The Savage Curtain HAS LINCOLN IN IT, SO IT MUST BE COOL
The savage curtain is the paragon of Trek incredulity. The coincindence that two of the four representatives of Good merely happen to the the Captain and First officer of the Enterprise, along with a totally ineffectual Lincoln and pig-headed Vulcan idealist rather offends the scope of human history, to say nothing of universal history.
The same critique can be made for most Star Trek episodes, including the City on the Edge of Forever. The fictitious premises on which the ideas of the show are based bear no relation whatsoever to the experience of reality.
Nonetheless, TOS remains the best and most watchable Trek series, because it was made in an era which was unashamed of preaching absolute concepts, unalloyed by the ethical vacillations of more realistic "Trek." The complete irreality in which TOS existed spares us many of the embarassments of some later Trek episodes, which affect to portray human dilemmas with contrived situations. Its superhuman prodigies were permitted to be unrealistically large, their ridiculous strategems implausibly effective, their inner virtues were always miraculously translated into martial triumphs.
I had the advantage of watching City on the Edge of Forever as nearly my last TOS episode. The tragedy is effective and shocking not by its inherent execution, but by the fact that this is so untypical of TOS. A sympathy for the episode requires a prolonged acclimatisation in the TOS millieu.
I also have to disagree with rating In the Pale Moonlight as a paradigm for DS9. The episode plays like a TOS moral dilemma, if only Kirk were a neurotic who reflected on necessary actions more than committing them. But Kirk is not like that. In fact, neither is Sisko like that. Everything which had been established about Sisko in the previous seven seasons was thrown out in this episode for a character story which was off-character. Sisko had never been an idealist, and had a long track record of commiting impromptu and questionable actions. The story about Sisko's loss of innocence through the cauldron of war is ineffective because Sisko was a hardened warrior in Season 1, and he never had any innocence to begin with. Neither did I find the moral dilemma itself compelling. That Garak had to deconstruct Sisko's psychology was bad mimetic storytelling.
It has been observed that In the Pale Moonlight was effective on the same grounds as those on which I praised City, that it was so untypical of Star Trek. The entire DS9 canon is littered with such examples, if you had been paying attention. Only in most occasions the inference was more subtle, and did not come about by having a protagonist spelling it out to us, as Garak did for Sisko. Nor was it necessary to use Garak. Sisko as a grown-up man was capable of saying to himself exactly what Garak said. The simplistic dichotomy between Sisko the idealist vs Garak the realist in this episode shrinks the scope of both characters, rather than expands it.
I also thought that Inter Arma enim Silent Leges was a better variation of the same theme.
My recommendation? 1. 95% of the Star Trek demographic is male, and for good reason. Do not show her Star Trek unless she is genuinely interested. 2. "The Enterprise Incident" from TOS for the ladies.
You should definitely pick an episode from TNG (but not from the first couple of seasons). Preferably some episode focusing on Picard. :D Dunno which specific episode though.
Definatly the Tribble Trouble episode or the one where Kirk (original series) fights the big Lizard man in the Desert and gets his shirt ripped. She'll go crazy over him, but its OK, you got her to watch Star Trek right?
I also have to disagree with rating In the Pale Moonlight as a paradigm for DS9. The episode plays like a TOS moral dilemma, if only Kirk were a neurotic who reflected on necessary actions more than committing them. But Kirk is not like that. In fact, neither is Sisko like that. Everything which had been established about Sisko in the previous seven seasons was thrown out in this episode for a character story which was off-character. Sisko had never been an idealist, and had a long track record of commiting impromptu and questionable actions. The story about Sisko's loss of innocence through the cauldron of war is ineffective because Sisko was a hardened warrior in Season 1, and he never had any innocence to begin with. Neither did I find the moral dilemma itself compelling. That Garak had to deconstruct Sisko's psychology was bad mimetic storytelling.
It has been observed that In the Pale Moonlight was effective on the same grounds as those on which I praised City, that it was so untypical of Star Trek. The entire DS9 canon is littered with such examples, if you had been paying attention. Only in most occasions the inference was more subtle, and did not come about by having a protagonist spelling it out to us, as Garak did for Sisko. Nor was it necessary to use Garak. Sisko as a grown-up man was capable of saying to himself exactly what Garak said. The simplistic dichotomy between Sisko the idealist vs Garak the realist in this episode shrinks the scope of both characters, rather than expands it.
I disagree. When was sisko presented as a hardened warrior? He had been through the battle of Worf 359 - but that was only a single battle, where you destroy the enemy or he destroys you in a single climactic engagement. There were no hard choices to be made. He was bitter about having lost so much in that battle (and angry at Picard) but a single engagement does not wear on a man the way a true, protracted war does. I truely believe that he was infact an idealist (ie. unwillingness to use the fact that he was the prophet at first to help him, but then using it later to tell the Bajorans what to do). He has to make more and more ethical decisions as the series, and the war, goes on, and the balance of good vs evil that he appreciates deteriorates. The episode is in my mind a paradigm because it highlights this ongoing process. The moral dilemma may be rather standard (death of a man vs death of an empire), and not as interesting as the one in say "A measure of a man". Yet even if these concepts are "littered" through DS9 cannon, this just makes the exposition in the episode a stronger example.
Anyhow I wouldn't recommend anything that goes back in time - I think that those episodes are not good for newcommers because the setting is not representative.f
As already suggested Darmok is great one. As is Cause and Effect for the awesome time travel/causality shenanagins. And I really like the last episode(s) too, All Good Things, but probably not a great idea to start at the end of a series, lol.
For DS9 In the Pale Moonlight is pretty much the only good choice. It might be a bit difficult as a stand alone viewing due to all the various factions involved, but it really is a great episode.
On March 31 2011 01:59 Rayeth wrote: Great episodes of TNG:
As already suggested Darmok is great one. As is Cause and Effect for the awesome time travel/causality shenanagins. And I really like the last episode(s) too, All Good Things, but probably not a great idea to start at the end of a series, lol.
For DS9 In the Pale Moonlight is pretty much the only good choice. It might be a bit difficult as a stand alone viewing due to all the various factions involved, but it really is a great episode.
Dude, you're clearly forgetting about The Visitor...
man why star trek? :D My personal recommendation would be "Blink" from Doctor Who, ep 3x10 of the new doctor who series. Best thing ever. Just .. well, it's not star trek.
I'd recommend Voyager. Probably my favorite Startrek, followed by Enterprise and DS9. Personally I didn't like TNG and TOS much. Good luck, though, keep us updated
To echo some of what's been said I think In The Pale Moonlight is fantastic, had a similar experience trying to introduce my GF to SciFi recently, she really likes fantasy books and the Original Series was by far the most interesting to her, Standalone character-driven stuff, 'Mirror,Mirror' was one of the first she watched and she loved it
EPT
