My wife and I are rewatching The Next Generation and just finished Measure of a Man, the episode in season 2 in which Data’s personhood is legally debated and his life hangs in the balance.
I genuinely found this episode infuriating in its stupidity. It’s the first episode we skipped even a little bit. It was like nails on a chalkboard.
There is oodles of legal precedent that Data is a person. He was allowed to apply to Starfleet, graduated, became an officer and rose to the rank of Lt. Commander with all the responsibilities and privileges thereof.
Comparing him to a computer and the judge advocate general just shrugging and going to trial over it is completely idiotic. There are literal years and years of precedent that he’s an officer.
The problem is compounded because Picard can’t make the obvious legal argument and is therefore stuck philosophizing in a court room, which is all well and good, but it kind of comes down to whether or not Data has a soul? That’s not a legal argument.
The whole thing is so unbelievably ludicrous it just made me angrier and angrier. It wasn’t the high minded, humanistic future I’ve come to know and love, it was a kangaroo court where reason and precedent took a backseat to feeling and belief.
I genuinely hated it.
To my surprise, in looking it up, I discovered it’s considered one of the high water marks for the entire show. It feels like I’m taking crazy pills.
Hot take. But put it in the context of the year it was aired, not today. Star Trek (and sci fi in general) was suffering from being perceived as “blue babes and laser guns”.
This episode was thoughtful if taken as standalone. And TNG really was about taking the episodes more or less independently. The season long story arcs and such didn’t exist. People weren’t binge watching. So the world building was less important than the specific hypothetical moral quandary of the week. Like, they are almost like Asimov short stories with a shared cast.
It wasn’t until a few years later that serialized TV even really became a thing – Twin Peaks probably was the first here, but Babylon 5 would have a good claim (and DS9, Buffy, and others were coming together then too). So the style of storytelling on TNG S2 is different.
Divorce the story from Star Trek and the setting and evaluate it as a sci fi ethical quandary. And in that framework, it is a remarkable episode.
Also, Brent Spiner played it well :)
I think that’s a terrific argument and it is always wise to contextualize it in history.
We have absolutely been binging which certainly gives it a different feel, but I would argue even as a standalone episode it was poorly written if superbly performed.
There are ideas that could have been played with in a way that respects the setting. Perhaps another computer attempting to join Starfleet, but it looks like a box rather than a person and asks Data to argue its personhood.
I don’t know. I’m not a writer and I’m just spitting an idea off the top of my head, but I think there’s a place for internal consistency within a narrative regardless of when it was written.
(This is vague enough that I don’t feel spoilers are necessary)
Perhaps another computer attempting to join Starfleet, but it looks like a box rather than a person and asks Data to argue its personhood.
They kind of had that exact opportunity in Discovery. But instead of an entire courtroom episode, it was more of a forced arbitration scene :(
I don’t mind spoilers—but use spoiler tags if necessary—what do you mean?
There is an episode later where Data defends the rights of a less-human-looking artificial life (the one with exocomps), though no courtroom scenes.
I think most star trek episodes can be torn apart pretty easily - I actually enjoy pointing out errors while I watch. But it’s good drama and themes with fun characters in an optimistic future, which is still a rarity decades later.
And TNG really was about taking the episodes more or less independently.
This era was also the high water mark for syndicated TV which really drove the episodic format. Viewers couldn’t be guaranteed the show would air on the same channel or even the same timeslot. So long form serial TV were really rare.
It wasn’t until a few years later that serialized TV even really became a thing – Twin Peaks probably was the first here, but Babylon 5 would have a good claim (and DS9, Buffy, and others were coming together then too).
Soap operas were doing serialized storytelling for decades before your examples. Maybe not good serialized storytelling, but still.
There’s still an important distinction: JMS likened Babylon 5 to a novel for television. It had a defined beginning, a middle, and an end, conceptualized that way from the start of development.
Yes, soap operas are serialized television, but totally open-ended. The producers of Dallas didn’t plan for J.R. Ewing to get shot as part of the series arc; they didn’t even plan him as a main character. A lot of soap operas have a very throw-it-against-the-wall feel. My grandmother was a Days of Our Lives watcher, and stuck it out even through the alien abduction storyline. Other people I know would stop watching for even years at a time, then come back and pick up whatever new storylines were then current.
I mean no disrespect to soap operas, as they give lots of people years of enjoyment. TNG itself was largely episodic, but had some soap opera elements, following evolving relationships among the crew which were carried through. But that’s still not the novel-for-television concept.
Yes there were soap operas. But was anyone doing it in prime time? Another commentor mentions how syndication was big at the time. Also you did have the concept of a “mini series” which was a popular term at the time, which implied the distinction.
Just because you got away with breaking the law for decades, doesn’t mean you weren’t breaking the law and the law can’t be applied today.
That notion is rather well addressed in Strange New Worlds s2e2 Ad Astra Per Aspera
Just because you got away with breaking the law for decades, doesn’t mean you weren’t breaking the law and the law can’t be applied today.
i mean it could tho. That’s why every lawyer answers “it depends”
Eh, soap operas had been doing serialised TV for decades before the 80s and 90s. And if you look to outside of the US, in the UK serialised TV was extremely normal, and had been for decades - ever since TV started, really. And even before that it was common in radio plays.
What bothered me most about this ep is that Riker is forced to act as some kind of prosecutor. And he’s like no, I won’t do it. And she’s like you better do it, and to the best of your ability yada yada or else I’m gonna something something. Like how is she gonna know if he does this to the best of his ability. Why wouldn’t he just completely blow it? Or at least in some plausible attempt at an effort. What was she gonna do then, have another trial for Riker for being a bad fake lawyer? Is the concept of conflict of interest not a thing in future robot court?
The court thing mandates that high ranking officers are to assume the different positions needed for trial. His duty was to be the prosecutor at that moment. Not doing that could’ve been grounds for a court martial. Imagine him doing that for a murder case for someone else, totally ignoring the rules. There is no difference between a murder case and Data’s case. It would also lead to a mistrial. Sooo he would skirt his duty risking his career and nothing would change in the end - Data would probably have a new trial anyway.
Edit: there is the glarinf issue - a conflict of interest.
This is such a weird way to look at the world. “It must be this way because there are rules that say it must be that way and if we don’t follow the rules than the rules say we must fuck the career of anyone not following them.” Completely ignoring that these are rules that were made up by people with the intent of creating a capable and fair system and if the rules are bad, they can and should be changed.
Plus if you can’t find anyone to argue a position, maybe it’s a sign that that position doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on. It also doesn’t say anything good about Riker who was willing to risk his friend’s future and freedom to argue a position he strongly disagreed with because his career was at stake.
It’s standard in any command structure. Be it military or civillian shipping or something. You maybe can voice an opinion, but you are expected to do what is asked anyway.
It’s not that the position doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Defense lawyers will defend guilty people too and they will get them the best deal possible, and even let them walk if that’s what they can do. Grab a room of people who aren’t defense attorneys, and nobody would do it.
Also IIRC it was said in the episodes that it needs to be a high ranking officer. Hence Riker and Picard. There was a huge conflict of interest, but duty goes first.
I mean… yeah, the episode isn’t as focused on procedural detail, and I do live for legal process minutia, but I can fill in the blanks just fine and suspend disbelief.
I mean, the question being raised is whether Data has been operating as a person willingly joined Starfleet or as salvaged equipment. If Data had been roaming around on his own and then applied to join Starfleet I’d be more nitpicky, but he was found and turned on by Starfleet and he seems to have been in the system since, so I can see the question of how to categorize him coming up retroactively. Especially in retrospect, since we eventually get undeniable confirmation that AGI is very much possible within their normal gear.
I mean, for the record, by the time Voyager comes around we know that they have protocols to use holographic AIs to substitute in for key personnel, so if you can have a “EMH” slot in for an officer you can have a piece of salvaged machinery operate with a rank and then reassign it to a different role… unless that entity has personhood. It IS a sci-fi as hell concept, but a valid one in-universe.
Me, I would have very much enjoyed Noonyien Soong arguing whether he still owns Data and learn what is legal salvage in Starfleet territory but for the sake of 90s network TV I can see “Is this android truly a life form” being the approach to a Trek episode. And thematically… well, I can’t get through the Goldberg and Stewart scene about slavery without tearing up. It isn’t just how good they both are, it’s the “oh, crap, they’re saying the thing” element to it, too.
Of course that means Starfleet straight up condoned slavery later, as per Star Trek Picard season 1. I would gladly remove all of Picard from lore at this point, but nope, officially Starfleet had legal proceedings to determine that Soong androids are people and to remove their autonomy is akin to slavery and then went ahead and did it anyway.
Picard sucks and is the worst Star Trek thing ever, is what I’m trying to say. Yes, way worse than anything in Discovery. Including season three.
Voyager had it’s own “Measure of a Man” episode a la the EMH in Season 7, episode 20 “Author, Author”. A lot of the same themes were there. But what has bothered me for years is at the end of the episode, it’s implied that there is a number of EMH units that have been “reading” the Doctor’s holonovel, and building a resistance.
This was never explored in any future Star Trek, was it? It wasn’t talked about in Picard or Lower Decks. And Picard had the whole AI plot line.
Hey, you want to hear a spicy take?
Discovery is the one piece of Trek that fixes their dumb AI nonsense.
By the time they are in the post-postapocalypse future they introduce at least one Soong android who is just… hanging out, being a guy. Not even a particularly nice guy. So at least there is that.
Picard was fumbled hard overall.
They had some concepts that could’ve been deeply interesting, such as [SPOILERS] a dead Borg Cube in Romulan space, being studied by the Romulans, and looking for Bruce Maddox, the scientist who wanted to study Data in Measure of a Man (S1), Q dying and wanting to engage with Picard before he goes (S2), but they did a really bad job.
Season 3 is a lot better. A lot of the sound and cinematography is great, it feels more like a Star Trek film than a TV show in terms of how it’s presented. That in itself isn’t a good thing or a bad thing, but I personally liked it.
It’s a bit fan-servicey - there were times when I liked that, but also times I rolled my eyes. I’d say Season 3 is worth watching, and you’ll either like it or you won’t. Thankfully, the show pretty much resets itself for season 3, and you don’t really need any info from Seasons 1/2 going into it.
Season 2 can absolutely be ignored entirely going into season 3, which is good because season 2 is complete garbage. And that annoys the hell out of me because it’s the one with Q, Guinan, and even a brief appearance of Wesley.
yeah, each season is pretty much self-contained, but it helps to have watched the previous ones the new characters so you can appreciate their story arcs.
The final season of Picard is terrific. The others are not so good. But you kind of have to watch the others to understand some of the things in the final season.
It’s mostly just a TNG reunion though.
If the last season of Picard is terrific, then Star Trek Nemesis is peak cinema.
You are not taking crazy pills, its premise does suffer when watched with a “critical eye” (i.e. thinking about it even a little).
The reason it’s remembered so fondly (imho) is two fold. It is one of the first “thought provoking” episodes. And the first couple of seasons were… not the best to put it mildly.
edit: admittedly, I do enjoy it, but I really have to turn my brain off to do so.
Honestly, the validation means the world to me. The performances were all top notch and I get the idea they’re going for, but how they went there was so painful and contrived.
lol, no kidding. Even watching it as a kid my first thought was, “the fate of Data’s rights can be determined in an impromptu court session with bridge crew acting as lawyers!? Shouldn’t they have… real courts for this?”. At the time I didn’t consider the limitations of the show of course, and I do think the willingness to tackle high concepts was what made the show so special. But damn did the limitations show in this one.
Especially back then, people made exceptions for scifi shows bc even remotely good ones were in such short supply. Also the limitations were quite severe - for funding, for each episode having to fully wrap up by its end and therefore be almost entirely self-contained (except season-bridging 2-parters with cliffhangers stitching them together), and even then people might end up rewatching them in a different order later on, before e.g. VCRs existed and started becoming more common.
Though in many more ways than one, not only irt that, it is one of the better shows of all time. Certainly in comparison with the large majority of its successors.
Hmm for the sake of discussion, it could be such that that legal tribunal was calling into question all of that history. Just because a “crime” (in this case a misclassification) occured and was propagated for many years doesn’t mean it is correct tomorrow.
The point of the episode was the kangaroo court. It was that data had served as a valid, meaningful, human-like member of the staff for years, and all that was at risk. It does the very star trek thing of highlighting real world issues, in that people all over the world suffer from kangaroo court style judicial-injustice, and Picard’s achievement is that much more impressive given the hill to climb. (Corruption)
Even in a seemingly idealistic futurist-future, injustice can arise, and minorities can be swept up in the mess. The federation is not perfect, and this episode is a crystal clear example of it’s potential faults. (Executives with opinions trump up proceedings to bring about their own goals, essentially corrupt bureaucracy wrapped in judicial procedure)
