His ultimate intention is the point. Why should that be disregarded, especially by the person imprisoned?
Because you're assuming what his ultimate motivation was...and I don't agree, necessarily, with your assessment. And as I mentioned, I'm referring to her reaction after the fact. If you shoot someone because you think they're armed, and they're not, I'm sure you'd feel remorse...or at least you should, to some degree. And as I also mentioned, she could've easily escaped when he left to go to the shuttle but she stayed behind to ambush him...even though he technically saved her life earlier. And he hadn't mistreated her at that point either. So as I said, she's a murderer.
She stayed behind because she still needed the communicator (which she had specifically asked him about but he had refused to answer since he had stolen it). And I’m not sure why you don’t also consider imprisonment a type of mistreatment. The bottom line is: he didn’t save her for her sake, he saved her for his own sake. Taking everything into account, including his own statements: it wasn’t murder, it was self-defense.
What you said is correct and I don't disagree except with the self defense statement...she had the communicator at that point and could have just left. BUT...I did forget one thing...I don't think she had access to a weapon at that point (other than the knife). So if she ambushed him for that, then I could see having to kill him...because she wouldn't have lasted a second out there without the gun.
Not sure of this, but I thought she was also locked "Inside" the whole building he imprisoned her in. After she got out of her "Cell" and crawled into the other room, I think it showed the main door was locked some other way, and could not escape no matter what, meaning the guy had some key or way out of the outer door, so she had to kill him to get out of the Main door. So even though she got out of her cell, she had no other way of exiting the building itself, other than falling 10 stories out the window. I thought that was obvious, but maybe I am wrong.
She had free reign of the building it seemed...and she was on an upper floor...she could've waited downstairs while he went up. Maybe she still couldn't have gotten out... I don't know. But without the weapon, it's a moot point anyway.
Ya was not trying to argue with you, but just trying to understand what made her kill him etc. I suppose asking the person who wrote the Episode would explain it better, as usually they have a fairly sound reason, and sometimes it does not "Come through" to the viewer or it is not made obvious to us watching. Rewrites, or a 15 second scene being pulled last minute or who knows what. They made no attempt to show her being captured either or how he got her into the building. Almost felt a few minutes were trimmed, due to time constraints.
I think she could have just bonked him on the head with something....that old cliche...but...yeah...it was brief.....it didn't ruin the whole episode.......every episode seems to have a few weird illogical plot points....but its entertaining.....so I let them go....
(sigh)...how many times and ways did the doctor try to convince her captor to cease imprisoning her? Once she retrieved the communicator he stole from her and found out one of her kids had been poisoned and was dying, she wasn’t left with much choice. I certainly don’t understand why some are so intent on making her the “bad guy” in this situation.
There's a scene where the Doc was lying unconscious on the ground after the crash and someone grabs her arms and drags her away. --Geoff
I know this isn't supposed to ST:TNG[/I] ( yeah, riiiight...), but, this is starting to remind me of, stories you could have done on ST:TNG if we weren't wasitng so much time on Worf/Gowron and "Wes, 'Cousin Oliver' To The Stars" plotlines?
From comments she made to her captor, she believed he wanted her forever as a companion or to not be lonely. That means, he will never let her go. Her life is basically ruined. After rewatching, it was appartent, He would kill her if she tried to escape.
My take on it was that the doctor was pretty cold blooded when she killed the two aliens and that she didn't have to use lethal force on either of them, I guess non Union alien life doesn't count as much as human or Union alien life, the previous episode where they roasted the crew of that ship makes me think it's not just the doctor who feels that the lives of aliens aren't as sacrosanct as human lives. On a positive note Star Trek was always too sanctimonious so a more Babylon Five approach is welcome in my view.
I disagree with this characterization. They had to take action in order to save tens of thousands of colonists that were in imminent danger of being vaporized. Trek has never shied away from killing in either self defense or where the needs to the many outweigh the needs of the few. What's more, in the Krill episode, the captain went the extra mile to protect the lives of children (who weren't in The Union), at some personal risk. So, what it in fact shows is a core ethical code being wrestled with in a ticking time bomb type situation.
This is Generation with humor...I me it would have been funny to have a fart joke on St:TNG. Especially involving Worf and some of the nasty food Klingons eat...
I agree. And I still am not sure what other course of action could have been taken, considering the imprisonment, stolen communicator, dying child, and personal threats both immediate and future.
My son watched and enjoyed Next Gen season two episode "Measure of the Man" with me and he would never have watched if not for Orville. Thank you Orville
Let's see how the season progresses, it seems to me that MacFarlane's Union has a much loser moral code than Roddenberry's Federation, which isn't necessary a bad thing when it comes to plot development and the potential for action, TNG in particular was often constrained by the prime directive and moral dilemmas.
Looking back, in some ways Rodenberry's "universe" had some truly great ideas, but also some that were quite unrealistic, knowing how human beings actually are and act. I know he wanted to paint a world where everything was perfect and somewhat of a utopia, which I think by todays standards we realize that is never truly possible. The problem with a perfect world, for drama on a TV series there needs to be conflict, disagreement, or something bad happening to get people into action fighting against it. Rodenberry's world seems a bit false to me now, after watching the New Battlestar series, and now seeing Orville. Its not the humor so much, but real people are going to for most intents act how we act now. The interaction, the fun, the jokes, the silly stuff, that happens during all eras of time, not just today. A future with people that all like classical music, Play violins, and Act in plays and adore statues and art and rarely ever argue or do silly stuff seems a fantasty.
