes's
>>biggest acting talent is in somewhat low-key comedy. Between this, the short
>>scene with Lal in "The Offspring", and various other scenes that I've
>>suddenly drawn a blank on, the majority of his really memorable and
>>interesting scenes are lighthearted. Keep that part up.)
>Hmm... you've got a point here (although I thought he was quite good in
>THE HOST).
There are a few exceptions, to be sure; I also thought his performance in BOBW1
was excellent. But most of them are on the light comedy side, I think.
>>"I mean, I'm a patient in a bathing suit. That doesn't say much."
>Performed with all the acting skill of a third-grade Christmas play.
Lighten *up*. You're acting as though the show offended you. Yeesh.
>>--Let's see, we've got lots of romance and sex in the air, and cute women
>>hanging around in swimsuits while a patient in sickbay. Gee, it wouldn't
>>happen to be sweeps month, would it? Naaaaah. :-)
>Exactly. Pander to the lowest-common denominator. And it apparently hooked.
I think I've just been insulted. Atsushi, you've on occasion railed against
the apparent elitism in the "TNG is a more adult, more grown-up show than
TOS". You'll note those comments have ceased. I'd appreciate the same
courtesy.
>>--The throwaway Data/Troi chess game was very interesting. The Kirk/Spock
>>games back in TOS were one of the few bits of characterization I always
>>thought worked beautifully, and this has potential to work just as well.
>>Hmm.
>Annoyed me. Blatant ripoff.
But of course, when they do things differently from TOS, you claim that they're
losing sight of what made TOS work in the first place. Typical. :-)
>>Plot: 9.5. A tick off for no explanation of Guinan's absence, but
>> otherwise airtight, and gripping throughout.
>How do you explain a device that can selectively mindwipe brains of all
>different kinds of Enterprise races (including an android whose brain design
>isn't even fully understood?)
How do you explain subspace? And as I said in response to Andrew Hackard,
there aren't necessarily more than four to six distinct races aboard, and
at least three of them are genetically compatible. I don't think it's that
farfetched, except *maybe* Data; and given the computer failures, I think
it's very little of a stretch.
>How can any race which develops such a device
>not develop weapons technology less primitive than the Lycians?
Show me where it was claimed MacDuff or the Suttarans developed that device
rather than obtaining it from, oh, Ferengi, and I'll answer.
>Does no
>one keep handwritten logs or notice the presence of families aboard a
>so-called "battleship?"
The logs: well, this was a problem with "Clues" as well, and one I recall you
dismissing at the time. The families: here you've got a point.
This story didn't have holes, it had gorges.
I was in Ithaca for four years. I've *seen* gorges. These aren't even
close. :-)
>>Plot Handling: 10. The rushed ending isn't even quite enough to drop it to
>> 9.5.
>The way the moral dillema was handled was at least enough to drop it to a 7,
Exactly what are you talking about? I've no idea.
>>Characterization: Can I give an 11? No? Call it 10.
>I'll take my usual average for the TNG characters (2) and raise it a point
>for snappier-than-usual dialog.
Your "usual average" is a 2. This explains why the ratings are so stilted.
Timothy W. Lynch
>In article <1992Feb23.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>WARNING: The following post contains amnesiac spoilers [how's THAT for an
>oxymoron, gang? :-) ] for this week's TNG outing, "Conundrum". Be prepared
>for a rude awakening if you don't bail out now.
>>their identities and mission. And, as an unidentified person in a
>>commander's uniform points out, they need to know what happened to them, and
>>how.
>The appearance of Macduff was nicely done here. When I saw him at first,
>I simply assumed he was another Ensign DuJour. Then I noticed the three
>rank pips, and thought that even if one weren't solid, he's still high
>enough up that we should have heard of him before.
That's what tipped me off. I didn't notice the pips until his first few lines
in Act 1, but as soon as I did things clicked into place.
>>The biographical sketches are out of reach, but the crew manifest is there.
>>The positions are as one would expect, except that Will Riker is now *second*
>>officer, with the first officer being the heretofore unnamed commander,
>>Commander Keiran MacDuff. Picard orders the rest of the bridge crew to the
>>bridge, and tells an apologetic Worf to think nothing of his brusque behavior
>>earlier.
>>
>At this point, I still wasn't totally willing to write off Macduff as a plant,
>although I'd started suspecting it just a little bit before. The plotting
>and direction had just enough things failing to fit properly that I didn't
>feel confident in pegging the story before this point. Very nicely done, it's
>been a while since we had a TNG episode that kept you guessing at all.
Yep. I actually was quite certain he was behind everything by then, but the
question to me was what he would do to screw things up. As it happens, his
mistake was a very easy one to make.
>The horgon was a howler. This one cracked up everybody in the room. His
>slightly puzzled, neutral handling of it was a credit to Frakes.
:-)
>>their orders (namely the lackluster Lysian ship). He compares their
>>situation to being "handed a weapon, taken into a room, and told to shoot a
>>stranger", and says he simply can't do it without some moral context.
>Stewart played this scene very well. This redeemed him from going along
>with that irritating proselytizing at the end of "Violations" a few weeks
>back. I would say this Picard morality trip was well done on the order of
>the ones in "Who Watches the Watchers?" a couple of years back.
Agreed.
>>MacDuff, meanwhile, calls Worf to his quarters. When Worf arrives, MacDuff
>>appeals to him as another person "born to combat"; in short, as a fellow
>>warrior. He says that their skills make them uniquely qualified for the
>>battle ahead, and implies that Picard's wavering on the issue may force them
>>to take matters into their own hands. The mission must, after all, succeed.
>This scene was one of the episode's best. The way Macduff twisted and
>manipulated Worf, appealing to his innate tendencies was almost chilling.
>Especially after the way he'd used an entirely different set of tactics to
>try to turn Picard in the previous scene.
Completely agreed. This sort of effectiveness is why I tend to wonder what
those crying "one-dimensional! one-dimensional!" were actually watching while
this show aired.
>The spots where Macduff "alienifies" whil the phasers are hitting him were
>interesting and sort of hinted at the human exterior being a disguise. I
>wish we would have got more of a look at what was underneath.
Me too; and I also wonder exactly what created the "disguise".
>>The core story reminded me slightly of "Clues", in that they're working with
>>a puzzle where the pieces don't quite fit. I think that with one exception,
>>however (more on that later), it worked somewhat better than "Clues" did.
>>Although it was clear shortly into the first act that "Keiran MacDuff" was
>>behind all of it, there was nothing to indicate *why*. More importantly,
>>given the situation, there was no reason to expect the crew to figure it out,
>>so we were free to speculate on KM's motives and examine how airtight he
>>managed to make his technique.
>Very true. The explicit identification of him as the first officer was about
>the first time that he could really be pegged as an outsider.
I don't agree. He had too strong and too vocal a role to be a random crew-
member we'd simply not heard of. Chalk it up to the flu. ;-)
>And even then,
>knowing that something was wrong with him, but with no clues as to what, kept
>the mystery going. In fact, I think this revelation only thickened the mys-
>tery a little bit.
Here, however, I completely agree.
>>Riker, William T. Perhaps Riker was never quite as interested in his own
>>command as he even believed himself to be--and perhaps THAT's why he's turned
>>so many of them down. Deep, deep down, maybe he doesn't really think it's
>>for him. I'm not at all sure it was intended (in fact, I'd be willing to put
>>money down that it wasn't), but it's something worth thinking about--and
>>perhaps running with in future storylines.
>I'd agree on the "unintentional" aspect of the above. The number of
>unintentional facets to Riker's personality are interesting if you put them
>together. In the first season, he was young, ambitious and eager. Starting
>with the second season, he seemed to age very quickly, becoming a lot more
>passive, more inclined to brooding, and, not to mention, fatter. :-) One
>could almost take a lot of this stuff as evidence that, as he was accused of
>in "The Best of Both Worlds", that he's afraid to take charge and advance and
>finds Picard's shadow too comfortable to move out of.
Oh, yes indeed. I think there's a great deal of evidence showing that he has
no plans to go anywhere else. If the writers would explicitly acknowledge
that sometime soon, I think it'd be a major boon to make up for BOBW2 dropping
the idea entirely.
>The possibility that
>Riker may have advanced has far as he is capable seems to be a reasonable
>one, and the possibility that he's become burned out is also hinted at by
>some of the aspects of his behavior: turning down command repeatedly,
>occasional counterproductive introspection, and the occasional blunder, like
>the one in Darmok.
Hmm. Interesting thoughts, although I'm not sure I'd agree with all of them.
The "Darmok" blunder in particular struck me as not atypical; Will's *always*
been a bullheaded guy.
>>while. Poor, poor Will; it can be so tough at times. One can only wonder
>>what other mind games Ro has in store for him now. (Given Bev's conduct at
>>the end of "Allegiance" about two years back, in fact, I think she and Deanna
>>ought to bring her in on things. Get those three conspiring together and
>>Will'll break out in cold sweats at night. ;-) )
>I do hope they don't drop this entirely. Seeing the guy tormented a little
>bit could be fun. Especially the next time he attempts to deal with Ro in
>the context of disciplinary action as at the beginning of this episode.
Heh. That should be fun...
>I noticed this too. Quite well done. The casting of Macduff was very well
>done. He was serious and competent appearing enough that you could see how
>the rest of the crew could have believed him to have been the first officer.
>And his attempted manipulations of the crew were masterful.
Yep. If he was working with the Suttarans rather than simply a rogue hothead,
then his superiors chose the disguise very well.
>>"It would be nice if we all had names." [Note: it occurred to me that this
>>statement would have had incredible in-joke potential if Riker had said it to
>>O'Brien rather than Geordi. :-) ]
>I thought this too. When they gave O'Brien a first name last year (was it
>in Data's Day? Yeah, I guess so)
"Family", actually.
>>"Commander, don't worry about it. As far as I'm concerned, you and I have
>>shared something that we will treasure forever." [Ro leaves]
>I didn't really know what to make of this line.
Nor did I. Nor did Will. Major mindgames. Grin.
>Another comment on that injured diver in sickbay. Did you notice she wasn't
>even slightly wet? Shit...she must have REALLY missed on that dive....
>either she hit the deck, missing the water entirely, or the pool was empty
>or something. :-)
We don't know how long she'd been in there. Besides, it was holodeck water;
it just vanished as she left. ;-) ;-)
>>Troi phasering Worf? Data threatening Worf? O'Brien decking Worf over a
>>console? Man, this isn't Worf's week...
>Oh, give the guy a break, Tim!
He's had enough broken lately, I think. :-)
Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET: tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
"I see your hunger for a fortune--it could be better served beneath my flag!
If you've the stomach for a broadside--come aboard, my pretty boys!
I...will take you, make you, everything you've ever dreamed."
--Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, "Pirates"
Gerald (Jerry) KUCH
>>WARNING: The following post contains amnesiac spoilers [how's THAT for an
>>oxymoron, gang? :-) ] for this week's TNG outing, "Conundrum". Be prepared
>>for a rude awakening if you don't bail out now.
>>The spots where Macduff "alienifies" whil the phasers are hitting him were
>>interesting and sort of hinted at the human exterior being a disguise. I
>>wish we would have got more of a look at what was underneath.
>
>Me too; and I also wonder exactly what created the "disguise".
>
It would have been nice to see an explanation, although having a full
autopsy of the guy might have dragged a little bit. :-)
>>Very true. The explicit identification of him as the first officer was about
>>the first time that he could really be pegged as an outsider.
>
>I don't agree. He had too strong and too vocal a role to be a random crew-
>member we'd simply not heard of. Chalk it up to the flu. ;-)
>
You're most likely right here. I suppose I should have been a little more
clear with the phrasing. He was obviously an outsider when he appeared in
the background at the beginning. As to his motives...those didn't become
all that clear until he started assuming his XO role and pushing very hard
for the military action. Must have been that damn f! : Some kind of
decongestant inspired delirium that twisted my thinking... :-)
>>together. In the first season, he was young, ambitious and eager. Starting
>>with the second season, he seemed to age very quickly, becoming a lot more
>>passive, more inclined to brooding, and, not to mention, fatter. :-) One
>>could almost take a lot of this stuff as evidence that, as he was accused of
>>in "The Best of Both Worlds", that he's afraid to take charge and advance and
>>finds Picard's shadow too comfortable to move out of.
>
>Oh, yes indeed. I think there's a great deal of evidence showing that he has
>no plans to go anywhere else. If the writers would explicitly acknowledge
>that sometime soon, I think it'd be a major boon to make up for BOBW2 dropping
>the idea entirely.
The other thing about this thread is that a "Riker's angst over his career
advancement or apparent like of desire for it" sub-plot probably could be
handled in conjunction with another plot in a single episode. This might be
one that could be pulled off fairly well, although given TNG's past record
with the dual-plot episode I'd be hesitant to want them to go ahead with it.
"Two half plots does not a whole plot make" in most TNG contexts. Admittedly,
most of them haven't been as Howlingly Bad as "The Icarus Factor" where we
got to see Riker and his father beat on each other with pillows and broom
handles while Worf went through his Klingon Bar Mitzvah equivalent.
Geesh...that was a HORRIBLE episode, irredeemably horrible... :-)
>>The possibility that
>>Riker may have advanced has far as he is capable seems to be a reasonable
>>one, and the possibility that he's become burned out is also hinted at by
>>some of the aspects of his behavior: turning down command repeatedly,
>>occasional counterproductive introspection, and the occasional blunder, like
>>the one in Darmok.
>
>Hmm. Interesting thoughts, although I'm not sure I'd agree with all of them.
>The "Darmok" blunder in particular struck me as not atypical; Will's *always*
>been a bullheaded guy.
The Darmok blunder is the one that I would put forth least strongly. Riker
always seems to have been a bit of a goosestepper, but preying on even his
understandable misjudgement in "Darmok" could be decent fodder for a story.
Killing the alien captain, effectively, and making something of a rift with
the Tamarians could quite possibly shake his confidence a little bit.
>>I thought this too. When they gave O'Brien a first name last year (was it
>>in Data's Day? Yeah, I guess so)
>
>"Family", actually.
Wow...they did it that early? I missed the first few minutes of "Family",
was that when it happened? The first time I was conscious of the guy having
an identify :-) was at his wedding when Picard addressed him as Myles Edward
O'Brien. Did he get both in "Family" or just the Myles?
>>Another comment on that injured diver in sickbay. Did you notice she wasn't
>>even slightly wet? Shit...she must have REALLY missed on that dive....
>>either she hit the deck, missing the water entirely, or the pool was empty
>>or something. :-)
>
>We don't know how long she'd been in there. Besides, it was holodeck water;
>it just vanished as she left. ;-) ;-)
Might also explain the injury.... :-)
>
>>>Troi phasering Worf? Data threatening Worf? O'Brien decking Worf over a
>>>console? Man, this isn't Worf's week...
>
>>Oh, give the guy a break, Tim!
>
>He's had enough broken lately, I think. :-)
True...and some of them at the hands of Counsellor Troi...egads...Klingon
Hiri Kiri for that one might be in order...alien possession or not! :-) And,
from the previews for two weeks from now, it looks like Worf's going to get
an even bigger break under a pile of falling barrels...
Brad Templeton
>--The throwaway Data/Troi chess game was very interesting. The Kirk/Spock
>games back in TOS were one of the few bits of characterization I always
>thought worked beautifully, and this has potential to work just as well.
>Hmm.
Data could never lose a Chess game to Troi in the manner in which he
lost. They're in a classical position and Data thinks victory is likely.
After Troi makes one move (ie. a ply later) he sees mate in 7 immediately.
I don't care how bushy 3-D chess is. If Data can see mate in 7 immediately
after Troi's move, he can see it before she makes it, too.
Actually, one wonders where Troi learned to play 3-D chess well. Who would
play chess with any kind of telepath? (Vulcans at least have to touch you.)
In addition, if present trends are any indicator, computers will outstrip
humans at chess and games like it well before the 24th century. Particularly
sentient computers with fabulous superhuman pattern matching abilities.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Atsushi Kanamori
>kana...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>In article <1992Feb23.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>
>>Here, however,
>>there was potential for some serious shit -- and they ruined it an utterly
>>contrived setup with plot holes the size of a moon and simplistic, trite
>>execution.
>
>The execution seemed masterful for me, given the success of MacDuff's
>psychological appeals. As for the "plot holes the size of a moon"...funny,
>but
>none of the ones I've seen so far really seem to amount to much at all.
Let's see -- no records of any sort outside of the computer, families on
a warship, never addressed the incongruity between the Lyssian's primitive
weapons technology and mind-wipe capability (yes, that *is* a plot hole,
and your rationalization strikes me as rather stretching.)
>Of
>course, when you're coming at it *determined* to find flaws, things do
>amplify a bit.
Oh come on. You know that I'm one of the forgiving reviewers on the net when
it comes to plot consistency. When the plot holes are big enough that
*I* notice them, they're serious.
>>>The core story reminded me slightly of "Clues", in that they're working
>>>with
>>>a puzzle where the pieces don't quite fit. I think that with one exception,
>>>however (more on that later), it worked somewhat better than "Clues" did.
>>>Although it was clear shortly into the first act that "Keiran MacDuff" was
>>>behind all of it, there was nothing to indicate *why*.
>
>>His motives became obvious to me as soon as the crew called up the orders to
>>attack the Lycians
>
>You mean around halfway into the show. That's quite fair; in fact, I tend to
>consider it rather obnoxious to try to make *everything* clear only at the
>end.
But halfway is still too early. The CLUES revelation was *much* better timed,
IMO. Admittedly, I'm not sure how they could get around this in CONUNDRUM
without making the resolution *really* rushed -- but it's a habit that's
getting a bit frequent on TNG as of late.
>
>>>so we were free to speculate on KM's motives and examine how airtight he
>>>managed to make his technique.
>
>>Not very, it might be logged.
>
>Um...could we have this again in English? I have absolutely no idea what this
>is supposed to mean.
I meant "I don't think it was very airtight."
>
>>>And it was pretty airtight, I must say. Don't like the orders? Too bad,
>>>thousands of your allies are counting on you. Want confirmation from
>>>Starfleet? Aw, damn; the orders include mandatory radio silence at all
>>>times. The "mortal enemies" might try to contact you? Well hey, the
>>>"weapon" that hit you might just be used VIA the communications; better not
>>>answer! Picard's concerned (and rightly so) about the moral issues at
>>>stake
>>>here? Jar him by pointing out the second edge to that sword. Bev's found
>>>a
>>>technique which is dangerous but might work? Quick, be a good little first
>>>officer and volunteer for it first (beating Riker to the punch, mind), then
>>>fake convulsions and have no "improvement" in your already-functional
>>>memory.
>>>Worried that you're looking one-sided in always agreeing with
>>>action-oriented
>>>Worf? Agree with Picard about the diagnostic.
>>I was sitting back and thinking to myself "Gawd, he's obvious. Keep that
>>up and even *this* crew's gonna see through you eventually."
>
>Nicely put. Give no evidence countering mine, do nothing to "debunk" the
>ability I'm claiming he displayed, just claim it's obviously not there. You
>can do better than that, Atsushi, and often do; I'm disappointed.
Here's why I thought he was obvious:
* His mannerism throughout -- he overplayed the "sneaky villain" bit
to the point where he stuck out from the others.
* His jumping up and activating the phaser array on his own initiative.
* His over-the-board reaction to Picard's suggestion to open hailing
frequencies ("NOOOO!!!!" -- like a man about to see his mother raped.)
* His fourth-wall mugging on the diagnostic bed (sure, he had his face
turned away from Beverly, but a competent spy should stay in character
throughout.)
* His "we are warriers" appeal to Worf. Wartime or not, the Enterprise
isn't a Klingon vessel.
* His over-the-board actions in the climax -- far too pushy and irrational.
To sum up, the guy just didn't know how to act like an officer. Given that
the rest of the crew were largely in support of following the attack orders
(and giving reasoned rationales for doing so), he should have played it much
cooler.
>>>"I mean, I'm a patient in a bathing suit. That doesn't say much."
>
>>Performed with all the acting skill of a third-grade Christmas play.
>
>Lighten *up*. You're acting as though the show offended you. Yeesh.
There's some truth in that, although "hit one of my sorer pet peeves" is more
accurate. The characterization of Riker and Ro really grated on me and
that's probably I sounded rather heated in my discussions regarding
CONUNDRUM. Picture the thought of Richard Arnold taking over Berman
and Pillar and replacing Patrick Stewart with William Shatner on the bridge,
and you'll get an idea of my reaction :-)
>>>--Let's see, we've got lots of romance and sex in the air, and cute women
>>>hanging around in swimsuits while a patient in sickbay. Gee, it wouldn't
>>>happen to be sweeps month, would it? Naaaaah. :-)
>
>>Exactly. Pander to the lowest-common denominator. And it apparently hooked.
>
>I think I've just been insulted. Atsushi, you've on occasion railed against
>the apparent elitism in the "TNG is a more adult, more grown-up show than
>TOS". You'll note those comments have ceased. I'd appreciate the same
>courtesy.
Check. That remark was uncalled for. My apologies.
>
>>>--The throwaway Data/Troi chess game was very interesting. The Kirk/Spock
>>>games back in TOS were one of the few bits of characterization I always
>>>thought worked beautifully, and this has potential to work just as well.
>>>Hmm.
>
>>Annoyed me. Blatant ripoff.
>
>But of course, when they do things differently from TOS, you claim that
>they're
>losing sight of what made TOS work in the first place. Typical. :-)
Well, I think TNG *has* lost sight of what made TOS work -- but the problem
here isn't that they did things *differently*, it's that they did
things similarly on the surface but didn't really capture the essence of
what made TOS tick.
>>>Plot: 9.5. A tick off for no explanation of Guinan's absence, but
>>> otherwise airtight, and gripping throughout.
>
>>How do you explain a device that can selectively mindwipe brains of all
>>different kinds of Enterprise races (including an android whose brain design
>>isn't even fully understood?)
>
>How do you explain subspace? And as I said in response to Andrew Hackard,
>there aren't necessarily more than four to six distinct races aboard, and
>at least three of them are genetically compatible. I don't think it's that
>farfetched, except *maybe* Data; and given the computer failures, I think
>it's very little of a stretch.
I think Data is quite a stretch.
>>How can any race which develops such a device
>>not develop weapons technology less primitive than the Lycians?
>
>Show me where it was claimed MacDuff or the Suttarans developed that device
>rather than obtaining it from, oh, Ferengi, and I'll answer.
This point ought to have been addressed. It's just too big an implication
to be left implicit (and if there *is* a race out there capable of
developing such a weapon, someone's in big shit.)
>
>>Does no
>>one keep handwritten logs or notice the presence of families aboard a
>>so-called "battleship?"
>
>The logs: well, this was a problem with "Clues" as well, and one I recall you
>dismissing at the time.
Not quite: in CLUES, they had *time* to fix that problem as well as erasing
all other indications of the time-lapse. The credibility problem was in
the MAGNITUDE of that task, and that's much harder to assess from the couch
than the one in CONUNDRUM.
>The families: here you've got a point.
Yep.
>
>>Plot Handling: 10. The rushed ending isn't even quite enough to drop it
>>> to 9.5.
>>The way the moral dillema was handled was at least enough to drop it to a 7,
>
>Exactly what are you talking about? I've no idea.
I went over this in my review but to recap: this was another instance when
TNG relied too much on Patrick Stewart's finely tuned philosophizing ability
and not enough on concrete players and a true dillemma. Except for that
one destroyed Lyssian ship, the crew wasn't forced to take any action
of consequence until it was made clear that the Lyssian weapon technology
was laughably inferior. Picard's decision to not fire on the station was
easy then. Similarly, McDuff was completely one-sided with no redeeming
characteristics and Lyssians were abstracted into oblivion.
It would have been a lot more interesting if the Lyssian technology *had*
been strong enough to be a threat to the Federation and if they had
*personified* each side (the Federation/Sutteran and Lyssians) with
well-written, balanced characters with good points *and* bad points, each
who could make persuasive arguments for his side. Instead, we got
non-characters for the Lyssians and a one-sided, and rather overplayed,
stock villain on the other. Both sides were obvious and one-dimensional --
the moral dillemma was largely cut-and-dried.
(In fact, I think this part of the premise would have worked better
it they took Picard's analogy literally -- Picard alone, with the two
antagonists -- one trying to convince Picard he must kill the other -- TNG
needs to learn that even one solid, sympathetic character is worth a
lot more, in terms of dramatic impact, than 15,000 (or whatever it was)
unseen, unnamed people aboard a station.)
>
>>>Characterization: Can I give an 11? No? Call it 10.
>
>>I'll take my usual average for the TNG characters (2) and raise it a point
>>for snappier-than-usual dialog.
>
>Your "usual average" is a 2. This explains why the ratings are so stilted.
Quite true. If I liked the characters more, I suspect my average ratings
would be much higher.
Kevin Klinge
|> WARNING WILL ROBINSON...AVAST HERE BE SPOILERS!
|>
|> In article <1992Feb23.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
|> >The biographical sketches are out of reach, but the crew manifest is there.
|> >The positions are as one would expect, except that Will Riker is now *second*
|> >officer, with the first officer being the heretofore unnamed commander,
|> >Commander Keiran MacDuff. Picard orders the rest of the bridge crew to the
|> >bridge, and tells an apologetic Worf to think nothing of his brusque behavior
|> >earlier.
|> >
|>
|> At this point, I still wasn't totally willing to write off Macduff as a plant,
|> although I'd started suspecting it just a little bit before. The plotting
|> and direction had just enough things failing to fit properly that I didn't
|> feel confident in pegging the story before this point. Very nicely done, it's
|> been a while since we had a TNG episode that kept you guessing at all. "Clues"
|> comes to mind, and "Future Imperfect" certainly did it, although the final
|> surprise was so abrupt that it was almost insulting.
I disagree. With "Clues", you actually didn't know what was going on other
than the crew passing out for what Data said was 30 seconds, when other
indications appeared otherwise. Here, with the "green wave" lifeform
flying through the ship erasing everyone's memories, a new "#1" officer,
and some bogus orders about the Federation being in a war, it was easy
to figure out. The viewer knew what was wrong in this show, but in "Clues",
I wasn't sure what was wrong, since I, the viewer, wasn't privy to seeing
"the missing day" when Data was ordered to conceal the information about
the lifeform and its planet. I found "Clues" much more of a mystery than
"Conundrum", although I still liked Conundrum, just had to accept some
big plot holes (species that can alter many lifeforms' minds but can't
figure out how to get/use a photon torpedo).
|> >MacDuff, meanwhile, calls Worf to his quarters. When Worf arrives, MacDuff
|> >appeals to him as another person "born to combat"; in short, as a fellow
|> >warrior. He says that their skills make them uniquely qualified for the
|> >battle ahead, and implies that Picard's wavering on the issue may force them
|> >to take matters into their own hands. The mission must, after all, succeed.
|>
|> This scene was one of the episode's best. The way Macduff twisted and
|> manipulated Worf, appealing to his innate tendencies was almost chilling.
|> Especially after the way he'd used an entirely different set of tactics to
|> try to turn Picard in the previous scene.
Yeah, but you knew what was going to happen. The captain wasn't going to
budge in firing, MacDuff was going to question his command, and Worf was going
to resist because his loyalities to his captain. MacDuff was appealing
to just one aspect of Worf and the viewer knew Worf wasn't going to commit
mutiny when the captain had justified reasons for not shooting. Only a
moron couldn't have figured how this thing was going to end at that point.
There was only one way for it to end, and you knew MacDuff would eventually
be questioning the captain's authority.
|> >The core story reminded me slightly of "Clues", in that they're working with
|> >a puzzle where the pieces don't quite fit. I think that with one exception,
|> >however (more on that later), it worked somewhat better than "Clues" did.
I disagree with Tim here as I stated above. "Clues" had me guessing what
was REALLY going on (which we didn't know until the end), whereas this one
had me wondering when the crew would finally figure out what was REALLY
going on. I did enjoy how the crew reacted to their situation of not
knowing each other and preventing chaos, which was a different situation
than what "Clues" presented. This one wasn't too much a mystery since
the obvious bogus orders and new first officer made it clear just who
the "bad guy" was. I was guessing until the end with "Clues" though...
|> >Although it was clear shortly into the first act that "Keiran MacDuff" was
|> >behind all of it, there was nothing to indicate *why*. More importantly,
|> >given the situation, there was no reason to expect the crew to figure it out,
|> >so we were free to speculate on KM's motives and examine how airtight he
|> >managed to make his technique.
|>
|> Very true. The explicit identification of him as the first officer was about
|> the first time that he could really be pegged as an outsider. And even then,
|> knowing that something was wrong with him, but with no clues as to what, kept
|> the mystery going. In fact, I think this revelation only thickened the mys-
|> tery a little bit.
Yes, but once the "orders" came in, the mystery was over. That was about
halfway through the show. The rest was all "MacDuff does anything possible
to keep the ruse going to destroy the Lysians (or whoever they are, we didn't
get to see you know)".
|>
|> >As long as I'm on the subject...the whole show was designed to more or less
|> >show what kind of behaviours are deeply rooted in the Enterprise crew. Troi
|> >is still very passionate on the side of life; Riker is still a lech ;-) ;
|> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, as far as I'm concerned, Ro asked for it. I've never seen such
a lech with some of her lines. Talk about being forward! I know Riker's
no saint, but I question just who's feelings are REALLY being exposed
with all the tugging and nagging Ro was doing. If you don't call what
she was doing "begging", then I just don't know...
|>
|> >(I also thought the ending was a *wee* bit on the rushed side, but much of
|> >that was mitigated by the final sequence in 10-Forward. 'Nuff said.)
|>
|> I didn't find it rushed at all. Although I may have become numbed to it
|> after "Violations". I walked away from the TV not quite glowing, but still
|> solidly impressed with what I'd just watched. Definitely the best outing since
I thought it was definately rushed. Very quick ending considering you`ve
just had your minds played with (yet again) and a simple "apology" was
sent to this species who we never see. I personally would have liked to
have seen Picard explain to those people just what happened (I thought there
would have been hell to pay).
|> the New Year, although that's not saying that much. In fact this one surely
|> ranks up with the best ones from the first half of the season. It'll be
|> interesting to see if they can sustain the pace through the next few new
|> episodes.
Yes, better than the other 3 new ones we've seen since the Unification
repeats in January.
|> I do hope they don't drop this entirely. Seeing the guy tormented a little
|> bit could be fun. Especially the next time he attempts to deal with Ro in
|> the context of disciplinary action as at the beginning of this episode.
|> Utterly tasteless comments about "spankings" are deleted and left to the
|> reader's imagination... :-)
Why are you putting the blame on Riker? If I were Ro, I'd be more ashamed
on how I behaved as such a blatant sexual aggressor. I didn't see Will
"camping out in skivvies" in her quarters like she did in his! As much
as Will participated, I found Ro's unshaming aggressions more embarrassing
than anything Will did. He seemed to be just "along for the ride". Hold
your head up Will, you did what you were character is supposed to do given
those type of advances (except maybe you wouldn't have let Troi leave
after showing her what she wrote in your book...).
|> >--Let's see, we've got lots of romance and sex in the air, and cute women
|> >hanging around in swimsuits while a patient in sickbay. Gee, it wouldn't
|> >happen to be sweeps month, would it? Naaaaah. :-)
Yeah, I agree, just in case anybody is flipping around their dials looking
for something on the tube. "Hmmmm, what do we have here?!"
|> >--The throwaway Data/Troi chess game was very interesting. The Kirk/Spock
|> >games back in TOS were one of the few bits of characterization I always
|> >thought worked beautifully, and this has potential to work just as well.
|> >Hmm.
|>
|> I still don't know if I believe Troi could have beat the combinatorial grind
|> engine that is Data though...
Me neither.
|> >Plot: 9.5. A tick off for no explanation of Guinan's absence, but
|> > otherwise airtight, and gripping throughout.
|>
|> Concur.
Not as airtight, IMHO. I just didn't believe the premise this guy could
suppress long-term memory (including on a one-of-a-kind android, Data)
and couldn't figure out how to develop something equivalent to a photon
torpedo. Even if you believe the plot premise could happen, I thought it
would be more appropriate if he gave himself the rank of captain. His job
would have been much easier:
"So noted, Counselor Troi, Fire torpedos, Mr. Worf!"
|> J. Kuch (je...@cs.mcgill.ca) | "Objects are a poor man's Closures." --N. Adams
--
Kevin H. Klinge My boys can swim!
Bell Communications Research - George Costanza
kev...@soac.bellcore.com
Kevin S. Spetz
WARNING: The following post contains amnesiac spoilers [how's THAT for an
oxymoron, gang? :-) ] for this week's TNG outing, "Conundrum". Be prepared
for a rude awakening if you don't bail out now.
>>--The initial appearance of Keiran was very low-key, and very well
placed. I
>>didn't realize anything was wrong about him until his first close-up.
"Wait
>>a second...THREE pips? A full commander? Something is Not Right
here..."
The one thing that bothered was...if Keiran had the ability to so
effectively
manipulate the Enterprises files and effect what the crew was able to
find out, why
didn't he place himself in command. As the crew had no memory of their
mission, he
could have easily constructed a reason for a higher ranking official to
be on
board and then successfully completed his mission.
the trek witch
>kana...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>In article <1992Feb23.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>WARNING: The following post contains amnesiac spoilers [how's THAT for an
>>>oxymoron, gang? :-) ] for this week's TNG outing, "Conundrum". Be prepared
>>>for a rude awakening if you don't bail out now.
>>>For the first time in a long while, I had to sit back, whistle, and
>>>just say to myself, "Damn. He's good. He's really good."
>>I was sitting back and thinking to myself "Gawd, he's obvious. Keep
>>that up and even *this* crew's gonna see through you eventually."
>Nicely put. Give no evidence countering mine, do nothing to "debunk"
>the ability I'm claiming he displayed, just claim it's obviously not
>there. You can do better than that, Atsushi, and often do; I'm
>disappointed.
I actually have to agree with Atsushi, although he *didn't* explain
his reaction. Go back and look at him doing this. Of all the
crewmen, he is not displaying any of the uncertainty that the rest
are. He used good arguments, yes, but if he had presented them less
forcefully, then it would have been a real tour-de-force.
>>How do you explain a device that can selectively mindwipe brains of
>>all different kinds of Enterprise races (including an android whose
>>brain design isn't even fully understood?)
>How do you explain subspace? And as I said in response to Andrew Hackard,
>there aren't necessarily more than four to six distinct races aboard, and
>at least three of them are genetically compatible. I don't think it's that
>farfetched, except *maybe* Data; and given the computer failures, I think
>it's very little of a stretch.
Still, as with Guinan, it would have been nice to have had a throwaway
line to explain it. Ferengi, lopsided technological development, or
SOMETHING. Should be another tick, like the lack of explanation for
Guinan.
>>Does no
>>one keep handwritten logs or notice the presence of families aboard a
>>so-called "battleship?"
>The logs: well, this was a problem with "Clues" as well, and one I recall you
>dismissing at the time. The families: here you've got a point.
I was expecting the following to happen in the scene where Riker and
Troi are examining the book that she apparently gave him: something
that say's that HE'S the first officer... I can't decide whether that
would have been a good way to go.
It also seems there was a missed opportunity for Worf to remain
bullish; he's usually the one making these kinds of warnings anyway.
Perhaps he was sufficiently embarrassed over having taken command
before. (McDuff miscalculated: what if Worf had been listed as
captain?)
I thought Troi was played exceptionally well; I was a little
disappointed in Ro; as Atesushi says, its a pretty trite
characterization. I'm not sure what else would have been good: the
two remaining on edge with each other, or a very sympathetic friendly
rapport; to be complicated by the return of conflict when the memories
return.
However, I *liked* the episode. I don't grade them, myself, so I
won't, but It was very good. Fix the little holes here and there
(Guinan and the source of the wiping ability) and it would have been
sublime.
>I was in Ithaca for four years. I've *seen* gorges. These aren't even
>close. :-)
I thought they were gorgeous, myself.
--the trek witch, ducking
--
Cindy Tittle Moore
Internet: tit...@ics.uci.edu | BITNET: clti...@uci.bitnet
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucivax!tittle | Usnail: PO Box 4188, Irvine CA, 92716
the trek witch
>In article <1992Feb23....@cs.mcgill.ca>, je...@cs.mcgill.ca (Gerald (Jerry) KUCH) writes:
>|> WARNING WILL ROBINSON...AVAST HERE BE SPOILERS!
>|>
>|> In article <1992Feb23.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>I disagree. With "Clues", you actually didn't know what was going on other
>than the crew passing out for what Data said was 30 seconds, when other
>indications appeared otherwise. Here, with the "green wave" lifeform
>flying through the ship erasing everyone's memories, a new "#1" officer,
>and some bogus orders about the Federation being in a war, it was easy
>to figure out.
Actually, while I agree with your overall point, the plot wasn't
entirely clear right away. I thought it might be some kind of test,
as in TOS's OK corral episode: see how aggressive they are when you
set them up. Or something along the lines of capturing alien races
and making them fight against each other (TOS's "quatloo" episode). I
was not certain that the Lycians were real until the end.
--the trek witch
Timothy W. Lynch
>In article <1992Feb23....@cs.mcgill.ca>, je...@cs.mcgill.ca (Gerald (Jerry) KUCH) writes:
>|> In article <1992Feb23.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
Spoilers for "Conundrum"...
>|> This scene was one of the episode's best. The way Macduff twisted and
>|> manipulated Worf, appealing to his innate tendencies was almost chilling.
>|> Especially after the way he'd used an entirely different set of tactics to
>|> try to turn Picard in the previous scene.
>Yeah, but you knew what was going to happen. The captain wasn't going to
>budge in firing, MacDuff was going to question his command, and Worf was going
>to resist because his loyalities to his captain. MacDuff was appealing
>to just one aspect of Worf and the viewer knew Worf wasn't going to commit
>mutiny when the captain had justified reasons for not shooting. Only a
>moron couldn't have figured how this thing was going to end at that point.
And only a moron couldn't have figured out Luke Skywalker would destroy the
Death Star in "Star Wars". Doesn't in the least alter the exhilaration one
gets watching it. Insisting *everything* be unexpected invites a lot of
completely left-field concepts, and twists solely for the sake of twisting
get even more tedious than logically constructed, "predictable" plots.
>Yes, but once the "orders" came in, the mystery was over.
The "mystery" of who was behind this was resolved two minutes into the first
act. This wasn't supposed to be first and foremost a mystery any more than
"The Mind's Eye" was; it was watching the crew unconsciously fight to avoid
succumbing to something *we* knew was completely wrong. The mystery was *not*
over for them; not even remotely so.
>|> I do hope they don't drop this entirely. Seeing the guy tormented a little
>|> bit could be fun. Especially the next time he attempts to deal with Ro in
>|> the context of disciplinary action as at the beginning of this episode.
>|> Utterly tasteless comments about "spankings" are deleted and left to the
>|> reader's imagination... :-)
>Why are you putting the blame on Riker?
I don't see anything in the last two articles to show that either Jerry or I
are doing any such thing. I'm just enjoying seeing the others play mind games
with him. :-) The only thing I would consider possibly worthy of any blame
would be dishonesty with each of Troi and Ro concerning the other [which,
incidentally, is what I suspect they were revenging themselves on him for].
>If I were Ro, I'd be more ashamed
>on how I behaved as such a blatant sexual aggressor.
I'm not even going to start on this one...
>Not as airtight, IMHO. I just didn't believe the premise this guy could
>suppress long-term memory (including on a one-of-a-kind android, Data)
>and couldn't figure out how to develop something equivalent to a photon
>torpedo.
I've addressed this point in a separate article. Two different technologies
involved.
>Even if you believe the plot premise could happen, I thought it
>would be more appropriate if he gave himself the rank of captain. His job
>would have been much easier:
Really? Would he have been able to convincingly run the entire ship the way
Picard did? Or would he have been revealed as a fraud earlier? As Stephen
[among others] has pointed out, setting yourself up as exec is sort of like
worming your way into a Vice-Presidential spot; there isn't much to do except
sit around and look pretty. :-)
Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET: tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
Timothy W. Lynch
>In article <1992Feb24.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>Spoilers for CONUNDRUM:
>>As for the "plot holes the size of a moon"...funny, but
>>none of the ones I've seen so far really seem to amount to much at all.
>Let's see -- no records of any sort outside of the computer,
Probably backed up periodically to Starfleet Command, which they couldn't
contact...
>families on a warship,
I've conceded this one.
>never addressed the incongruity between the Lyssian's primitive
>weapons technology and mind-wipe capability (yes, that *is* a plot hole,
>and your rationalization strikes me as rather stretching.)
It's a hole. It's not a gaping one. The two technologies strike me as quite
distinct, and even if you don't take the initial rationalization of "maybe it
wasn't theirs, but obtained otherwise", consider that we can do delicate
surgery and yet not cure the common cold. There's nothing to show that these
races really have the inclination to make things that blow up; perhaps they
prefer to win their battles this way. Insisting technology be equal on every
front simultaneously seems absurd to me.
You're right in that it's something that probably could have been explained
better, but it's hardly as implausible as you make out.
>>Of
>>course, when you're coming at it *determined* to find flaws, things do
>>amplify a bit.
>Oh come on. You know that I'm one of the forgiving reviewers on the net when
>it comes to plot consistency.
WHAT?
Pod person alert! All right, you, what have you done with the Atsushi we know?
:-) You've said for over a year that you consider plot more important than
characters, and have worked your buttocks off trying to demonstrate how plot
holes can ruin an otherwise brilliantly written, directed, and acted episode.
You're welcome to your priorities, but I can't believe you're *denying* them
now...
>>>His motives became obvious to me as soon as the crew called up the orders to
>>>attack the Lycians
>>
>>You mean around halfway into the show. That's quite fair; in fact, I tend to
>>consider it rather obnoxious to try to make *everything* clear only at the
>>end.
>But halfway is still too early.
Not to me. It's just about right.
[I list about half a dozen stratagems MacDuff uses to secure his position]
>>>I was sitting back and thinking to myself "Gawd, he's obvious. Keep that
>>>up and even *this* crew's gonna see through you eventually."
>>
>>Nicely put. Give no evidence countering mine, do nothing to "debunk" the
>>ability I'm claiming he displayed, just claim it's obviously not there. You
>>can do better than that, Atsushi, and often do; I'm disappointed.
>Here's why I thought he was obvious:
That's more like it.
> * His mannerism throughout -- he overplayed the "sneaky villain" bit
> to the point where he stuck out from the others.
Aside from the very end, and bits of his performance in sickbay, I just
don't see it.
> * His jumping up and activating the phaser array on his own initiative.
??? I'm sorry, I'm confused. You mean when they fired on the Lysian ship?
I don't remember him firing. You mean at the end? That's after he'd already
lost.
> * His over-the-board reaction to Picard's suggestion to open hailing
> frequencies ("NOOOO!!!!" -- like a man about to see his mother raped.)
It didn't seem at all that overboard to me.
> * His fourth-wall mugging on the diagnostic bed (sure, he had his face
> turned away from Beverly, but a competent spy should stay in character
> throughout.)
Here I think you're overstating things a tad, but otherwise you've got a point.
> * His "we are warriers" appeal to Worf. Wartime or not, the Enterprise
> isn't a Klingon vessel.
And Worf's also not a typical Klingon. Just how is MacDuff to know of Worf's
loyalty to Picard, and to know it ran so deep? This was far from an "obvious"
problem; it was the Persian flaw in MacDuff's otherwise strong plan.
> * His over-the-board actions in the climax -- far too pushy and irrational.
He'd already lost, and he knew it. I agree that his actions there were
obvious, but by then he had nothing to lose.
>To sum up, the guy just didn't know how to act like an officer.
I strongly disagree. I think he showed a surprising amount of (feigned, but
not obviously so) sympathy for Picard's position, and used just the right
method of attack in their little debate. He made for a more interesting
XO there than Riker has the majority of the time.
>>>Exactly. Pander to the lowest-common denominator. And it apparently hooked.
>>
>>I think I've just been insulted. Atsushi, you've on occasion railed against
>>the apparent elitism in the "TNG is a more adult, more grown-up show than
>>TOS". You'll note those comments have ceased. I'd appreciate the same
>>courtesy.
>Check. That remark was uncalled for. My apologies.
Accepted. Thank you.
[on the chess game]
>>>Annoyed me. Blatant ripoff.
>>
>>But of course, when they do things differently from TOS, you claim that
>>they're losing sight of what made TOS work in the first place. Typical. :-)
>Well, I think TNG *has* lost sight of what made TOS work -- but the problem
>here isn't that they did things *differently*, it's that they did
>things similarly on the surface but didn't really capture the essence of
>what made TOS tick.
You mean an interesting array of facets playing themselves out in a game?
Snappy dialogue? Surprise winners? Tell me, what am I missing? :-)
And I *know* the point isn't that they did things differently; this time it's
that it was a ripoff. If they do things similarly, it's a ripoff; and if it's
different, they're obviously losing sight of TOS's strengths. You're putting
them in a no-win situation.
>>>How do you explain a device that can selectively mindwipe brains of all
>>>different kinds of Enterprise races (including an android whose brain design
>>>isn't even fully understood?)
>>
[...]
>>there aren't necessarily more than four to six distinct races aboard, and
>>at least three of them are genetically compatible. I don't think it's that
>>farfetched, except *maybe* Data; and given the computer failures, I think
>>it's very little of a stretch.
>I think Data is quite a stretch.
Suit yourself.
>>>How can any race which develops such a device
>>>not develop weapons technology less primitive than the Lycians?
>>
>>Show me where it was claimed MacDuff or the Suttarans developed that device
>>rather than obtaining it from, oh, Ferengi, and I'll answer.
>This point ought to have been addressed.
Agreed, but "there are several explanations, one of which they should have
clarified" is IMHO a far smaller problem than "there's no conceivable explana-
tion", which has been your position.
>>>Does no
>>>one keep handwritten logs or notice the presence of families aboard a
>>>so-called "battleship?"
>>
>>The logs: well, this was a problem with "Clues" as well, and one I recall you
>>dismissing at the time.
>Not quite: in CLUES, they had *time* to fix that problem as well as erasing
>all other indications of the time-lapse.
Along with time to add to it; several friends of mine have said outright that
in that position, they'd have scribbled something down in a private diary for
later perusal.
>The credibility problem was in
>the MAGNITUDE of that task, and that's much harder to assess from the couch
>than the one in CONUNDRUM.
I don't think so. And if you're talking small personal diaries, what makes you
think they'd say anything of importance?
>>>The way the moral dillema was handled was at least enough to drop it to a 7,
>>
>>Exactly what are you talking about? I've no idea.
>I went over this in my review but to recap: this was another instance when
>TNG relied too much on Patrick Stewart's finely tuned philosophizing ability
>and not enough on concrete players and a true dillemma. Except for that
>one destroyed Lyssian ship, the crew wasn't forced to take any action
>of consequence until it was made clear that the Lyssian weapon technology
>was laughably inferior. Picard's decision to not fire on the station was
>easy then. Similarly, McDuff was completely one-sided with no redeeming
>characteristics and Lyssians were abstracted into oblivion.
I've already made my objection clear to this characterization of MacDuff:
anyone capable of presenting as many alternate perspectives, and *good* ones
[esp. in Picard's case] has both redeeming features and depth. As for "we
didn't see the aliens, so they're not interesting", that's just something we're
never going to agree on.
>It would have been a lot more interesting if the Lyssian technology *had*
>been strong enough to be a threat to the Federation and if they had
>*personified* each side (the Federation/Sutteran and Lyssians) with
>well-written, balanced characters with good points *and* bad points, each
>who could make persuasive arguments for his side.
That's a completely different story, though. It's got a lot of potential, but
the show as written isn't *about* the Lysian/Suttaran war; it's about how the
crew reacts to the situation they were placed in. You're suggesting a
completely different show.
>TNG needs to learn that even one solid, sympathetic character is worth a
>lot more, in terms of dramatic impact, than 15,000 (or whatever it was)
>unseen, unnamed people aboard a station.)
That's dehumanizing. "If we don't see the people and the deaths, we can't care
about them." My apologies, but this is *exactly* the kind of attitude that led
to "photogenic" wars like the Gulf War and its attendant press manipulation.
Anything that's building drama *without* having to put in some overblown
character to do so has my support; we're too damned complacent as it is.
[I also note that when characters designed to be sympathetic *do* appear, such
as Carmen in "Silicon Avatar", you dismiss them as silly sympathy ploys.
Again, please try to make up your mind.]
Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET: tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
Timothy W. Lynch
>In <1992Feb24.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>kana...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>>In article <1992Feb23.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
Spoilers for "Conundrum"...
[on why the weapon affects everyone; I offer an explanation]
>Still, as with Guinan, it would have been nice to have had a throwaway
>line to explain it. Ferengi, lopsided technological development, or
>SOMETHING. Should be another tick, like the lack of explanation for
>Guinan.
Agreed.
>I was expecting the following to happen in the scene where Riker and
>Troi are examining the book that she apparently gave him: something
>that say's that HE'S the first officer... I can't decide whether that
>would have been a good way to go.
Hmm. That would have been interesting, but I got the distinct impression that
she gave him the book back when they were still lovers, long before either of
them signed on to the Enterprise. That does tend to make your scenario a
little unlikely. ;-)
>It also seems there was a missed opportunity for Worf to remain
>bullish; he's usually the one making these kinds of warnings anyway.
>Perhaps he was sufficiently embarrassed over having taken command
>before.
Perhaps. He's so *cute* when he's embarrassed. ;-)
>(McDuff miscalculated: what if Worf had been listed as captain?)
Yes, he did. In fairness, I think he made the minimal number of changes
possible; to make Worf captain, you'd have to explain the rank pips and
uniform colors, both of which are presumably in the intact portion of the
records. I think he worked things so as to put himself in a good location, but
as little else as possible.
>>I was in Ithaca for four years. I've *seen* gorges. These aren't even
>>close. :-)
>I thought they were gorgeous, myself.
Ouch. :-)
Tim Lynch
Andrew Pearlman
>>never addressed the incongruity between the Lyssian's primitive
>>weapons technology and mind-wipe capability (yes, that *is* a plot hole,
>>and your rationalization strikes me as rather stretching.)
>
>It's a hole. It's not a gaping one. The two technologies strike me as quite
>distinct, and even if you don't take the initial rationalization of "maybe it
>wasn't theirs, but obtained otherwise", consider that we can do delicate
>surgery and yet not cure the common cold. There's nothing to show that these
>races really have the inclination to make things that blow up; perhaps they
>prefer to win their battles this way. Insisting technology be equal on every
>front simultaneously seems absurd to me.
I was thinking about this. "The Game" has a prime example of exactly this:
i.e. Primitive race gets ahold of sophistocated Mind Control device and uses
it on the Enterprise.
However, this device causes massive problems. It bypasses the shields, it
affects Data(note: no mention was made of how Data got his memories back.
Considering what was done to the computer, Data should be missing a large chunk
of his memories permanently), and various other small things.
But, there seems to be an obvious way around this... Simply put, MacDuff
broadcasts subspace signals until a specific ship reacts. One MacDuff knows
the crew manifest and general tactical sense of. He uses the electromagnetic
device. O'Brien has already shown the shields have a window every 5.5 minutes.
The device bypasses the shields, invades the computer and forces the shields
down. Before anyone can react, he attacks Data with something finetuned to
him. Then he uses the one which works on all humanoid life forms. He
sets the self-destruct mechanism on a delay and transports over to the
Enterprise.
This won't work on the Lyssians, because they won't give MacDuff 5.5 minutes.
However, a 'Diplomat' would.
Andy Pearlman
--
"Anyone can paint. It's just a matter of ignoring the critics or
setting fire to them."- Mr. Nobody, Doom Patrol #50, Grant Morrison
the trek witch
>tit...@ics.uci.edu (the trek witch) writes:
>>In <1992Feb24.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>kana...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Feb23.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
Spoilers for "Conundrum"...
>>I was expecting the following to happen in the scene where Riker and
>>Troi are examining the book that she apparently gave him: something
>>that say's that HE'S the first officer... I can't decide whether that
>>would have been a good way to go.
>Hmm. That would have been interesting, but I got the distinct impression that
>she gave him the book back when they were still lovers, long before either of
>them signed on to the Enterprise. That does tend to make your scenario a
>little unlikely. ;-)
It didn't have to be the book: remember, Riker was picking up a number
of things lying around his room. A little plaque saying "Number One
First Officer" or something... ;-) (I'm visualizing one of those silly
little necklaces, actually; you know, like "Number One Mom" or "Super
Special Friend" or whatever the hell else those things say.)
>>It also seems there was a missed opportunity for Worf to remain
>>bullish; he's usually the one making these kinds of warnings anyway.
>>Perhaps he was sufficiently embarrassed over having taken command
>>before.
>Perhaps. He's so *cute* when he's embarrassed. ;-)
The look on his face when Picard came up listed as Captain *was* priceless.
First media display of an appalled Klingon, I'm willing to bet.
--the trek witch
Thomas Gauger
was one of the best all time episodes. I was glued to my chair the entire
time.
One quick comment:
Seems to me that Riker has laid just about everyone on the show except
Wesley? I heard rumors of a gay oriented episode: seems like definite
possibilities to me!
Kevin Klinge
|> kev...@fugitive.soac.bellcore.com (Kevin Klinge) writes:
|> >In article <1992Feb23....@cs.mcgill.ca>, je...@cs.mcgill.ca (Gerald (Jerry) KUCH) writes:
|> >|> In article <1992Feb23.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
|>
|> Spoilers for "Conundrum"...
|> >|> This scene was one of the episode's best. The way Macduff twisted and
|> >|> manipulated Worf, appealing to his innate tendencies was almost chilling.
|> >|> Especially after the way he'd used an entirely different set of tactics to
|> >|> try to turn Picard in the previous scene.
|>
|> >Yeah, but you knew what was going to happen. The captain wasn't going to
|> >budge in firing, MacDuff was going to question his command, and Worf was going
|> >to resist because his loyalities to his captain. MacDuff was appealing
|> >to just one aspect of Worf and the viewer knew Worf wasn't going to commit
|> >mutiny when the captain had justified reasons for not shooting. Only a
|> >moron couldn't have figured how this thing was going to end at that point.
|>
|> And only a moron couldn't have figured out Luke Skywalker would destroy the
|> Death Star in "Star Wars". Doesn't in the least alter the exhilaration one
|> gets watching it. Insisting *everything* be unexpected invites a lot of
True, I agree with you on both points. My reason for mentioning this was
to show that "Clues" left you hanging until the end, whereas this scene
was a complete foreshadow to just what was going to happen.
|> completely left-field concepts, and twists solely for the sake of twisting
|> get even more tedious than logically constructed, "predictable" plots.
|>
|> >Yes, but once the "orders" came in, the mystery was over.
|>
|> The "mystery" of who was behind this was resolved two minutes into the first
|> act. This wasn't supposed to be first and foremost a mystery any more than
|> "The Mind's Eye" was; it was watching the crew unconsciously fight to avoid
|> succumbing to something *we* knew was completely wrong. The mystery was *not*
|> over for them; not even remotely so.
Oh, I know this, but I was just comparing this to how the mystery was left
for us in "Clues". People were drawing comparisons with these two episodes,
and I was pointing out that in "Clues" (admittedly one of my favorites),
the viewer was left unsure of just what is going on until the alien comes
back through Troi. In this one, (as you pointed out above), the mystery to
the viewer was solved early, and the show was about watching the crew solve
it. Hey, I had no problem with this (I did enjoy this one, BTW), but the
differences in deliveries to the viewer was what I was commenting on. I
didn't mean it to be a complaint, just an observation between the two.
|> >Why are you putting the blame on Riker?
|>
|> I don't see anything in the last two articles to show that either Jerry or I
|> are doing any such thing. I'm just enjoying seeing the others play mind games
|> with him. :-) The only thing I would consider possibly worthy of any blame
|> would be dishonesty with each of Troi and Ro concerning the other [which,
|> incidentally, is what I suspect they were revenging themselves on him for].
Ok, I misunderstood the "blame", but I just felt Riker shouldn't feel
so confused.
|> >If I were Ro, I'd be more ashamed
|> >on how I behaved as such a blatant sexual aggressor.
|>
|> I'm not even going to start on this one...
Why not? Who acted more "out of character"? Riker or Ro? Who was the
aggressor? That is the whole reason I thought Riker shouldn't be too
embarrassed with himself. Ro acted like a drunk Tasha from "The Naked
Now", without the benefit of drugs... Whose "secret desires" did we learn
more about? Ro's, IMHO. She should be blushing, not Riker...
|>
|> >Not as airtight, IMHO. I just didn't believe the premise this guy could
|> >suppress long-term memory (including on a one-of-a-kind android, Data)
|> >and couldn't figure out how to develop something equivalent to a photon
|> >torpedo.
|>
|> I've addressed this point in a separate article. Two different technologies
|> involved.
I know, and since then I've still seen others post articles that feel the
way I do. To me, it wasn't a plot hole that made me not enjoy the show,
because I enjoyed the premise of the crew losing their memories and seeing
how they cope (Worf assumes command, Picard at a console, etc..). But to
me, nonetheless, it still was a hole. If it caused me to hate the show,
then I guess I'd call it a gorge.:-) I didn't call it that, but I did
think about it once I learned MacDuff's species didn't have the smarts
to create a photon torpedo, but they could do that much damage to the
Enterprise (erase memories, files, etc..).
|>
|> >Even if you believe the plot premise could happen, I thought it
|> >would be more appropriate if he gave himself the rank of captain. His job
|> >would have been much easier:
|>
|> Really? Would he have been able to convincingly run the entire ship the way
|> Picard did? Or would he have been revealed as a fraud earlier? As Stephen
Well, as I see it, all MacDuff would have had to do once the orders were known
was to say, "OK, this is our mission, let's do it." Like I said earlier,
Counselor Troi's objection would have been noted, and MacDuff would have
instructed Worf to fire. Besides, IMHO Worf was "convincingly" running the
ship until he learned he wasn't the captain, so why couldn't MacDuff posing
as the captain do likewise? Especially if the crew was not familiar with how
the ship was run (they were told it was a battleship that was on a mission
to destroy a central command). His orders, based on the current state of
the Federation (War), would have been normal. I just felt if MacDuff was
going to carry out his goal, why risk problems by not putting yourself in
command?
|> [among others] has pointed out, setting yourself up as exec is sort of like
|> worming your way into a Vice-Presidential spot; there isn't much to do except
|> sit around and look pretty. :-)
Yes, maybe that's why MacDuff's personality was better suited to be captain.
He certainly gave the impression he wanted to take charge, which would
have been less suspicious if he was the captain anyway! MacDuff's statements
would have been justified. Remember, it was Picard who questioned how
many people were on the station. I doubt that if there was a "Captain McDuff"
this question would have even been asked. It would have been a quick job,
that would have left hell to pay for the Enterprise after the fact.
Hmmm, it could have even been a 2-parter...:-)
Cliffhanger at part 1 is when MacDuff orders the fire. Immediately crew
has memory back (sure, if MacDuff can take away memories in an instant,
he could bring them back too), and MacDuff dissappears and crew is left
wondering just what happened...
I know, its a stretch, but at least people (myself included) wouldn't
be complaining about a quick ending...
|> Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
--
A biased source
>>tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>[blah, blah, and blah :-) ]
>>Spoilers for CONUNDRUM:
>>>As for the "plot holes the size of a moon"...funny, but
>>>none of the ones I've seen so far really seem to amount to much at all.
>
>>Let's see -- no records of any sort outside of the computer,
>
>Probably backed up periodically to Starfleet Command, which they couldn't
>contact...
I'll grant that as a definite possibility for the computer records, but
I still think that out of 1000 people aboard the ship, there are bound to
be one or two who are keeping a paper diary--we've already seen that several
of the bridge crew have a fondness for paper products. If nothing else,
they could (horrors!) scribble in the endpapers or the margins. (I have had
a truly magnificent day, but these margins are too small to contain it... ;)
>>never addressed the incongruity between the Lyssian's primitive
>>weapons technology and mind-wipe capability (yes, that *is* a plot hole,
>>and your rationalization strikes me as rather stretching.)
>
>It's a hole. It's not a gaping one. The two technologies strike me as quite
>distinct, and even if you don't take the initial rationalization of "maybe it
>wasn't theirs, but obtained otherwise", consider that we can do delicate
>surgery and yet not cure the common cold. There's nothing to show that these
>races really have the inclination to make things that blow up; perhaps they
>prefer to win their battles this way. Insisting technology be equal on every
>front simultaneously seems absurd to me.
I went after this analogy in another post. I don't insist that their tech
be equal on every front--that's just stupid. I *do* insist that it be
plausible, and I really don't see (ad nauseam) how one beam could affect
the entire crew AND the computer so selectively.
>You're right in that it's something that probably could have been explained
>better, but it's hardly as implausible as you make out.
IYHO, perhaps. MHO happens to disagree.
[wrt the revelation about M'Duff's purpose and where it occurred in the show]
>>But halfway is still too early.
>
>Not to me. It's just about right.
Difference in taste, here--I wouldn't have minded seeing him revealed about
halfway into the show. (In fact, the more I think about it the less I object
to knowing there was something funny going on at the beginning, though I *do*
wish he hadn't been quite so obvious.)
>That's more like it.
>
>> * His mannerism throughout -- he overplayed the "sneaky villain" bit
>> to the point where he stuck out from the others.
>
>Aside from the very end, and bits of his performance in sickbay, I just
>don't see it.
I don't either--I thought the actor (name?) did an excellent job trying NOT
to be the obvious villian. We've certainly seen Riker be at least as
belligerent before; it didn't bother me at all to see M'Duff do the same.
>> * His over-the-board reaction to Picard's suggestion to open hailing
>> frequencies ("NOOOO!!!!" -- like a man about to see his mother raped.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not this again... :(
>It didn't seem at all that overboard to me.
Nor I.
>> * His fourth-wall mugging on the diagnostic bed (sure, he had his face
>> turned away from Beverly, but a competent spy should stay in character
>> throughout.)
>
>Here I think you're overstating things a tad, but otherwise you've got a point.
I didn't pay that much attention, since I was watching what Bev was doing.
(Yeah, so sue me.) But I think I would've noticed excessive hamming, and I
didn't.
>>To sum up, the guy just didn't know how to act like an officer.
>
>I strongly disagree. I think he showed a surprising amount of (feigned, but
>not obviously so) sympathy for Picard's position, and used just the right
>method of attack in their little debate. He made for a more interesting
>XO there than Riker has the majority of the time.
Sadly, I must agree. Riker doesn't do enough "devil's advocate" stuff (all
Ardra jokes sent directly to /dev/null), except for the occasional "You don't
think you're beaming down there, do you, Captain?" Borrring...
[wrt the mindwipe beam]
>>I think Data is quite a stretch.
>
>Suit yourself.
I have to agree with Atsushi (or the pod duplicate :)--but only because I
think the E's computer is an equal stretch. If you grant the computer, Data
follows. He's said before, I believe, that the computer is far more complex
than he is.
>>>>How can any race which develops such a device
>>>>not develop weapons technology less primitive than the Lycians?
>>>
>>>Show me where it was claimed MacDuff or the Suttarans developed that device
>>>rather than obtaining it from, oh, Ferengi, and I'll answer.
Lack of any evidence to the contrary. It doesn't match any known technology,
ergo the simplest assumption is that it was developed by the race found using
it--and I just can't buy that.
>>>>Does no
>>>>one keep handwritten logs or notice the presence of families aboard a
>>>>so-called "battleship?"
>>>
>>>The logs: well, this was a problem with "Clues" as well, and one I recall you
>>>dismissing at the time.
>
>>Not quite: in CLUES, they had *time* to fix that problem as well as erasing
>>all other indications of the time-lapse.
>
>Along with time to add to it; several friends of mine have said outright that
>in that position, they'd have scribbled something down in a private diary for
>later perusal.
In "Clues"? The whole point was not to get killed--you don't try to screw
THAT up. Now I'm disagreeing with half of Caltech...guh-REAT. :)
>>The credibility problem was in
>>the MAGNITUDE of that task, and that's much harder to assess from the couch
>>than the one in CONUNDRUM.
>
>I don't think so. And if you're talking small personal diaries, what makes you
>think they'd say anything of importance?
They probably wouldn't, in most cases, but there are bound to be highly
personal incidents that get recorded in several different places. If nothing
else, they WOULD have a name in them.
>>TNG needs to learn that even one solid, sympathetic character is worth a
>>lot more, in terms of dramatic impact, than 15,000 (or whatever it was)
>>unseen, unnamed people aboard a station.)
>
>That's dehumanizing. "If we don't see the people and the deaths, we can't care
>about them." My apologies, but this is *exactly* the kind of attitude that led
>to "photogenic" wars like the Gulf War and its attendant press manipulation.
Tim, you're going a wee bit ballistic here...chill, please.
Atsushi's point is not that we can't care about them. That IS dehumanizing,
and to even suggest that's what he's saying is something I wouldn't expect
from you. His point is that, for better or worse, we'll care MORE about the
deaths of people we know than people we don't. IMHO, he overstated it a
little, but be honest--which bothers you more: the deaths of a dozen people
in a coal mine accident, none of whom you know, or the death of someone
you've known for quite a while and grown to like?
I don't mean to come off like an asshole here, and if I have I apologize
in advance. But to claim that proximity (in a metaphysical sense) shouldn't
affect how we feel about someone is unrealistic. I appreciate and deeply
respect the viewpoint that says differently, but I can never believe it
myself.
--
--Andrew Hackard Disclaimer: As usual, I wasn't consulted.
an...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
"You would never use 'Sie' when talking to your mother. Well, *you* might.
That would explain a lot." --my German prof, earning the respect of everyone
in the class except the recipient of the comment
Matt Hucke
>
>Yes, he did. In fairness, I think he made the minimal number of changes
>possible; to make Worf captain, you'd have to explain the rank pips and
>uniform colors, both of which are presumably in the intact portion of the
>records. I think he worked things so as to put himself in a good location, but
>as little else as possible.
He could have easily made himself an Admiral instead, and ordered Picard to
fire.
But this plan is so foolproof that it would have worked, and the episode
wouldn't have been as good. :) "Dramatic" outranks "realistic", as
usual.
--
Real Programmers Don't Eat Quiche.
hu...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Gene Roddenberry 1921-1991
Katy Thornton `92
AK == Atsushi Kanamori, kana...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Spoilers for Conundrum...
Just some more fuel for the fire. :-)
TL> The logs: well, this was a problem with "Clues" as well, and one I recall
TL> you dismissing at the time.
AK> Not quite: in CLUES, they had *time* to fix that problem as well as erasing
AK> all other indications of the time-lapse. The credibility problem was in
AK> the MAGNITUDE of that task, and that's much harder to assess from the couch
AK> than the one in CONUNDRUM.
Yes, but if the Lyssians have a mind-wiping beam, and can alter the
comptuers, who's to say that they DIDN'T have the time? And nobody
checked the time lapse on this occasion (as it was checked in Clues),
because they were having enough trouble remembering who they were that
they didn't think about how long they hadn't remembered who they were.
We can't say one way or the other whether there was enough time.
-- Katy
--
BSCS '92 Katy Thornton thor...@pollux.bucknell.edu ( o ) "One
_o Bucknell University Compuserve: 70324,1372 # to
O > O Lewisburg, PA |' U `| beam
Ride Bike! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into yours! v v up."
Atsushi Kanamori
>kana...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>In article <1992Feb24.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>[blah, blah, and blah :-) ]
>
>>Spoilers for CONUNDRUM:
>
>>Oh come on. You know that I'm one of the forgiving reviewers on the net when
>>it comes to plot consistency.
>
>WHAT?
>
>Pod person alert! All right, you, what have you done with the Atsushi we
>know?
>:-) You've said for over a year that you consider plot more important than
>characters,
I think you've got me confused with Michael or Paul Schinder. I've always
stressed characters and a lot of my "B- and above" episodes were
character-over-plot shows (can you say HOLLOW PURSUITS? FAMILY? HERO WORSHIP?)
>and have worked your buttocks off trying to demonstrate how plot
>holes can ruin an otherwise brilliantly written, directed, and acted episode.
Say what?? Just how many episodes have there been where I
1. Cited a plot hole as a major shortcoming.
2. Took off more than a third of a grade for it.
and
3. Agreed that the episode was otherwise "brilliantly written,
directed and acted"?
Even in CONUNDRUM, the plot holes were only one part of my gripe with
the show. I had problems with both the writing and acting.
>You're welcome to your priorities, but I can't believe you're *denying* them
>now...
I'm denying them because they're untrue. I've slammed episodes for not
presenting me with characters that interested me, for plot twists that
aborted a dramatic situation for a mundane one, for revealing obvious
plot points too early and for dealing with compelling issues from a distance.
I can't think of *any* instance where I significantly downgraded an episode
that I otherwise enjoyed because of a plot hole (DARMOK might be the closest
example, but that fell more into the "obvious plot point" category.)
Honestly, I'd be *very* interested in how you came to this conclusion.
>>Here's why I thought he was obvious:
>
>That's more like it.
>
>> * His mannerism throughout -- he overplayed the "sneaky villain" bit
>> to the point where he stuck out from the others.
>
>Aside from the very end, and bits of his performance in sickbay, I just
>don't see it.
His expression as Worf arrived for the meeting was another. It only
takes one slip to blow the whole kazoo -- the guy was careless... no,
he was *cocky*.
>
>> * His jumping up and activating the phaser array on his own initiative.
>
>??? I'm sorry, I'm confused. You mean when they fired on the Lysian ship?
>I don't remember him firing. You mean at the end? That's after he'd already
>lost.
Didn't say he fired, he left his post, went over to Ops and announced
"Phaser array activated" or something. Very eager-beaver.
>> * His over-the-board reaction to Picard's suggestion to open hailing
>> frequencies ("NOOOO!!!!" -- like a man about to see his mother raped.)
>
>It didn't seem at all that overboard to me.
But he should have played it cooler.
>> * His fourth-wall mugging on the diagnostic bed (sure, he had his face
>> turned away from Beverly, but a competent spy should stay in character
>> throughout.)
>
>Here I think you're overstating things a tad, but otherwise you've got a
>point.
>
>> * His "we are warriers" appeal to Worf. Wartime or not, the Enterprise
>> isn't a Klingon vessel.
>
>And Worf's also not a typical Klingon. Just how is MacDuff to know of Worf's
>loyalty to Picard, and to know it ran so deep? This was far from an "obvious"
>problem; it was the Persian flaw in MacDuff's otherwise strong plan.
Worf's loyalty to Picard should have been erased with his memory. Worf's
sense of *duty* perhaps, but that's part of what MacDuff was appealing to.
Anyway, it *was* a flaw in his strategy. And the fates don't accept excuses.
>> * His over-the-board actions in the climax -- far too pushy and irrational.
>
>He'd already lost, and he knew it. I agree that his actions there were
>obvious, but by then he had nothing to lose.
>
>>To sum up, the guy just didn't know how to act like an officer.
>
>I strongly disagree. I think he showed a surprising amount of (feigned, but
>not obviously so) sympathy for Picard's position, and used just the right
>method of attack in their little debate. He made for a more interesting
>XO there than Riker has the majority of the time.
Realistically, an XO isn't supposed to be "interesting" -- he's supposed to
be an XO. He *should* have been dull, to avoid drawing attention to himself.
(dramatically speaking, of course, a character with some punch is more
fun. But that's not the issue.)
>[on the chess game]
>
>>>>Annoyed me. Blatant ripoff.
>>>
>>>But of course, when they do things differently from TOS, you claim that
>>>they're losing sight of what made TOS work in the first place. Typical. :-)
>
>>Well, I think TNG *has* lost sight of what made TOS work -- but the problem
>>here isn't that they did things *differently*, it's that they did
>>things similarly on the surface but didn't really capture the essence of
>>what made TOS tick.
>
>You mean an interesting array of facets playing themselves out in a game?
>Snappy dialogue? Surprise winners? Tell me, what am I missing? :-)
Characters that I can give a damn about.
>And I *know* the point isn't that they did things differently; this time it's
>that it was a ripoff. If they do things similarly, it's a ripoff; and if it's
>different, they're obviously losing sight of TOS's strengths. You're putting
>them in a no-win situation.
If they capture the same essence with different surface trappings and devices,
I'll applaud them. Hell, if they'd capture the same essence with the *same*
trappings, that'd be an improvement -- but then we'd just have TOS again.
>>>>The way the moral dillema was handled was at least enough to drop it to a 7,
>>>
>>>Exactly what are you talking about? I've no idea.
>
>>I went over this in my review but to recap: this was another instance when
>>TNG relied too much on Patrick Stewart's finely tuned philosophizing ability
>>and not enough on concrete players and a true dillemma. Except for that
>>one destroyed Lyssian ship, the crew wasn't forced to take any action
>>of consequence until it was made clear that the Lyssian weapon technology
>>was laughably inferior. Picard's decision to not fire on the station was
>>easy then. Similarly, McDuff was completely one-sided with no redeeming
>>characteristics and Lyssians were abstracted into oblivion.
>
>I've already made my objection clear to this characterization of MacDuff:
>anyone capable of presenting as many alternate perspectives, and *good* ones
>[esp. in Picard's case] has both redeeming features and depth. As for "we
>didn't see the aliens, so they're not interesting", that's just something
>we're never going to agree on.
Apparently not (although you're stating it in rather black-and-white terms.)
TNG raises interesting issues and situations, but all too often, they deal
with it by talking about the issue rather than showing us the ramifications
of said issues. That *is* a dramatic shortcoming -- it's the difference
between living an experience and reading about it. As long as they keep
using such a clinical approach, I simply can't accept their claim that
humanity is an important ingredient for their show.
>>It would have been a lot more interesting if the Lyssian technology *had*
>>been strong enough to be a threat to the Federation and if they had
>>*personified* each side (the Federation/Sutteran and Lyssians) with
>>well-written, balanced characters with good points *and* bad points, each
>>who could make persuasive arguments for his side.
>
>That's a completely different story, though. It's got a lot of potential, but
>the show as written isn't *about* the Lysian/Suttaran war; it's about how the
>crew reacts to the situation they were placed in. You're suggesting a
>completely different show.
It was a major plot element and formed most of the latter half and climax of
the episode. It's far too meaty a premise to be treated like that.
>
>>TNG needs to learn that even one solid, sympathetic character is worth a
>>lot more, in terms of dramatic impact, than 15,000 (or whatever it was)
>>unseen, unnamed people aboard a station.)
>
>That's dehumanizing. "If we don't see the people and the deaths, we can't
>care about them."
>My apologies, but this is *exactly* the kind of attitude that led
>to "photogenic" wars like the Gulf War and its attendant press manipulation.
You're overreacting a bit here, as well as distorting my views. I do
*not* "not care" about tragedies that I read in the newspaper, but nor
do they affect me in the same way that a personal tragedy would. I don't
believe for a minute you could claim differently. We can philosophize till
doomsday as to whether we *should* react to a stranger's
problem as we would our own, *but* I do not watch TNG to become
an elevated sort of human, I watch it to be entertained.
>Anything that's building drama *without* having to put in some overblown
>character to do so has my support; we're too damned complacent as it is.
I didn't say "overblown", I said "well characterized". MacDuff *was*
overblown, IMO -- that made him less interesting to me.
>[I also note that when characters designed to be sympathetic *do* appear,
>such
>as Carmen in "Silicon Avatar", you dismiss them as silly sympathy ploys.
>Again, please try to make up your mind.]
There's a difference between "sympathy ploys" and "tacked-on sympathy ploys".
MacDuff, and the people in my suggested 3-player scenario, are necessary
and crucial to the plot. Carmen was not, nor were the elements that I
considered gratuitous sympathy ploys in ENSIGN RO. There were there
solely to generate sympathy -- that's not good plotting, it's just
manipulative and obvious. And, as you've observed, it doesn't work.
John Grohol
After much nonsense which probably took as long as the
episode was in length to type in, Tim finally gets to
some points...
YOU CANNOT BLOCK A PERSON'S MEMORY OF WHO THEY ARE WHILE
KEEPING THEIR "ABILITIES" INTACT.
Biologically, neurologically, and physiologically speaking,
this was an impossible act which made the rest unbelievable...
--
"And from the dark secluded valleys :: John M. Grohol
I heard the ancient songs of sadness :: Cntr for Psychological Studies
But every step I thought of you :: Nova Univ, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Every footstep only you." -- Sting :: gro...@novavax.nova.edu
Barry Margolin
>"Clues" had me guessing what
>was REALLY going on (which we didn't know until the end), whereas this one
>had me wondering when the crew would finally figure out what was REALLY
>going on.
In this respect, "Conundrums" was sort of like a "Columbo"-style "reverse
mystery". The premise isn't a mystery to the viewer, but it is to the main
characters. The mystery to the viewer is how the characters will solve
their mystery.
--
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.
bar...@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Kevin Klinge
|> In article <1992Feb24.1...@walter.bellcore.com> kev...@fugitive.soac.bellcore.com (Kevin Klinge) writes:
|> >"Clues" had me guessing what
|> >was REALLY going on (which we didn't know until the end), whereas this one
|> >had me wondering when the crew would finally figure out what was REALLY
|> >going on.
|>
|> In this respect, "Conundrums" was sort of like a "Columbo"-style "reverse
|> mystery". The premise isn't a mystery to the viewer, but it is to the main
|> characters. The mystery to the viewer is how the characters will solve
|> their mystery.
|>
Exactly! That's what I was trying to say!:-) Both episodes in this
respect were presented differently to the viewer. I just happen to
prefer the mysteries like "Clues" where I am just as baffled as the
Captain was about Data's behavior. It doesn't mean I don't like the
"Columbo"-style mysteries (such as "Conundrum"), but I don't see the
similarities as much as others because they are presented differently
to the viewer.
I also feel that given the introduction of the new first officer (MacDuff),
there was probably no way the writers could have presented "Conundrum" like
a "Clues"-type mystery. There was just too many things the smart TNG viewer
would have noticed (which we did).
--
Kevin H. Klinge "Data, who gave you this order?"
Bell Communications Research "You did, sir..."
kev...@soac.bellcore.com - Data to Picard in "Clues"
scott.forbes
>
>After much nonsense which probably took as long as the
>episode was in length to type in, Tim finally gets to
>some points...
>
>
>YOU CANNOT BLOCK A PERSON'S MEMORY OF WHO THEY ARE WHILE
>KEEPING THEIR "ABILITIES" INTACT.
Yah, and the ship was travelling faster than the speed of light, too.
Completely implausible. Ruined the episode for me. ;-)
>Biologically, neurologically, and physiologically speaking,
>this was an impossible act which made the rest unbelievable...
Oh, I don't know (said the psych minor, sticking out his neck) if it was
"impossible" as you describe. I'd actually rate it more likely than a
discovery leading to FTL travel, given our current knowledge of physics.
Of course physics == voodoo for some high percentage of our audience
(advance apologies to the USENET audience, which is overpopulated with
people seeking technical degrees), so this suspension of disbelief is
essential to watching and enjoying the show. If they someday announce
that the Enterprise computers are running FORTRAN-2355 on an 80986 chip
I'll probably have the same reaction that you had to this episode, and
sit there going "WHAT?" for the rest of the hour... but I have to admit
that this isn't *impossible*, just very, very unlikely.
Meanwhile, my limited knowledge of neurobiology allows me to suspend
this disbelief without much effort. :-) An amnesia ray! No problem!
Used to have one myself when I was a kid...
-- =====
Scott Forbes AT&T Network Wireless Systems =---=====
Naperville, IL for...@icbm.att.com =-----=====
==---======
"Ah, mango drink!" [BLAM!] =========
-- Hamton Pig, _Tiny Toon Adventures_ =====
gary l. schroeder
>
>episode was in length to type in, Tim finally gets to
>some points...
>
>
>
>YOU CANNOT BLOCK A PERSON'S MEMORY OF WHO THEY ARE WHILE
>KEEPING THEIR "ABILITIES" INTACT.
>
>Biologically, neurologically, and physiologically speaking,
>this was an impossible act which made the rest unbelievable...
Simple. It's science _fiction_, man. We could just as easily say:
YOU CANNOT TRAVEL AT FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEEDS. AND EVEN IF YOU DID, BY
THE TIME YOU GOT TO YOUR DESTINATION, THE UNIVERSE WOULD HAVE AGED A
THOUSAND YEARS.
But then, ST without warp drive would be awfully dull, wouldn't it?
--
--------------
Gary Schroeder
schr...@bnlux1.bnl.gov
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Windsor A. Morgan
>In article <34...@novavax.UUCP> gro...@novavax.UUCP (John Grohol) writes:
>>After much nonsense which probably took as long as the
>>episode was in length to type in, Tim finally gets to
>>some points...
>>YOU CANNOT BLOCK A PERSON'S MEMORY OF WHO THEY ARE WHILE
>>KEEPING THEIR "ABILITIES" INTACT.
>>Biologically, neurologically, and physiologically speaking,
>>this was an impossible act which made the rest unbelievable...
>Simple. It's science _fiction_, man. We could just as easily say:
>YOU CANNOT TRAVEL AT FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEEDS. AND EVEN IF YOU DID, BY
>THE TIME YOU GOT TO YOUR DESTINATION, THE UNIVERSE WOULD HAVE AGED A
>THOUSAND YEARS.
>
>But then, ST without warp drive would be awfully dull, wouldn't it?
It sure would. Why, the Enterprise would have to stay in the Sol
system and all we would see would be Humans and no aliens. The way it
is now, we see aliens all the time because the Enterprise is
"exploring strange new worlds".
Wait a second ...
:-)
--
'Verily, there be no leader as wise as the Vision!'
Windsor Morgan (wmo...@stsci.edu OR N...@PSUVM.BITNET)
Space Telescope Science Institute
Baltimore, MD 21218
Michael Rawdon
>In <1992Feb24.1...@walter.bellcore.com> kev...@fugitive.soac.bellcore.com (Kevin Klinge) writes:
>>In article <1992Feb23....@cs.mcgill.ca>, je...@cs.mcgill.ca (Gerald (Jerry) KUCH) writes:
>>|> WARNING WILL ROBINSON...AVAST HERE BE SPOILERS!
>>|>
>>|> In article <1992Feb23.0...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>I disagree. With "Clues", you actually didn't know what was going on other
>>than the crew passing out for what Data said was 30 seconds, when other
>>indications appeared otherwise. Here, with the "green wave" lifeform
>>flying through the ship erasing everyone's memories, a new "#1" officer,
>>and some bogus orders about the Federation being in a war, it was easy
>>to figure out.
>Actually, while I agree with your overall point, the plot wasn't
>entirely clear right away. I thought it might be some kind of test,
>as in TOS's OK corral episode: see how aggressive they are when you
>set them up.
That occurred to me, briefly, except that MacDuff's very presence and rank
(which tipped me off instantly that he wasd behind it all) signalled to me
thatit's wasn't a "set up"; it was outright manipulation, to some end.
Once that occurred to me, it seemed quite plausible that MacDuff wanted to
destroy the command station to win some war that HE was fighting. Which
turned out to be essentially correct.
I had all this figured out not long after the crew learned their names.
> Or something along the lines of capturing alien races
>and making them fight against each other (TOS's "quatloo" episode). I
>was not certain that the Lycians were real until the end.
I was. Ah, well.
--
Michael Rawdon
raw...@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI
"It is a fool's prerogative to utter truths that no one else will speak."
- Dream, "A Midsummer Night's Dream"
Timothy W. Lynch
>tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>kana...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>>tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>[blah, blah, and blah :-) ]
>>>Spoilers for CONUNDRUM:
>of the bridge crew have a fondness for paper products. If nothing else,
>they could (horrors!) scribble in the endpapers or the margins. (I have had
>a truly magnificent day, but these margins are too small to contain it... ;)
Ensign Fermat? Is he canon? :-)
>[wrt the revelation about M'Duff's purpose and where it occurred in the show]
>>>But halfway is still too early.
>>
>>Not to me. It's just about right.
>Difference in taste, here--I wouldn't have minded seeing him revealed about
>halfway into the show.
I think the purpose, etc., *was* basically revealed halfway in, and that
seemed about right. Earlier and you feel cheated; later and things get even
more rushed than they tend to anyway.
>[wrt the mindwipe beam]
>>>I think Data is quite a stretch.
>>
>>Suit yourself.
>I have to agree with Atsushi (or the pod duplicate :)--but only because I
>think the E's computer is an equal stretch. If you grant the computer, Data
>follows. He's said before, I believe, that the computer is far more complex
>than he is.
I agree with your linkage, and simply take the alternate route. I don't see
the computer as much of a stretch, and thus Data follows.
>>>>>How can any race which develops such a device
>>>>>not develop weapons technology less primitive than the Lycians?
>>>>
>>>>Show me where it was claimed MacDuff or the Suttarans developed that device
>>>>rather than obtaining it from, oh, Ferengi, and I'll answer.
>Lack of any evidence to the contrary. It doesn't match any known technology,
>ergo the simplest assumption is that it was developed by the race found using
>it--and I just can't buy that.
Unfortunately, this *is* a good point. I'll have to concede this one to our
good friend Occam. :-) [The only semi-hemi-circumstantial evidence is that
we know the Ferengi have mind control capabilities, but if they had it,
*they'd* be using it.]
>>>Not quite: in CLUES, they had *time* to fix that problem as well as erasing
>>>all other indications of the time-lapse.
>>
>>Along with time to add to it; several friends of mine have said outright that
>>in that position, they'd have scribbled something down in a private diary for
>>later perusal.
>In "Clues"? The whole point was not to get killed--you don't try to screw
>THAT up. Now I'm disagreeing with half of Caltech...guh-REAT. :)
Actually, it's Cornellians. Even worse. :-)
>>I don't think so. And if you're talking small personal diaries, what makes
>>you think they'd say anything of importance?
>They probably wouldn't, in most cases, but there are bound to be highly
>personal incidents that get recorded in several different places. If nothing
>else, they WOULD have a name in them.
And possibly did. Of course, if they're highly personal diaries hiding in
one's room, the mindwipe might have made people forget where they were hidden!
:-) :-)
>>>TNG needs to learn that even one solid, sympathetic character is worth a
>>>lot more, in terms of dramatic impact, than 15,000 (or whatever it was)
>>>unseen, unnamed people aboard a station.)
>>
>>That's dehumanizing. "If we don't see the people and the deaths, we can't
>>care about them." My apologies, but this is *exactly* the kind of attitude
>>that led to "photogenic" wars like the Gulf War and its attendant press
>>manipulation.
>Tim, you're going a wee bit ballistic here...chill, please.
I didn't see it as particularly ballistic, but I'll deal with this in my
response to Atsushi, since you make similar points. Consider me chilled.
Tim Lynch
Timothy W. Lynch
>In article <1992Feb24....@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>[blah, blah, and blah :-) ]
>>
>>>Spoilers for CONUNDRUM:
>>>Oh come on. You know that I'm one of the forgiving reviewers on the net when
>>>it comes to plot consistency.
>>
>>WHAT?
>>
>>Pod person alert! All right, you, what have you done with the Atsushi we
>>know?
>>:-) You've said for over a year that you consider plot more important than
>>characters,
>I think you've got me confused with Michael or Paul Schinder.
No. I'm well aware that both of them say the same thing, and are substantially
more overt about it, but I've quite strongly identified you with the same
preference, and I can't believe I'd do so without *some* kind of reason for
it.
I'll take your word for all this (particularly because I don't archive others'
reviews, and thus can't dig up evidence to refute it), but if you've always
held that attitude so strongly, then either you've not been putting it well or
I've not been reading it well, or a combination thereof.
[on MacDuff being an "obvious" villain]
>>> * His mannerism throughout -- he overplayed the "sneaky villain" bit
>>> to the point where he stuck out from the others.
>>
>>Aside from the very end, and bits of his performance in sickbay, I just
>>don't see it.
>His expression as Worf arrived for the meeting was another. It only
>takes one slip to blow the whole kazoo -- the guy was careless... no,
>he was *cocky*.
Yes, he *was* cocky. By that time, things were falling into place; he was
quite entitled to be. He *should* have been more careful, but he's allowed
a few private failings (and they were private; he *was* careful enough to make
sure all this was out of eyeshot).
>>> * His jumping up and activating the phaser array on his own initiative.
>>
>>??? I'm sorry, I'm confused. You mean when they fired on the Lysian ship?
>>I don't remember him firing. You mean at the end? That's after he'd already
>>lost.
>Didn't say he fired, he left his post, went over to Ops and announced
>"Phaser array activated" or something. Very eager-beaver.
I still remember nothing of it. I'll have to go back and check.
>>> * His over-the-board reaction to Picard's suggestion to open hailing
>>> frequencies ("NOOOO!!!!" -- like a man about to see his mother raped.)
>>
>>It didn't seem at all that overboard to me.
>But he should have played it cooler.
Why?
>>> * His "we are warriers" appeal to Worf. Wartime or not, the Enterprise
>>> isn't a Klingon vessel.
>>
>>And Worf's also not a typical Klingon. Just how is MacDuff to know of Worf's
>>loyalty to Picard, and to know it ran so deep? This was far from an "obvious"
>>problem; it was the Persian flaw in MacDuff's otherwise strong plan.
>Worf's loyalty to Picard should have been erased with his memory.
No! That's the entire *point* of the various character bits the show had; to
show what basic traits still shone through. Worf's sense of honor and duty
(to one's captain, above all) is one of those things.
>Worf's
>sense of *duty* perhaps, but that's part of what MacDuff was appealing to.
And one that has always, first and foremost, been to his captain. Even when
Picard's been suspicious ["Allegiance", for instance], Worf's always the least
accepting of a concept like mutiny.
>Anyway, it *was* a flaw in his strategy. And the fates don't accept excuses.
But an understandable, reasonable, and well-grounded flaw isn't an "excuse";
it's drama.
>>I've already made my objection clear to this characterization of MacDuff:
>>anyone capable of presenting as many alternate perspectives, and *good* ones
>>[esp. in Picard's case] has both redeeming features and depth. As for "we
>>didn't see the aliens, so they're not interesting", that's just something
>>we're never going to agree on.
>Apparently not (although you're stating it in rather black-and-white terms.)
>TNG raises interesting issues and situations, but all too often, they deal
>with it by talking about the issue rather than showing us the ramifications
>of said issues.
Sometimes, yes, and sometimes it's a big problem. It isn't *always* a big
problem, and in this case they IMHO correctly avoided complicating the issue
by bringing in elaborate aliens. They are not the point; the characters on
board are. Quite honestly, I can think of nothing they could do with a
Lysian appearance (aside from "obvious sympathy ploys") that would have added
to my enjoyment of the show.
>That *is* a dramatic shortcoming -- it's the difference
>between living an experience and reading about it.
Maybe you should try reading more. It can be rewarding, trust me. :-)
>>>TNG needs to learn that even one solid, sympathetic character is worth a
>>>lot more, in terms of dramatic impact, than 15,000 (or whatever it was)
>>>unseen, unnamed people aboard a station.)
>>
>>That's dehumanizing. "If we don't see the people and the deaths, we can't
>>care about them."
>>My apologies, but this is *exactly* the kind of attitude that led
>>to "photogenic" wars like the Gulf War and its attendant press manipulation.
>You're overreacting a bit here, as well as distorting my views. I do
>*not* "not care" about tragedies that I read in the newspaper, but nor
>do they affect me in the same way that a personal tragedy would. I don't
>believe for a minute you could claim differently.
This is a bit overboard, but you've here managed to hit on one of my own hot
buttons. Yes, I obviously *do* react to personally experienced tragedies more
than I do to faceless ones; and yes, I do react well, often viscerally, when
there are people on the screen suffering rather then simply words thereto.
I do not, however, claim this is a good thing, or a strong point. Quite the
opposite; there've been many cases where I've watched something and reacted
with my gut about it, and then wondered why I did so afterwards. Appealing to
gut feelings like that is, quite frankly, one of the reasons I think things
like David Duke's run for governor was so frighteningly successful, and it's
something I try to play to *avoid* as a result.
Perhaps you think this makes me boring, staid and emotionless. I will readily
admit that there is a positive side to grabbing a gut-emotional hook. I react,
and react hard, however, when I am told (in virtually any context) that some-
thing is *failing* by not proceeding in that fashion.
I would like, at some point in the (far) future, to have a situation where
one *doesn't* need to see the person die to feel strongly affected by his or
her death. If something tries to build up that side of things, and manages to
do so well, I'll applaud them.
Anyway, enough sermonizing.
>>Anything that's building drama *without* having to put in some overblown
>>character to do so has my support; we're too damned complacent as it is.
>I didn't say "overblown", I said "well characterized". MacDuff *was*
>overblown, IMO -- that made him less interesting to me.
Here's where we have fundamental conflict over characters. I think MacDuff was
far from overblown, and quite well characterized; and based on our TOS/TNG
battles, I think most of your ideas on characterization tend to lead to people
I *do* find overblown. Same ol' deadlock.
>>[I also note that when characters designed to be sympathetic *do* appear,
>>such as Carmen in "Silicon Avatar", you dismiss them as silly sympathy ploys.
>>Again, please try to make up your mind.]
>There's a difference between "sympathy ploys" and "tacked-on sympathy ploys".
I know; that's why I used "designed to be" above. I figured you'd grab the
easy out. :-)
>MacDuff, and the people in my suggested 3-player scenario, are necessary
>and crucial to the plot. Carmen was not, nor were the elements that I
>considered gratuitous sympathy ploys in ENSIGN RO.
I think Carmen was important; it gave Riker a strong reason to be anti-Entity,
when he otherwise might be much more in Picard's court. It's the same reason
many are giving for Troi's romance in "The Masterpiece Society"; although I
found the execution there unnecessary and overdone, the underlying assumption's
the same.
>And, as you've observed, it doesn't work.
No--as I've observed, you can't stand it. Whether it works or not is another
can o' beans.
Atsushi Kanamori
>kana...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>In article <1992Feb24....@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>[blah, blah, and blah :-) ]
>>>
>>>>Spoilers for CONUNDRUM:
>
>>>>Oh come on. You know that I'm one of the forgiving reviewers on the net when
>>>>it comes to plot consistency.
>>>
>>>WHAT?
>>>
>>>Pod person alert! All right, you, what have you done with the Atsushi we
>>>know?
>>>:-) You've said for over a year that you consider plot more important than
>>>characters,
>
>>I think you've got me confused with Michael or Paul Schinder.
>
>No. I'm well aware that both of them say the same thing, and are
>substantially
>more overt about it, but I've quite strongly identified you with the same
>preference, and I can't believe I'd do so without *some* kind of reason for
>it.
>
>I'll take your word for all this (particularly because I don't archive others'
>reviews, and thus can't dig up evidence to refute it), but if you've always
>held that attitude so strongly, then either you've not been putting it well or
>I've not been reading it well, or a combination thereof.
I've been fairly quiet on the characterization vs. plot issue (especially
characters stories that are really successful for me occur rather rarely on
TNG) but what I claimed was that plot HOLES didn't usually drive me crazy
relative to other reviewers. That, I thought, was quite obvious. Oh well.
>[on MacDuff being an "obvious" villain]
>[not much left to say since we're each giving and taking a little and
> the line is a matter of taste anyhow, but...]
>
>>>> * His "we are warriers" appeal to Worf. Wartime or not, the Enterprise
>>>> isn't a Klingon vessel.
>>>
>>>And Worf's also not a typical Klingon. Just how is MacDuff to know of
>>>Worf's
>>>loyalty to Picard, and to know it ran so deep? This was far from an
>>>"obvious"
>>>problem; it was the Persian flaw in MacDuff's otherwise strong plan.
>
>But an understandable, reasonable, and well-grounded flaw isn't an "excuse";
>it's drama.
Okay, but we weren't discussing dramatic impact here -- we were discussing
the airtightness of McDuff's strategy. A flaw is a flaw.
>>>I've already made my objection clear to this characterization of MacDuff:
>>>anyone capable of presenting as many alternate perspectives, and *good* ones
>>>[esp. in Picard's case] has both redeeming features and depth. As for "we
>>>didn't see the aliens, so they're not interesting", that's just something
>>>we're never going to agree on.
>
>>Apparently not (although you're stating it in rather black-and-white terms.)
>>TNG raises interesting issues and situations, but all too often, they deal
>>with it by talking about the issue rather than showing us the ramifications
>>of said issues.
>
>Sometimes, yes, and sometimes it's a big problem. It isn't *always* a big
>problem, and in this case they IMHO correctly avoided complicating the issue
>by bringing in elaborate aliens. They are not the point; the characters on
>board are. Quite honestly, I can think of nothing they could do with a
>Lysian appearance (aside from "obvious sympathy ploys") that would have added
>to my enjoyment of the show.
I suspect we disagree on what the episode was trying to accomplish (or more
accurately, what the episode *did* accomplish) but my general point still
stands. In any case, the war plot *was* a propelling plot element and
formed the major climax of the story, and there were too many dramatic
possibilities in it, IMO, for it be a plot device. But back to the main
thread...
>>That *is* a dramatic shortcoming -- it's the difference
>>between living an experience and reading about it.
>
>Maybe you should try reading more. It can be rewarding, trust me. :-)
>
>>>>TNG needs to learn that even one solid, sympathetic character is worth a
>>>>lot more, in terms of dramatic impact, than 15,000 (or whatever it was)
>>>>unseen, unnamed people aboard a station.)
>>>
>>>That's dehumanizing. "If we don't see the people and the deaths, we can't
>>>care about them."
>>>My apologies, but this is *exactly* the kind of attitude that led
>>>to "photogenic" wars like the Gulf War and its attendant press manipulation.
>
>>You're overreacting a bit here, as well as distorting my views. I do
>>*not* "not care" about tragedies that I read in the newspaper, but nor
>>do they affect me in the same way that a personal tragedy would. I don't
>>believe for a minute you could claim differently.
>
>This is a bit overboard, but you've here managed to hit on one of my own hot
>buttons. Yes, I obviously *do* react to personally experienced tragedies more
>than I do to faceless ones; and yes, I do react well, often viscerally, when
>there are people on the screen suffering rather then simply words thereto.
>
>I do not, however, claim this is a good thing, or a strong point. Quite the
>opposite;
Have to agree with Andrew here, you *are* going a bit ballistic. I don't
claim that it's a good thing either, but nor would I claim it's
a good thing to derive entertainment from observing a series of events
involving lots of people killing each other -- yet that's EXACTLY what you do
every time you pop your "richer" EMPIRE tape into the VCR.
Of course, lots of people *aren't* really killing each other, it's just a
bunch of actors falling on their faces with hugely expensive SFX added on.
It's FICTION, and there is an escapist aspect to almost any fictional
IMO. Constraining it to the ethical rules of The Real World would stifle a
lot of drama, including much of our beloved TNG.
My point is, comparing TNG to a governer election is going a bit far, IMO.
There's a time and place for rational thinking and there's a time and place
for emotional thinking. TNG isn't a debate that'll change the course
of people's lives, it's dramatic fiction -- and it's got to deal with
emotions and feelings better than it (often) does.
End of counter-sermon :-)
>>>Anything that's building drama *without* having to put in some overblown
>>>character to do so has my support; we're too damned complacent as it is.
>
>>I didn't say "overblown", I said "well characterized". MacDuff *was*
>>overblown, IMO -- that made him less interesting to me.
>
>Here's where we have fundamental conflict over characters. I think MacDuff
>was
>far from overblown, and quite well characterized; and based on our TOS/TNG
>battles, I think most of your ideas on characterization tend to lead to people
>I *do* find overblown. Same ol' deadlock.
Suppose so. Clinch.
John T. whelan
>Actually, one wonders where Troi learned to play 3-D chess well. Who would
>play chess with any kind of telepath? (Vulcans at least have to touch you.)
An android, perhaps? :-)
John Whelan
--
"You can't possibly be a scientist if you
mind people thinking that you're a fool."
-- Wonko the Sane, _So_Long,_
_and_Thanks_for_All_the_Fish_
Stephen Dennison
>I hardly ever write to this group, but I had to state that I thought this
>was one of the best all time episodes. I was glued to my chair the entire
>time.
*That* couldn't have been comfortable. :-)
>
>One quick comment:
>
>Seems to me that Riker has laid just about everyone on the show except
>Wesley?
I can think of *one* other character he has yet to ...
..cling-on to. :-)
>I heard rumors of a gay oriented episode: seems like definite
>possibilities to me!
Hey ! Now you're starting to sound like one 'o them Wesley-phobes ! :-)
Stephen
If you love a thing, let it go. If it returns to you, let it go again...
and again ... and again ... and if it *keeps* coming back, have it committed !
David P. Murphy
>Remember, it was Picard who questioned how many people were on the station.
>I doubt that if there was a "Captain McDuff" this question would have even
>been asked. It would have been a quick job,
>that would have left hell to pay for the Enterprise after the fact.
>
no, troi asked data, who responded "15,311".
which begs the question, "if it was 153 people, would Picard have fired?"
if not, then why bother hammering home the fact that "thousands of lives
are at stake"?
ok
dpm
--
mur...@npri6.npri.com
602 Cameron St.
Alexandria, VA 22314 The First Amendment:
(703) 683-9090 it's not just a good idea, it's the law.
A biased source
>an...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (A biased source) writes:
>>tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>kana...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>>>tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>[blah, blah, and blah :-) ]
>>>>Spoilers for CONUNDRUM:
>>of the bridge crew have a fondness for paper products. If nothing else,
>>they could (horrors!) scribble in the endpapers or the margins. (I have had
>>a truly magnificent day, but these margins are too small to contain it... ;)
>
>Ensign Fermat? Is he canon? :-)
He's conjectured, anyway...
[Where did they get that marvelous beam? :)]
>>Lack of any evidence to the contrary. It doesn't match any known technology,
>>ergo the simplest assumption is that it was developed by the race found using
>>it--and I just can't buy that.
>
>Unfortunately, this *is* a good point. I'll have to concede this one to our
>good friend Occam. :-) [The only semi-hemi-circumstantial evidence is that
>we know the Ferengi have mind control capabilities, but if they had it,
>*they'd* be using it.]
Yay!! :)
Umm...sorry about that. I'm perfectly willing to accept that they DID get
the beam from someone else, and if future shows address that, I'll happily
eat crow. (No, NOT that one. He's capitalized.) The problem I have is that
there's no hint of an indication that it wasn't Suttaran technology, but
(f'rinstance) Ferengi--even a "Captain, the scanning beam appears similar
to <insert race here> technology," and I'd be happily claiming they got it
somewhere else along with you.
>>In "Clues"? The whole point was not to get killed--you don't try to screw
>>THAT up. Now I'm disagreeing with half of Caltech...guh-REAT. :)
>
>Actually, it's Cornellians. Even worse. :-)
No, it isn't--they're snowbound. Pasadenans (Pasadenites? Wait, I know--
Pasadenizens!!) can get to me.
>And possibly did. Of course, if they're highly personal diaries hiding in
>one's room, the mindwipe might have made people forget where they were hidden!
>:-) :-)
I think, based on Riker's little horgon scene, that most people went off and
did a thorough search of their rooms. Anyway, it doesn't matter THAT much.
>>Tim, you're going a wee bit ballistic here...chill, please.
>
>I didn't see it as particularly ballistic, but I'll deal with this in my
>response to Atsushi, since you make similar points. Consider me chilled.
Actually, *I* was out of line--the response was made in the heat of the
moment and was out of proportion to your comments. Consider me chilled as
well. (BTW, I was going to respond to Atsushi's post, but I doubt the rest
of the net cares, and it's going pretty far afield from Trek anyway. Expect
email, Tim. :)
--
--Andrew Hackard Disclaimer: As usual, I wasn't consulted.
an...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Do not taunt Happy Gusball...Congrats on 25 years, Coach!!
Timothy W. Lynch
>In article <1992Feb25.2...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
Pant, pant, pant. I'm gettin' too old for this sort of thing. All these
>'s to clamber over...:-)
>>>>>Spoilers for CONUNDRUM:
>>
>>[on MacDuff being an "obvious" villain]
>>[not much left to say since we're each giving and taking a little and
>> the line is a matter of taste anyhow, but...]
Agreed there.
>>But an understandable, reasonable, and well-grounded flaw isn't an "excuse";
>>it's drama.
>Okay, but we weren't discussing dramatic impact here -- we were discussing
>the airtightness of McDuff's strategy. A flaw is a flaw.
As far as *his* understanding of the situation permitted, it was airtight.
He is not to blame for Worf's uniqueness among Klingons, or for being
unaware of it.
And the main event...:-)
>>>>>TNG needs to learn that even one solid, sympathetic character is worth a
>>>>>lot more, in terms of dramatic impact, than 15,000 (or whatever it was)
>>>>>unseen, unnamed people aboard a station.)
>>>>
>>>>That's dehumanizing. "If we don't see the people and the deaths, we can't
>>>>care about them." My apologies, but this is *exactly* the kind of
>>>>attitude that led to "photogenic" wars like the Gulf War and its attendant
>>>>press manipulation.
>>
>>>You're overreacting a bit here, as well as distorting my views. I do
>>>*not* "not care" about tragedies that I read in the newspaper, but nor
>>>do they affect me in the same way that a personal tragedy would. I don't
>>>believe for a minute you could claim differently.
>>
>>This is a bit overboard, but you've here managed to hit on one of my own hot
>>buttons. Yes, I obviously *do* react to personally experienced tragedies more
>>than I do to faceless ones; and yes, I do react well, often viscerally, when
>>there are people on the screen suffering rather then simply words thereto.
>>I do not, however, claim this is a good thing, or a strong point. Quite the
>>opposite;
>Have to agree with Andrew here, you *are* going a bit ballistic.
"Ballistic" isn't the word I'd use. I'll readily admit to being overboard on
this, probably unreasonably so.
My apologies if I gave the impression that you were somehow glorying in the
situation I describe above; it wasn't meant. As you say, it really is a
part of human nature to react more to "visible" tragedies than to faceless
ones, and a perfectly natural part. It's a part that scares me, and it's a
part I think humanity would be better off without (to quote Riker in one of
the half-dozen good lines from "The Bonding", "Maybe [if we could react to
faceless tragedies better], human history would have been a lot less
bloody."), but it's not something any one person, or any one group of
people, is worthy of any sort of blame for.
>I don't
>claim that it's a good thing either, but nor would I claim it's
>a good thing to derive entertainment from observing a series of events
>involving lots of people killing each other -- yet that's EXACTLY what you do
>every time you pop your "richer" EMPIRE tape into the VCR.
There are two possible responses to this. One is that the entire SW saga
only has about half a dozen *people*, and that the whole story is so black
and white that you're meant not to see it that way.
The other is to acknowledge the point as valid and move on.
>It's FICTION, and there is an escapist aspect to almost any fictional
>IMO. Constraining it to the ethical rules of The Real World would stifle a
>lot of drama, including much of our beloved TNG.
Getting back to established character norms...
I think it's possible to make the argument that, the way the TNG characters
have been presented over the years, the "faceless is less gripping" part of
human nature is something that's been significantly lessened by TNG time.
Not removed, by any means; Tasha's death as compared to Random Crewman Z's
death makes that clear. But lessened.
You deleted one of the important things I said in my initial sermon. [Dueling
monologues...feels like "The Drumhead"! :-) ] If TNG can present the death
of "faceless thousands" *with the same dramatic impact* as a single, visible,
graphic death, then I'll applaud it. That's difficult to do, and even more
so to assess. I think they've managed it fairly well, but given my own
feelings on the matter I'm likely to be forgiving on it. You obviously think
they failed miserably here. Suit yourself; but I know who's having more fun
for an hour on Wednesday nights. ;-)
Sorry if this (and the last couple of posts as well) has been a bit on the
preachy side. I *do* tend to ramble. This sort of desensitization does
concern me and is likely to continue to do so, but there's a time to talk
about it and a time not to. (It may come up again someday; a friend of
mine is working on a story around just this sort of thing...)
One last point: I just want to make it clear to anyone still reading [you can
wake up now!] that I don't advocate any sort of censorship; the "desensi-
tization" argument is one I often see used as a justification for such, and
I think that's misplaced. I'd like the market to lose interest, not to see it
shut down; and force can only do the latter.
Okay, it's *really* end of sermon now. :-)
>My point is, comparing TNG to a governer election is going a bit far, IMO.
Agreed. This is the price you pay for having me around during the '92
election season. If you think I'm bad now, wait 'til late October! :-)
>There's a time and place for rational thinking and there's a time and place
>for emotional thinking. TNG isn't a debate that'll change the course
>of people's lives, it's dramatic fiction -- and it's got to deal with
>emotions and feelings better than it (often) does.
Whose emotions? Whose feelings? The crew's? I think they do so fairly
well most of the time. Yours? Everyone reacts differently; they manage to
wrench mine around quite well.
And I think some of the arguments flying around r.a.s.* now and elsewhen
[first contact, the "rape and ST6" thread, the social arguments circling
around "The Drumhead", bits of this one (admittedly only peripherally linked),
etc.] show that Trek in general (incl. TNG) *can* contain and foster a lot
of debate; not necessarily ones that'll change the course of people's lives,
but ones that are likely to affect them in some cases.
Aaaaaaaaanyway...hmm, guess that's it.
Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET: tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
"Don't talk...I will listen
Don't talk...you keep your distance,
For I'd rather hear some truth tonight, than entertain your lies..."
--10,000 Maniacs, "Don't Talk"
Timothy W. Lynch
an...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (A biased source) writes:
>tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>>>Spoilers for CONUNDRUM:
>>Of course, if there're highly personal diaries hiding in one's room, the
>>mindwipe might have made people forget where they were hidden!
>>:-) :-)
>I think, based on Riker's little horgon scene, that most people went off and
>did a thorough search of their rooms.
"Thorough search"? The first time we see his quarters, the horgon's just
*sitting* there on the bureau! I do a more thorough search every morning
trying to find space on my desk! :-)
Tim Lynch
Atsushi Kanamori
>kana...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>In article <1992Feb25.2...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>
>Pant, pant, pant. I'm gettin' too old for this sort of thing. All these
>>'s to clamber over...:-)
>
>>>>>>Spoilers for CONUNDRUM:
>>>
>
>
>
>
>>claim that it's a good thing either, but nor would I claim it's
>>a good thing to derive entertainment from observing a series of events
>>involving lots of people killing each other -- yet that's EXACTLY what you do
>>every time you pop your "richer" EMPIRE tape into the VCR.
>
>There are two possible responses to this. One is that the entire SW saga
>only has about half a dozen *people*, and that the whole story is so black
>and white that you're meant not to see it that way.
Of course, it's a response that flies in the face of your position
of reactions to tragedies: we may not know their names or personalities,
but they're still people with lives, histories and families and that,
according to you, their deaths shouldn't mean any less to us. But you
probably know that :-)
>The other is to acknowledge the point as valid and move on.
Aye...
>You deleted one of the important things I said in my initial sermon. [Dueling
>monologues...feels like "The Drumhead"! :-) ] If TNG can present the death
>of "faceless thousands" *with the same dramatic impact* as a single, visible,
>graphic death, then I'll applaud it. That's difficult to do, and even more
>so to assess.
I can sort of agree with this. Occasionally, I can appreciate a work
of fiction _because_ it succeeds in spite of obstacles and handicaps that
would turn a lesser execution into a failure. It's a rather external reason
for liking a piece of fiction and I tend to be more sympathetic if the
limitation is imposed for external reasons (read "budget"), but it's
happened.
>I think they've managed it fairly well, but given my own
>feelings on the matter I'm likely to be forgiving on it. You obviously think
>they failed miserably here.
That's putting it a tad strongly -- it succeeded to some extent but it, IMO,
could have succeeded even better with the personal touch. It's more irritation
at lost opportunity (as well as something that's becoming a new TNG pet-peeve
of mine; gotta keep those pet peeves fresh :-)
>>There's a time and place for rational thinking and there's a time and place
>>for emotional thinking. TNG isn't a debate that'll change the course
>>of people's lives, it's dramatic fiction -- and it's got to deal with
>>emotions and feelings better than it (often) does.
>
>Whose emotions? Whose feelings? The crew's?
Well, whoever's the central dramatic focus for the episode (which may or may
not be a crewmember.)
>I think they do so fairly
>well most of the time.
Sometimes they do, sometimes not. The ratio is obviously high enough to
keep me watching but I'm not sure it's over 50%. But I'd have to go over
the list to be sure...
>Yours? Everyone reacts differently; they manage to
>wrench mine around quite well.
Again, it depends on the episode. Some have managed to wrench my feelings,
although I suspect it's rarer with me than you. When they *do* succeed,
I usually respond with a kinder review :-)
Timothy W. Lynch
>In article <1992Feb26.1...@cco.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>Pant, pant, pant. I'm gettin' too old for this sort of thing. All these
>>>'s to clamber over...:-)
>>>I don't
>>>claim that it's a good thing either, but nor would I claim it's
>>>a good thing to derive entertainment from observing a series of events
>>>involving lots of people killing each other -- yet that's EXACTLY what you
>>>do every time you pop your "richer" EMPIRE tape into the VCR.
>>
>>There are two possible responses to this. One is that the entire SW saga
>>only has about half a dozen *people*, and that the whole story is so black
>>and white that you're meant not to see it that way.
>Of course, it's a response that flies in the face of your position
>of reactions to tragedies: we may not know their names or personalities,
>but they're still people with lives, histories and families and that,
>according to you, their deaths shouldn't mean any less to us. But you
>probably know that :-)
Except they're not presented *as* people, they're intended to be faceless.
C'mon, the SW series, with the exception of some facets of the main half-
dozen, has all the depth of a cotton ball. [Nothing against it, of course.]
Regardless...yes, I know I'm reaching here.
>>I think they've managed it fairly well, but given my own
>>feelings on the matter I'm likely to be forgiving on it. You obviously think
>>they failed miserably here.
>That's putting it a tad strongly -- it succeeded to some extent but it, IMO,
>could have succeeded even better with the personal touch.
That's more generous than you let on in the statement that started this
whole runaround. You old softie, you.
Tim Lynch
Chip Salzenberg
Spoilers for CONUNDRUM:
>... no records of any sort outside of the computer ...
Come on, man. This is the _24th_ century, on board a _starship_.
Resources (including room) are limited. Do you really think they'd be
using paper? That's as likely as the U.S. Navy using clay tablets.
--
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <ch...@tct.com>, <7371...@compuserve.com>
"Informix 4GL is not a 4G, and it's barely an L." -- John Tombs
A biased source
>A *very* quick thing here, honest.
Ditto...
>an...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (A biased source) writes:
Spoilers for CONUNDRUM:
>>I think, based on Riker's little horgon scene, that most people went off and
>>did a thorough search of their rooms.
>
>"Thorough search"? The first time we see his quarters, the horgon's just
>*sitting* there on the bureau! I do a more thorough search every morning
>trying to find space on my desk! :-)
I called it the horgon scene because EVERYONE would recognize the scene, not
because I considered it the salient point OF the scene.
I think the point of the scene was to show that Riker, at least, had gone
through his stuff for clues--and that would be my first reaction if I were
mindwiped and in my room. (Yes, I knoww Riker couldn't go to his room until
he knew who he was. That's why I added that little prepositional phrase
at the end, there.)
BTW, have you considered filing cabinets? :)
Robert J. Granvin
>>Tim, you're going a wee bit ballistic here...chill, please.
>
>I didn't see it as particularly ballistic, but I'll deal with this in my
>response to Atsushi, since you make similar points. Consider me chilled.
``Timothy Lynch on ice. That's nice.''
[Sorry... it begged for it... :-)]
--
Robert J. Granvin Southern Minnesota Wing Confederate Air Force
Public Information Officer 612/922-2382
r...@sialis.com || rjg%siali...@uunet.uu.net || ...uunet!rosevax!sialis!rjg
Michael Rawdon
>According to kana...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori):
>Come on, man. This is the _24th_ century, on board a _starship_.
>Resources (including room) are limited.
Which is why the bridge (and many other parts of the ship) is chock-full of
space which holds nothing, which people rarely stand in, and which isn't
even necessary for a decent level of comfort and functionality.
Space is hardly at a premium on the 1701-D.
> Do you really think they'd be
>using paper? That's as likely as the U.S. Navy using clay tablets.
Not at all. I see it as entirely plausible that some people would keep
diaries on paper (computers do not have total security, as we've seen time
and again in Star Trek). Scotty was reading paper diagrams of the 1701-A
in Star Trek VI. Riker had a book on paper in "Conundrum" itself. Paper
isn't affected by power failures, or memory boards going bad. You have
more direct control over it.
It seems implausible to me that NO ONE on a 1000-person ship keeps ANY
records on paper, despite the degree of technology present in TNG.
--
Michael Rawdon
raw...@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI
"...I guess I'd rather have mediocre Star Trek then none at all."
- A friend, about the ST:TNG episode "Legacy"
Jorge Diaz
>Actually, one wonders where Troi learned to play 3-D chess well. Who would
>play chess with any kind of telepath? (Vulcans at least have to touch you.)
Telepath? I thought she was an empath. Remember, she can pick up on strong
feelings, she can't read minds....
--
Jorge Diaz | If winning is not important, then Commander,
Georgia Institute of Technology | why keep score?
Office of Information Technology |
cco...@prism.gatech.edu | - Worf -
Jerry Culp
>br...@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>
>>Actually, one wonders where Troi learned to play 3-D chess well. Who would
>>play chess with any kind of telepath? (Vulcans at least have to touch you.)
>
> An android, perhaps? :-)
> John Whelan
wasting bandwidth. Anyway....
When Troi makes the move that surprises Data and he says that
she will mate him in seven moves, didnt anyone think that she did it by
accident ? The way she looked and the way that she instantly cleared the
pieces, looked to me like she realised she got lucky and that she should
get the board clear before Data figured it out. Data never should have
told her that she COULD have him mated in seven moves, she might not have
known that !
As for playing with a telepath, even though she can't read Datas'
mind, should could be picking up on anyone that is watching the game !
Perhaps the ships' chess champion was an interested observer, and then
she could read him. I wouldnt play chess with her, hell I couldn't be near
her without getting my face slapped ! :-)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Culp Motorola Computers | My employer disavows all knowledge
National Technical Support Center | of any opinions expressed by me
| on this or any subject.