I've got a spicy take, but desperately want to get it off my chest
I've got a spicy take, but desperately want to get it off my chest
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 :(
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.
Batman ended every episode with a cliff hanger. Sometimes literally hanging batman off a cliff. Then they'd resolve it within the first 10 seconds of the next episode.
Soap operas were incredibly addictive. Some of them have thousands of episodes.
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.
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?
"You didn't even try to turn him off!"
"I am literally incapable of doing that."
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.
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.
It really bothered me that they didn't even mention the doctor, what with seven of nine being there and the ai plotline. But after watching more of Picard, I'm glad they didn't and especially glad they mostly steered clear of ds9.
So as someone who never watched Picard, its a skip?
Oh, please skip it. I watched the first season and I wish I could erase that experience from memory.
Red Letter Media did some youtube videos on all the Picard seasons, you’re much better off just watching them talk about it than actually watching Picard itself. Season 3 is supposedly better, but still not great.
Picard is destroying, it doesn't add. It should've never been made.
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.
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)
With many of the recent supreme court rulings that have ignored or outright destroyed precedent, I could easily see a situation like you described. Somewhere offscreen a ruling had been made and this is the fallout.
This is one of the better responses. Well said.
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.
The whole point of this episode is to challenge the viewer to think about the arguments. That’s all. Is it stupid as far as realism? Yeah it kinda is. But is it a subject matter many of the viewers at the time of it airing were thinking about? No.
I imagine the idea the writer had was “let’s challenge what the viewer thinks and/or feels without them knowing”. There’s a lot of that in ST throughout the years and I, for one have always been here for it.
It’s not the best episode, but it’s certainly not the worst.
I think voyager did it a little better with The Doctor, at least there was a reason why he was in the crew and was accepted as a person, but legally he was not
Better to be stuck in the Delta Quadrant than stuck at home scrubbing conduits I guess...
Every Star Trek episode involving a trial shows that the way Starfleet conducts its justice system is incredibly stupid.
The Menagerie, Measure of a Man (and like 3 other TNG episodes), Ad Astra Per Aspera, that DS9 one where the Klingons want to extradite Worf... all stupid.
The only one you can't really blame for being stupid in this regard is Voyager, because they always have the "we aren't in the Alpha Quadrant" excuse to fall back on.
That's because Star Trek is sometimes a show about introducing basic philosophy and ethics to American nerds who genuinely could not and often still do not grasp the idea of giving at least theoretical personhood to someone that wasn't biological.
Just ask half of this community what they think about Fallout 4 synths if you don't believe it.
Yeah this is just an excuse to talk about the mind-body problem. I like it.
I fervently disagree. I think you can view it in a very optimistic and utopic way.
When confronted with his friend's sentience and individuality being questioned, Captain Picard chose to debate on the basis of data being a person and deserving rights. Sure you could've just said that data was a person because Starfleet accepted him. But does that specifically extend to all androids or beings in similar circumstances? I think it's a good character moment for Picard that he chooses to argue on the basis that star fleet is better than stripping away someone's agency. And he wins too. Ultimately the federation comes to agree with that view point. Thats why it is a utopic society. Because when faced with a moral dilemma they didn't simply choose "technically legally correct" they chose "morally right".
You forgot that it was starlet that created the need for this legal argument in the first place.
If the judge was truly moral; this trial would never have happened. If starfleet was moral, the docheberger that wanted to dismantle data would never have been a member.
Also the other best defense would have been to ask docuheberger to prove he’s not just a machine, and crusher explain in intricate detail how they can reassemble Ryker’s brain. And reattach Ryker’s limb after Warf rips it off.
(Okay, so maybe I don’t like Ryker.)
Honestly I agree, the legal parts were cringe. I even saw a legal analysis of it on YouTube and they thought it was legally great.
But it's pretty simple in my mind: if he didn't have agency, he wouldn't have been able to join Starfleet. The very basis of Starfleet accepting him means that he is capable of making his own decisions. And the very act of accepting him means he is not the property of Starfleet.
Either way Data is out. Sentient because you accepted him. Not sentient means his acceptance contract is void and obviously not property of Starfleet.
Starfleet rescued him off the planet and reactivated him. He was next to Lore who was completely disassebled. To people thinking Data isn't a person, it was a salvage operation, not a rescue. Same as getting back a derelict doesn't make it a person and makes it the property of Starfleet.
I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say.
Salvage rights are very complex on their own, you don't automatically own other stuff simply because you come to their rescue (as in rescuing a ship) or flip a switch. It's quite literally someone else's property. So Starfleet didn't own him.
Second, he's an officer. You have to apply to officer school. Just like the children on the ship aren't automatically enrolled in Starfleet, they and he have to apply. It's a serious application. It's not like this android was just kicking around on a ship and fell into being an officer. (Same goes for enlisted.) *For anyone that doesn't want to read my next longer comment: Data signed a contract to enlist. To sign a contract requires agency, which starfleet accepted.
Data. Lor.
Lore.
Data and Lore are 2 different kinds of information.
That just occurred to me.
What about him joining Star Fleet proves without any doubt that he is a person?
It's not about proving it beyond a doubt, the OP's frustrarion is about how the whole courtroom drama was inaccurate.
The assumtion is this: Legally, Starfleet only allows sapent adults to join its ranks. So a toaster cannot be a starfleet officer, and neither can a dog.
The fact that he is an officer means that in legal terms, Starfleet has already decided that he is a person, and any court that asks this question has a quick and easy answer.
The existing legal precedent is absolutely ignored in lieu of courtroom spectacle. An excuse to have Picard wax poetic, which he does to great effect.
🥵
The dumbest part is when the JAG appoints Riker as the...plantiff/prosecutor? And threatens to summarily vote in the plantiff's favor if he refuses to serve in that capacity. "If you don't do anything, you win."
I think the concept is still high minded even if they ignored previous continuity for the sake of having the argument in the first place.
The antagonist is also a character that has little experience actually working with Data; so his ignorance is to be expected. I'm also not really sure how allowing him to be in Starfleet, hold ranks and what not means anything about his humanity.
I mean, even if they considered him to be nothing more than a machine, having him go through the academy and actually gain experience doing his job is a good test of the machine's ability to pretend to be human. It doesn't necessarily mean Starfleet wouldn't do the same for something like a non-android, AI powered robot that nobody would consider to be human.
I don't think the point even is "are androids human?" The point was "what makes a human human?" Our definition of it in reality is based more on emotion than rationality; there is a certain je ne sais quoi about what makes us different from other animals and opinions differ wildly about it.
All Johnny 5 had to do was laugh at a religious joke told by Steve Gottenburg. Guess the 80s were more advanced socially in that regard
They sure balanced out that social advancement with Fisher Stevens face painted to be an Indian engineer.
Dude, he wasn't playing an Indian! He clearly says that his ancestors are from Pittsburgh
(is /s necessary here? Eh, I'll put it in anyway)
/s
Nun soup?
Having not seen it or any of TNG; is it perhaps supposed to be hated, an allusion to other (obvious) demands for human rights? To be deliberately infuriating that it's even a question?
Its an allegory for the civil rights movement regarding race if I recall correctly, which I think people appreciate, and are just frustrated with certain details of how the story was contrived to express its ideas.
I remember liking it okay, but I frankly don't remember it well, I mostly just remember sobbing a lot at the episode where data has a child because I love Data a whole bunch
That episode was very good, but had a similarly ludicrous hook, with the evil scientist wanting to rip the child from Data’s arms, which ultimately results in her death.
Your argument ignores one important aspect.
They were looking for a reason to de-person him, to take him apart, and to build loads more like him to be used as slave labor in mines and other dangerous places.
In hindsight, there's a book that sort of covers Data early career, or at least what he was doing when Picard met him. The main focus of the book is Picard's time before the Enterprise. https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/The_Buried_Age
Noone is sure what to make of Data at that point. He is doing some computer database management stuff at some remote location and is content to just do that. Picard shows him how to have aspirations for more.
Starfleet never really thought or cared about Data's needs or wants, let alone sentience, until Maddox wanted to vivisect him
Didn't Legal Eagle on yt do a video about this ep?
