From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From Address: graemecree@aol.com   
   Subject: Re: Who Mourns for Adonais? my review   
      
   On Dec 20, 2:42apm, "jph...@gmail.com"  wrote:   
   > As with a few Season One episodes, I liked Who Mourns for Adonis?   
   > significantly better as an adult than I did as a child. The episode's   
   > musings on what was gained when ancient superstitions was abandoned,   
   > and what was lost at the same time, hold a distinct appeal to me.   
   I wasn't wild about it.  As with most Trek episodes that try to deal   
   with religion, it really has nothing to say.  TMP took 2 and a half   
   hours to tell us that V'ger seeks for its creator just as we do.   
   Wonderful!  Amazing!  If I ever meet any living machines, I must   
   remember that.  Assuming that it's even true and not just Roddenberry   
   being unimaginative in assigning human reactions to machines.   
   As far as this episode goes, it doesn't seem to say what you think it   
   does.  It doesn't say anything about abandoning superstitions, it says   
   that the Greek Gods were all absolutely real.  Nothing superstitious   
   about it.  The practice died out because they left, pure and simple.   
   I wasn't wild about that premise, it's a bit too Erich Von Daniken-ish   
   for me.  But if you like it, for more of the same, check out the TAS   
   Episode "How Sharper Than A Serpent's Tooth?", which is a direct   
   ripoff... sorry, HOMAGE to this episode.   
   > I enjoyed the presentation of Apollo as a being who is past his time and   
   > unable to accept that he no longer fits in the modern age.   
   I didn't think it made much sense.  These guys have no particular ties   
   to Earth, they just happened by and started meddling.  If humans don't   
   need or want them any more, there are plenty of other fish in the sea,   
   so to speak.   
   Kirk's melancholy at the end is a bit surprising, if he believes in   
   the Prime Directive half as much as he claims to.  Here he just met a   
   race that was based first and foremost on meddling in the affairs of   
   lesser civilizations, and he seems to be wondering if they may have a   
   point.  But it doesn't translate into any doubts about the PD in other   
   episodes.   
   > In the late 1960's, with technology starting to run away with itself, more   
   than a   
   > few slightly older viewers of the time could probably relate to that   
   > on some level.   
   I think The Ultimate Computer handles this theme better.   
   > The episode is very well-directed. Marc Daniels was almost certainly   
   > Trek's best director, and his confident hand anchors the episode,   
   Not just HIS hand, matey!  I also appreciate this episode more now   
   than I did when I was a kid.  But when I was a kid, I always   
   remembered this one as "Wasn't that the silly one with the giant   
   hand?" (shudder)   
   > The network asked for a   
   > slight follow-up, however, so in the televised episode Kirk adds: "The   
   > one is quite sufficient."   
   Are you sure it wasn't Roddenberry that asked for that?  His self-   
   image was pretty high.   
   > I'm just as happy not to   
   > have Trek be among the late '60's/early '70's shows that were a bit   
   > too happy to find humor in rape scenes or rape threats.   
   Cough, cough, enemy within, cough...   
   But the original scene (still present in Blish) wasn't meant to be a   
   joke, it was a Rosemary's Baby kind of thing in which McCoy wonders   
   what kind of powers this kid might have.   
   > The change to Kirk's dialogue is one that I actually favor. It may   
   > work against Gene Roddenberry's vision of a future in which humanity   
   > has discarded all of its superstitions. But, much like J. Michael   
   > Straczynski and Babylon 5, I never can quite buy that utopian future   
   > in which humanity is free of crime and conflict, let alone religion.   
   Well, TOS doesn't play that up very highly.  It mostly avoids comments   
   about what kind of society Earth turned out to be, except to say that   
   it didn't blow itself up and that miniskirts came back into fashion.   
   It was TNG that tried to turn the whole thing into a religion in which   
   smug self-righteousness makes humanity cast aside their differences.   
   That's why TOS is better than TNG.  Trek is a series of engaging   
   individual morality tales, not a blueprint for world order.   
   It's why TNG often comes across as so facile.  Like, in America we   
   drive on the right, in England on the left.  It feels good to say   
   "Let's cast aside our differences and work together", but you still   
   have to decide which side to drive on.  You can't very well use both.   
   That's the point at which TNG always seems to fall flat, as if they're   
   saying "Oh well, we've done the tough work of caring about the   
   problem, so you can work out the details."  Big help.   
   With Kirk the line makes sense.  You couldn't very well make him an   
   atheist without lots of explanation and justification.  Most of the   
   audience would rather debate him on that than identify with him.  And   
   he certainly wouldn't be a polytheist.  So, a monotheist he is.   
   That's still pretty vague.   
   > Besides which, the addition is just a better line, far snappier and   
   > more quotable than what would otherwise be a throwaway. And in drama,   
   > one should never let one's worldview get in the way of a good one-   
   > liner.   
   That's certainly true as well.  The line as delivered has a more in-   
   your-face-you-poser quality to it thant it would without the bit about   
   the one.   
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp   
    * Origin: http://groups.google.com (1:2320/105.97)   
   --- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux   
    * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)