What, that little rule that they came up with so that civilizations can meet their destiny the way they should, with no interference from other worlds, y'know, that was named PRIME Directive?! :POriginally Posted by Pike
I think it's one of his best qualities because you know when he breaks the rules it's for a very very good reason.
yeah but when they're willing to let an entire unique civilization die because of the prime directive that's when it gets really dumb.
That's when it becomes a philosophical debate which is what makes it so good.
Getting into a philosophical debate over whether or not to interfere and save pre-warp civilizations is still better than doing 90% of the trout Kirk did. The man once armed a pre-warp culture because the Klingons were arming their enemies (for reasons I don't remember but which almost certainly made zero sense). I mean, it made for an interesting metaphor that's still pretty relevant and was certainly relevant at the time. But could they at least have pretended that there were rules Kirk was supposed to follow?
And unless I'm just drawing a complete and utter blank, I can't think of any times off the top of my head where Picard was outright prepared to let a pre-warp civilization die because of the prime directive. There was once that he got pissed at Data for talking to a kid whose planet was dying when it was plainly a bad idea, but that's a different matter entirely.
But if we're being perfectly honest, having the Prime Directive was the smartest thing they added with TNG. Rules regarding non-interference with other countries and cultures are something we could use more of in the world. Not less.
Homeward (episode) - Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki
Their planet was dying and Picard was all "sorry but tough luck"
Edit: Kirk had the misfortune of being at the hands of Roddenberry all the time which meant that everything he did was MANIFEST DESTINY IN SPACE. When he wasn't doing that he was a much better captain than he gets credit for.
Yeah Picard's done this like three or four times, from outright letting a civilization die to "merely" letting it go through incredibly tumultuous and dangerous times that might mark the end of it or might not, but it won't be pretty either way.
The Prime Directive is a pretty great idea and an important principle, and I do really like that Picard adheres to it so scrupulously even when I personally think it's stupid because it makes the future seem really different and weird. It's also definitely something that should have some clauses about "If an entire biosphere is about to die then the Prime Directive is void holy Kahless save those people."
Yeah, to clarify I'm not saying "The Prime Directive is stupid!" I think it's a good principle. But I'm saying "Uhh guys people are actually dying here sometimes"
But that's the question.. I hate to, but just like in Into Darkness - Kirk doesn't give a damn about it when a whole budding civilization is threatened, and even though he's baby Kirk from alternate timeline he'd still have done it in TOS without batting an eye.
It's something you have to interpret for yourself - Most people would say break it for the good of the people but as people we don't know what is good for the galaxy or beyond.. eh who knows
Okay guys I'm gonna open up a new question:
Is Into Darkness really that bad?
I don't think it is. One of Trek's finest moments? No. Better than, say, Treks I and V? Yes. Yes by a longshot.
I didn't think Into Darkness was bad, and the only people I see saying it was tend to be hardcore fans who hate anything to do with the reboot or people being nitpicky. I thought it was great and a real step up from the first movie.
That said, saying it's better than Star Trek I and V really isn't saying much.
Yeah but being able to help and choosing not to because of some nebulous possibility that it will turn out badly in the long run is just as presumptive as sticking your oar in everywhere regardless of whether it's needed. Like at that stage you get into such abstract thinking that there's no point to doing anything. Maybe in five thousand years helping Primitive Race X will have turned out to be a terrible idea, but that's for people in 7350 to worry about.
Oh, and I don't think Into Darkness is Trek's finest hour, but it's still a movie I enjoyed a whole lot.
I don't have much to add to this thread other than this:
Very fair. As to your previous point yeah it makes people of the future seem pretty detached, but as a kid I also thought TNG made me feel like the future was a world without toilets or (much) blood or sweat etc. - definitely a big impact on me
I thoroughly enjoyed Into Darkness except (SPOILER)OG Spock and the KHAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNN yell.
Though I knew the latter had to happen
Personally I think it's better than Nemesis and Insurrection as well - but then it has been years (at least a decade in fact) since I have seen either of those so I'll come back with my final report after I rewatch those in the next couple of weeks.
Yeah, but it generally doesn't take much to be better than films that flopped. Which is my point. Unless you're arguing this because people have been saying Into Darkness is worst than those films. They need a good firm smack across the head if that's the case.Personally I think it's better than Nemesis and Insurrection as well - but then it has been years (at least a decade in fact) since I have seen either of those so I'll come back with my final report after I rewatch those in the next couple of weeks.
You're a Data fan, aren't you? Don't watch Nemesis.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
