PATRON TAKES - Star Trek TNG - Season 3 Episode 12
Added 2024-05-20 02:19:53 +0000 UTCComment on this post your ‘takes’ on this episode and we will read a few in our discussion!
NO SPOILERS - If it is information regarding anything THAT DOES OR DOES NOT HAPPEN after this episode, don't include it in your comment.
If you want your take to be read in the video, comment ONE of the following:
- A brief review (2-3 sentences) of why you like/dislike the episode
- A question for us about the episode
- A prediction of how you think we will react to a certain aspect of the episode
- A fun fact about the episode
We are watching this episode Monday, so we won’t be reading the comments on this until then. If you have questions shoot us a message!
Comments
Given how little you like the last episode, which I enjoyed, I think you might not like this one. It's definitely very message heavy. On the other hand, the guest actor here is great, and it is a Crusher episode, so you might. A lot of people here are saying "heavy handed" but for me that sort of thing works, especially given the deadly seriousness of the subject. The lack of a real resolution to the conflict other then Beverly's rescue and the one boy choosing not to kill and perpetuate the cycle was a great touch. It's also interesting this situation has evolved without apparent religious or ethnic conflict as a motivator, but in a high tech secular society. Indeed, while the nominal cause of the terrorists is "independence" for their area which was apparently conquered long ago, it doesn't seem like there is actually a clear thing they are fighting for, they have just been fighting so long for the "cause" they don't know what else to do. Yes, there is an objective, but they don't really even bring the objective up that much so much as the struggle, which seems to mirror many of these real world situations.
paultardspambot .
2024-05-26 13:22:11 +0000 UTCHmm. I really liked it. The soldiers from the Hunted weren't terrorists. A Major plot point was they COULDN'T kill unless threatened. They're only terrorists in the over-extended "everyone who opposes their government is a terrorist" sense, not in the narrower "intentionally kills cilivians in service of their political aims: sense. " I understand the confusion since the leader tries to compare himself to George Washington, but I don't recall washington randomly killing loyalist civilians. Reminds me, there is one rather silly line in this episode- Picard saying "I've never believed political power comes from the barrel of gun." Maybe one could interpret it as him saying "Our federation is an anarchist utopia which doesn't depend on violence" but it sounds like he's making a much less coherent statement, arguing that states don't generally rely on the threat of force to rule.
paultardspambot .
2024-05-26 13:13:46 +0000 UTCI sort of like this one. It has personal resonance (in a Balkan context rather than the more common Irish one), and in quite a few ways it's a sign of things to come for star trek. The Federation aren't exactly heroic in this one, helping a state continue a conflict against both its people and its enemies - enemies whose peaceful options have been taken from them. All they had left is violence. And had their independence just been allowed, they probably would have left well alone. Has some stark parallels to conflicts going on right now. I think this is far from being Trek's best terrorism episode. The best is yet to come. On the production side, apparently the people involved in making this episode didn't like how it turned out at all. they felt it "didn't have a message". Now I love a ham-fisted message as much as the next pinko, but isn't that moral ambiguity exactly why the episode succeeds? The creators making great Trek while seemingly not getting it at all will be a theme for the next decade or so.
awktopus
2024-05-21 18:23:13 +0000 UTCMy memories of this one is largely not being able to watch it until a few years later. Others are likely to have explained why the BBC banned this episode so we originally got a 25 episode season. Sky eventually aired it but cut out the offending lines. I had to get my uncle to record it for me as we didn’t have sky and was excited as this was a “banned episode” I remember always being slightly disappointed as I had built it up in my head to be this ultra controversial and violent episode (hey I was only 12). But looking back some great Crusher scenes, the action is effective and the score is great. Just feel it’s a bit muddled in its messaging. Definitely a solid episode tho and I’m a sucker for Picard/Crusher scenes.
Darren Seal
2024-05-21 08:53:33 +0000 UTCI agree with The Lore
Josh (Target Audience)
2024-05-21 04:21:04 +0000 UTCThe elephant in the room for me was how cozy the Enterprise crew was getting with the Rutia government. I get that they were trying to rescue an crew member but, it kind of undermines the whole Picard willing to take an arrow in the heart to defend the Prime Directive in Who Watches the Watchers. I felt the Enterprise crew were handing out way too much information which was puzzling given how effectively they used the Prime Directive in the previous episode.
Nick Sauer
2024-05-20 23:50:14 +0000 UTCTotally agree with the back to back theme from episode 12 comment. It was literally my first thought on finishing the episode.
Nick Sauer
2024-05-20 23:41:21 +0000 UTCYup. Literally already explained that.
THE LORE!!!
2024-05-20 18:52:26 +0000 UTCYeah, I remember all the Troubles-centered media around this time. "Okay. I'm six! What am I supposed to do?"
Juan Tutrífor
2024-05-20 18:37:17 +0000 UTCI get where my problem is now I'm not going to delete my comment because I will own my idiocy.🤣
harrypothead42024
2024-05-20 18:15:39 +0000 UTCIs this supposed to be for episode 13 if not why are there two for episode 12? If I'm dumb just let me know how.
harrypothead42024
2024-05-20 18:13:05 +0000 UTCYou're going to be suckers for this episode simply because it's got a lot of Crusher going on, and we know how much you guys are revved for the Bev. There's some really great writing to unpack here: The idea that a freedom fighter is just a regular person who believes their cause is just, and that justice is simply a matter of perspective... in this case, Beverly's.
Jack Shipley
2024-05-20 16:56:42 +0000 UTCAn 'OK' episode elevated by another solid Ron Jones score. Which I'm sure will mean Alex and Josh will notice it "has a score"
JGoss
2024-05-20 16:37:43 +0000 UTCAn unfortunate ... misunderstanding? management choice? Either way, the results that sprang from this cannot be understated. Whether by accident or intent, it ushered in the golden age of Trek, a near decade-long streak. Behr did not stick around long on TNG, but when he came back, the results speak for themselves.
JGoss
2024-05-20 16:36:03 +0000 UTCYes, apparrently Piller ill-advisedly sent out a general memo with the header "How to write for Television" to the entire writing staff. He apparently did not like confrontation, so I imagine he was trying to either advise a couple writers without looking like he was picking on them, or he was trying to get across what he was looking for in scripts without having a big scene. Personally I wonder if he wasn't trying to give RDM some advice since Moore was so young and new to the whole process. Either way, the memo, regardless of intention, ticked off a number of writers, including Snodgrass and a bunch of them quit. Not sure if it was JUST for that reason, or if it was the straw that broke the camels back. After this, a few names moved up in importance, such as Ira Steven Behr, who the TA will get very familiar with, and a few other writers got brought in that would ride the Trek train into the 21st Century, and then move on to be highly successful in TV writing, thanks in part to Piller's tutelage.
Nolan
2024-05-20 15:38:10 +0000 UTCPlease tell me this is true!
Burrito Vampire
2024-05-20 14:55:22 +0000 UTCEwan McGregor and Liam Neeson would argue on the set of The Phantom Menace about who had the better Star Trek VHS collection. When Ewan learned this episode was never released in Ireland, he said “It’s over, Liam. I have The High Ground.”
Richard Stone
2024-05-20 13:38:09 +0000 UTCFederation is an adjective, not a noun here. It's a "Federation hostage" as a hostage whom happens to be a citizen of the Federation.
Jovet
2024-05-20 13:23:44 +0000 UTCWill be curious to see your take, since this comes as very heavy-handed to this UK viewer. Not sure if anybody has mentioned it, but this one was banned in the UK for a long time due the remark about the Irish reunification.
Andy Frankham-Allen
2024-05-20 12:39:55 +0000 UTCBecause of Data's Irish Unification comment - this episode was banned in the UK and wasn't shown fully until around 2006 (about 15 years after the original airdate!). I will admit this is a mid-tier episode but it's one I find myself returning to more often than not. The character of Finn is well played and rather than being a mustache-twirling villan his sympathetic portrayal subconciously makes you consider his point-of-view in what is a quite serious/dark episode. The attack on the enterprise is a great action set-piece and one of the few times where the threat actually feels credible... plus Picard gets to throw a punch! Sparkly space suspenders aside - I think you'll like this episode but not love it.
Alan F
2024-05-20 11:36:13 +0000 UTCAnd Finn, the terrorist leader, is a Irish name And Finn sounds a lot like Sinn Féin.
Greg Quinn
2024-05-20 09:18:07 +0000 UTCFor me...this is lower level for season 3....there are worse episodes in season 3, but not too many.
Greg Quinn
2024-05-20 09:15:02 +0000 UTCYay! We finally get a Doctor Beverly episode! But man, the message in this one is about as subtle as a steel chair upside the head. Still, I think it does a great job of addressing the issue of terrorism from more than one point of view AND doesn't wrap it up in neat bow after 45 minutes. This was made at a time when it wasn't a common plot or element in a lot of shows and movies. I think you will be kind of frustrated with this one, but won't think it's bad.
Paul O'Neal
2024-05-20 08:19:50 +0000 UTCAnd as the writers will attest, even if they start with a MESSAGE story with a clear intent and healthy framework, it gets passed around and rewritten so many times, it loses the framework and doesn't even convey a clear message anymore. Snodgrass and others are on record for hating the final product on this one.
JGoss
2024-05-20 07:41:24 +0000 UTCThanks Paul. So only BBC never aired it. I wonder if it was part of the BBC America package here. Every time I check that channel, they're playing TNG.
JGoss
2024-05-20 07:39:01 +0000 UTCI'm not claiming TOS was a model of subtlety, but TOS' message shows were primarily adventure stories with a clear moral. Unfortunately, ST got a reputation for addressing issues due to this. So TNG was burdened with having to do MESSAGE stories with a thin action/dramatic framework to deliver THE MESSAGE. Basically, write a good, engaging story and the message will be implicit. Don't do the following....."We should do an episode about issue X, because we are a show that raises issues.".
Numinous2019
2024-05-20 06:39:25 +0000 UTCThat cafe set is impressive given the budget of the show. It's a serious upgrade on season 1 and 2 planet sets/backdrops.
Numinous2019
2024-05-20 06:29:34 +0000 UTCI guess we have to remember that an episode that might seem ham-fisted to older audience members (at the time) would also be younger viewers' first or earlier exposure to a terrorism story/moral. So, a sort of 'Sesame Street' message about turning away from the established mindset.
Numinous2019
2024-05-20 05:33:42 +0000 UTCThe low point of the season for me. The Defector saves the middle of the season.
Paul Rymer
2024-05-20 05:21:08 +0000 UTCIt was shown on Sky when they took over the broadcast rights around 1995/6 but the controversial dialogue was edited out.
Paul Rymer
2024-05-20 05:17:32 +0000 UTCSo, short review... I find the episode interesting. It shows how terrorism affects a society upon which it's perpetrated. In this day and age, it can provoke some discussions, that could get quite heated; I'm avoiding the politics on this one. A fun fact: Wil Wheaton disliked Wesley Crusher's character. He saw hims as a bit of a Marty Sue, wunderkind who was always smarter and better than everyone else around. (Rodenberry's middle name was Wesley, and Crusher was arguably his self-insert into the series.) Another fact: Terrorism perpetrated against civilian targets has never been successful. (At least, this was true when I studied it back in High School, but that was 20 years ago.) Only when the terrorists have limited themselves to military targets has terrorism succeeded in creating lasting political or societal change.
John
2024-05-20 05:02:01 +0000 UTCProbably the most controversial episode of TNG. I think the writing staff unfairly maligned it for a lack of message - sometimes the characters finding out that a problem's too big to be solved in 45 minutes is a message in of itself. If nothing else, it was a better Snodgrass Irish allegory episode than Up The Long Ladder.
bab
2024-05-20 04:57:02 +0000 UTCI love this episode. It was a blatant Irish ‘Troubles’ episode but I loved the nuance in it. Gates was great in this, Finn, the terrorist, was both creepy and sympathetic and the end with the child has always stuck with me. It’s so surreal that it’s only been since ‘98 for the Peace Accords and Brexit has arguably weakened the Accords since originally it was made between two European Union countries. The ‘Troubles’ could have restarted in our time.
Sharron
2024-05-20 04:36:12 +0000 UTCI like having a Beverly focused episode, but the dialogue is so heavy handed it’s hard to take. The cop character (can’t remember her name) is basically for exposition and dramatic commentary on terrorism. If it weren’t for Gates this would be a miss.
Glenn Johnson Barnes
2024-05-20 04:32:25 +0000 UTC@Andreas Writing another reply so you can see it and hear me acknowledge that what you said it is actually right. I explained in an edit to my parent comment what I meant and it's what I thought everyone else was hearing. I thought everyone was replying knowing how I was mishearing what Riker meant.
THE LORE!!!
2024-05-20 03:58:23 +0000 UTCPeople usually think they are the hero of the story when in fact they're the most vile people you would ever meet this episode is very much an example of that.
Jason Mitchell
2024-05-20 03:49:15 +0000 UTCIt only bothered me cause I heard it wrong. But I'm just happy someone understands now.
THE LORE!!!
2024-05-20 03:15:24 +0000 UTCYeah I see what you mean. I guess it never bugged me.
Evan Guthrie
2024-05-20 03:11:52 +0000 UTCYes. I'll rephrase it and edit my initial comment to make it clear what I meant. I understand he means, "why would they take a hostage?" But they hadn't taken her as a hostage until that point. So in my mind, it sounded like and it's hard to unhear that he means " a federation" is being held hostage. Does that make sense? It's just a weird phrasing thing. She wasn't a hostage until they took her. So my brain never heard it that way.
THE LORE!!!
2024-05-20 03:09:44 +0000 UTCA lot of comments for this episode will rightly mention the unusual POV, and how Data citing terrorism as effective -- specifically in terms of Irish unification -- got it banned in the UK for years. It also makes an interesting capstone to a block of episodes, beginning with "The Vengeance Factor" that address factional conflict. It's unclear how much of a direct commentary was intended, but here's some of what was happening in the world Nov 89 - Jan 90, when these episodes originally aired: - The Berlin Wall came down. - The Irish Troubles were in full swing. - Revolutions and military crack downs took place in many eastern European countries, including Romania and Czechoslovakia. - The US invaded Panama & deposed the government of Nicaragua. And that's just a sampling. It was an incredibly tumultuous and transformative time.
Avaria
2024-05-20 03:07:17 +0000 UTCIsn't it followed by "hostage"? I'm confused.
Evan Guthrie
2024-05-20 02:59:42 +0000 UTCBlink and you miss it, but that guy's drawing of Beverly looks suspiciously like her season 1 promotional photo - updated for her season 3 hair.
JGoss
2024-05-20 02:52:34 +0000 UTCYes, that is what they say. They use it as a noun in this episode, which I found baffling. Because normally, describing someone from the Federation involves the use of "federation" as a proper Adjective followed by the noun of some kind.
THE LORE!!!
2024-05-20 02:49:56 +0000 UTCCurtain call for Melinda Snodgrass. This was her final Trek writing credit. She worked well with Maurice Hurley during season 2, but not with Michael Piller. She left at the end of the season and Ronald Moore took over as executive script supervisor.
JGoss
2024-05-20 02:47:43 +0000 UTCFederation is not a demonym like "American" or "German". It would be like saying "Why would they want to take an America (or a Germany) hostage?"
Regan
2024-05-20 02:47:28 +0000 UTCThe quote you gave is "Why would they want to take a Federation hostage?"
Evan Guthrie
2024-05-20 02:44:31 +0000 UTCI didn't say Federation was being used as a noun. I said there's usually a noun after. Like the two you just mentioned. A ship. A hostage. But not just "a federation"
THE LORE!!!
2024-05-20 02:41:16 +0000 UTCMy theory is they wanted to make this world also petition to join the federation but they realized they did that last episode too.
Evan Guthrie
2024-05-20 02:41:05 +0000 UTCFederation is not being used as a noun, it's used as an adjective. Like a Federation ship, a Federation hostage. It's not unusual.
Evan Guthrie
2024-05-20 02:40:21 +0000 UTCThis episode is cemented as a 90's episode. No WAY anything made today would take a largely sympathetic view towards terrorists and discuss their methods so frankly.
Nolan
2024-05-20 02:40:13 +0000 UTCThis is actually my least favorite episode of the entire season, and the most forgettable in my opinion. It's in the same tier as The Vengeance Factor. It's the one episode this season that upon re-watching, I remembered absolutely nothing about it except for the infamous "Irish unification of 2024" line. I'm guessing you two might like it more than me though since it focuses on Beverly.
BN13
2024-05-20 02:39:57 +0000 UTCA pretty decent but unremarkable episode. However, I do quite like the cafe set at the beginning, because we rarely get a glimpse of the worlds and civilizations that the Enterprise visits.
Evan Guthrie
2024-05-20 02:39:08 +0000 UTCYes, I understand what they meant. But aside from this episode, I don't recall ever hearing a federation citizen referred to as "a federation." There's always another noun of some kind afterwards and it's bizarre to hear.
THE LORE!!!
2024-05-20 02:38:40 +0000 UTCI think he means a hostage from the Federation, not taking the entire Federation hostage. Like saying a Klingon hostage.
Evan Guthrie
2024-05-20 02:35:13 +0000 UTCIt's not. This would be closer to saying "taking a Germany" or "taking an America" because those terms refer to countries, not the citizens of those countries. Same with being a federation citizen
THE LORE!!!
2024-05-20 02:34:39 +0000 UTCI read that this episode was criticized by the writing staff as feeling like a season 2 episode. (Upon rewatch, I can see their point). That puts Riker’s “I don’t want to be in the transporter room to greet her” line in a new light, if you imagine it was Pulaski who would be beaming up angry!
tyranusfan
2024-05-20 02:29:46 +0000 UTCWhat's wrong with that? That's just like saying "taking an American hostage" or "A German hostage". The federation is a nationality.
Andreas Schmitt
2024-05-20 02:29:32 +0000 UTCAh, the first Beverly focused episode. A outstanding episode mostly for her, though it's also very forgettable. In fact, when I saw the Patron Takes for the episode come up, and I looked at the episode title in my personal list, I thought "Which episode is this?" And I had to play a little bit to remind myself. But it's Beverly, so it gets a high grade, anyway. It will be interesting to see what you think.
wildhunt1973
2024-05-20 02:28:44 +0000 UTCI am patiently waiting...
Evan Guthrie
2024-05-20 02:28:28 +0000 UTCWeird episode and I strongly dislike it. Dark sets, mediocre acting. Plus what's with the back to back terrorist themed episodes??
Trouty McTroutTrout
2024-05-20 02:28:22 +0000 UTCRight after the opening credits, Riker says "Why would they want to take * A Federation* hostage?" I believe he should have said "Doctor" or "officer" after Federation but didn't and I have never been able to unhear it sounding like the whole Federation was being held hostage in 30 years. Edit: To clarify this point since I'm ruffling feathers. It sounded like Federation was being used as a noun instead of an adjective. You aren't a hostage yet until after you're taken. The act of "taking a hostage" and taking someone who already is a hostage can be two separate things. So it never would register in my brain that Federation was being used as an adjective instead of a noun in that way. In the context of the replies I got, I thought everyone else was could potentially hear what I was hearing. But my bad. You can't spell Lore without taking the L.
THE LORE!!!
2024-05-20 02:26:58 +0000 UTCThe Irish unification of 2024… not yet. This episode was “banned by the BBC”. At least it was skipped when they were showing these episodes in the early evening… I always thought because of the implication by Data that the IRA would win in the end.
Silk
2024-05-20 02:25:58 +0000 UTCIf you thought Who Watches the Watchers was controversial addressing religion, you can bet the terrorism episode raised QUITE the stir back then. It didn't air in the UK until 2007 and has never aired in Ireland due to the line about terrorism working to unify Ireland.
JGoss
2024-05-20 02:25:00 +0000 UTC
