What would Picard do?

So BBC America was running a selection of popular ST:TOS episodes, and I was watching “Friday’s Child.” That’s the one where a pregnant Julie Newmar is Eleen, the wife of a tribal chieftain who gets overthrown and slain, and by their law they are about to kill her as well. And she is willing to die, accepting of their law.

And Kirk decks the executioners.

Now this is beyond question a violation of the Prime Directive. Starfleet officers cannot interfere with the social development of a planet, period. In this case the social development called for Eleen to be executed. Kirk not only interferes, but he jeopardizes their mission because they are in competition with a Klingon who is standing right there and was perfectly willing to led Eleen be killed. The Klingon obeys their laws while Kirk does whatever the hëll he wants.

The point is, Picard was much more faithful to the Prime Directive. He quoted it constantly and it impacted on all his decisions. So if Picard had been standing there and they were about to execute Eleen, would he have allowed it to happen?

PAD

45 comments on “What would Picard do?

  1. I think he would have let her die. He was willing to do so with David Ogden Stiers as Timicin in the episode Half a Life.

  2. I feel like Picard would have grabbed Eleen, hit his communicator badge, and said, “Chief O’Brien, two to beam up.” And then dealt with the consequences.

  3. As he is french, he would probably have disguised himself as the deceased husband, spooked out the natives and got away with the bride. At least, that’s what Passepartout did.

  4. I say he would have lectured everyone in the room to the point where they all fell into a deep sleep a la Rip Van Winkle. And the problem would have taken care of itself during their 20 year sleep.

    More seriously, I always took it that because the Federation and the Klingons were directly interacting with the government, the Prime Directive didn’t apply.

    Because just being there, meant influencing the culture.

    But I nitpick. The main thing was that I really enjoyed the episode.

  5. Interesting question. I recall that, when Wesley was about to be euthanized for falling on plants, Captain Picard spoke valiantly and forcefully on his behalf, and talked the deity machine into letting the landing party leave. The whole Data defense thing in Season 2 is so well-known that I hardly need to recall it. My point being that I think that, while Captain Picard would not go on a punching spree, he would probably argue against a death sentence for Eleen.

    It would prove an interesting moral dilemma, since she wasn’t fighting to be rescued. (I seem to recall that, when Captain Kirk first tried to rescue her, she demanded to see him punished, lethally, for his efforts. )

  6. Here is how I see it.

    Picard would not have been in that situation. Next Gen was very consistent in keep the Captain on the ship for away missions (unless they were diplomatic.) This is wise. After all, you do not send the one irreplaceable crew member down for something like that. There are literally hundreds of people who are trained for such situations. For a pre-first contact world like this one, Picard would have been safely aboard the ship.

    So having established that, what would have happened. A realistic (as in if this were the real world) approach would have some random crew member involved and doing exactly what Kirk did. But this is Hollywood. We want only our big stars to do these things, so instead it would be one of Picard’s staff. My money is on it being Riker or Data.

    Why one of those two? Riker is the Kirk stand in for Next Gen. Data would give us a chance to examine humanity. As for the rest, Worf is far too “by the book” and wait, there’s Klingons involved so putting him in becomes either problematic or really interesting. Troi would probably be with Picard. Geordi has never shown interest in first contact situations. Dr Crusher would be in Medlab unless there was reason to believe a medical emergency was imminent. Wesley … it would make *no* sense to have Wesley on that mission.

    So, basically either Riker or Data would do the same thing as Kirk. And Picard would get to tell them how the Prime Directive directly opposes what they did.

    1. There were many instances in which Picard, for one reason or another, was either on an away mission, or met with representatives of other cultures on the Enterprise, which would place him in situations relevant to Peter’s hypothetical. The situation with Timicin in “Half a Life”, which took place entirely on the Enterprise, provides an example.
      .
      In any event, Peter’s hypothetical was to ask what Picard would do if he were in that scenario, which is a perfectly reasonable hypothetical question to pose, and not what the statistical likelihood of him being in it.

    2. There is some indication, (mostly from the novels, if memory serves — which it doesn’t always), that it was the realization that “irreplaceable” captains couldn’t be risked on away missions that prompted the policy change between generations. Of course, given Kirk’s (Shatner’s, too) personality, he may have just thought sitting on the starship was too boring and “the rule was actually more of a suggestion, really.”
      .
      That said, early on, I think the “non-interference” aspect of the PD applied mostly to pre-warp cultures. Alien interference *would* be a mitigating factor in Picard’s eyes and he would have felt OK intervening. Though I agree he’d pull a “two to beam up” before he’d throw a right hook.

  7. It’s a toughie. Looking at it from the external view, I can’t believe the writers would have let Picard stand by and do nothing. Internally, what do you do when the woman is more than willing to follow her culture’s traditions and laws? I suspect Picard would have tried arguing that when the execution law was created, there wasn’t the possibility of off-planet exile, and tried to convince Eleen and the authorities that he could take her to a far corner of the Federation and they’d never see her, or the child, again. Now, in the real situation, whether they’d buy this argument is a real toss-up. It’s been ages since I’ve seen that episode, but I presume the basic rationale for the law was to prevent the wife and heir of the late ruler from challenging the rule of the new monarch. Would they buy that they really would never return?

  8. Ok, there’s an issue here of just what *is* the Prime Directive. As I recall, the Prime Directive in ST:TOS was limited to those races/planets that were not aware of the greater universe – aka, those without warp drive or subspace communication. Therefore, the Prime Directive did not apply as far as Eleen was concerned, because the Klingons had already messed things up.

    By the time of ST:TNG, the Prime Directive had gotten expanded, to the point it was cited as a reason that the Federation could not be involved in Klingon internal affairs. Sorry, that’s not the Prime Directive – that’s diplomacy and politics. And yet, at the same time – Picard *does* get involved.

    The big problem was that the Prime Directive was used inconsistently, especially in the later series. I felt it was handled fairly consistently in ST:TOS.

  9. Considering the episode with Worf’s brother where he was ok with letting an entire civilization die…

  10. If this had been a Next Generation episode, the writers would have probably pulled some loophole in the law out of their backsides in the last ten minutes.

  11. Let me bring this up. Pete, I remember you mentioning once that the Prime Directive was never mentioned until the second season. If this episode took place before that, one can hardly blame Kirk for violating a law the writers hadn’t even thought of yet.

  12. I think Picard would have eloquently argued on her behalf. Failing that, perhaps he’d have engineered some clever way that she could technically die, but be revived immediately afterward, which would technically have fulfilled the tribe’s tradition. Since they’d already interfered to a degree simply by their presence, he’d encourage them to rethink their stance, and hope that they grew as a people.

    So more of a gentle dismantling of the Prime Directive, rather than an out and out smashing of it, ala Kirk.

  13. I remember you (PAD) mentioning this as your inspiration for “A Rock and a Hard Place” (TNG novel), where Stone is put in exactly that situation. So, I recommend that book for anyone who hasn’t read it yet.

    1. Very much so. The first of Mr David’s works I ran across (I’d given up reading ST novels years earlier as they never seemed to ‘work’ for me. This changed that) and still one of my favourites. Will we ever be fortunate enough to encounter Cmdr Stone again? Fascinating character.

  14. I think both shows could be pretty inconsistent about it. On one TOS episode, Kirk will be happy that they didn’t interfere with the Roman Coliseum planet, because Christianity will create total world peace; on another episode, he’ll interfere with the Vietnam planet because others are, and keeping the war going is the best solution in his mind. Or he’ll decide that two planets’ bloodless war needs to be made vicious again, to convince them to stop fighting (I remember that the ship and its crew were imperiled, but if memory serves they could have escaped and left the bloodless war as was.) On next Gen, one episode they will save an alien planet and mindwipe an alien kid to forget about it, on another episode they’ll let a planet full of people die so that Worf’s brother can be rebellious. I always thought it was interesting that in an early episode of next gen, the “give weapons to both sides” plan that was seen as the best option on the TOS episode was seen as a disaster that made everything worse. Kirk was more of a rebel, Picard was more conciliatory. I wonder how much of that was from Rodenberry’s changing views.

    .

    One thing I think is cool about PAD’s writing is that even though it’s clear he favors Kirk over Picard, he showed Picard’s way as heroic and worthwhile in “The Modala Imperative.”

    .

    Personally I usually favor Picard over Kirk, but the inconsistencies bothered me a bit, and I always thought it was very harsh that Picard was willing to let a planer full of involuntary drug addicts go through a painful (and possibly lethal) withdrawal rather than let Dr. Crusher help them. We are supposed to admire StarFleet’s humanitarian values and rescue missions, except for when we are supposed to be in favor of them not doing so.

  15. I have always been kind of amused at how fast and loose the Federation at large and our heroes in particular were willing to play with their “most sacred rule” when it suddenly ran counter to their interests. Like, with how many primitive societies did the Federation authorize contact and full disclosure, just because they had met the Klingons or the Romulans already or they had access to vast stores of dilithium crystals and had no idea about the treasure they were sitting on?

    I never fully understood why it was ok for them to just station personnel on the “Friday’s Child” planet (McCoy’s past) or the “Private Little War” planet (Kirk’s Past) or just flippantly say “Hey, we don’t like how this computer that’s ruling this planet is ruling this planet” and they just destroy it and go on their way, as in “The Apple” or “Return of the Archons.”

    1. I believe the Prime Directive involves non-interference in the “natural development” of a [pre-warp] [hmmm … does this include worlds which use sub-light ‘generation’ ships?] society. There’s nothing natural about the controlling Vaal and Landru systems.

      1. Why? In the case of Landru, the system was working exactly as designed, by the ancestors of the very people who were now controlled by it. They did it to themselves, that seems to me to literally be a natural development of their society. No outside interference.
        .
        Vaal . . . if it were a product of a similar situation, vastly progressed to the point that the race no longer had any tech or even concept of society beyond “eat, sleep, screw, be happy,” if they did it to themselves millennia ago, that would still be a natural development. But I suppose the likelihood is far greater that Vaal was imposed on them by an outside force, so the PD wouldn’t apply.

  16. Picard probably would have let her die. What’s worse, he would have been proud of how enlightened Starfleet was for following such a “very correct” philosophy.

    A recent Enterprise: Rise of the Federation novel has a sub-plot where someone opposes Archer’s plans for a non-interference directive on the grounds that in the future Starfleet officers might follow it too strictly, leading to instances where they would allow entire civilizations to die rather than “interfere.” Archer scoffs at this idea, unwilling to believe that any advanced society would be so callous. Boy, was he wrong.

  17. As for how Picard would have handled the situation differently, I think there are two fairly perfect examples that pretty much already completely illustrate EXACTLY what Picard would have done: “Who Watches the Watchers” (Vulcan-like pre-industrial race being observed by anthropologists, they get discovered, some of their people get captured, the natives are going religious-crazy, and Picard walks right in and proves he’s NOT a god), and most directly applicable, “Angel One” (matriarchal society is going to kill its dissidents to prevent a government overthrow, but the dissidents happen to be naturalized citizens formerly of the Federation).

    “Watchers” shows us that, in the case of a primitive society, first and foremost, the Federation of Picard’s time likely wouldn’t have contacted the Capellans directly in the first place, they would have observed them quietly from a holographic “duck blind.” Which would basically preclude the entire episode plot. Now, should the blind fail, or should the Federation be forced to get involved (either due to one of the science team being captured, or one of Picard’s own people being caught up in the mess), it would depend on whether or not the Capellans accepted the idea of space men and took it in stride, or whether they went into a religious panic. In the case of the latter, Picard had no qualms about walking right into their camp and letting himself get killed in place of the victim to calm the situation down. Assuming their presence is what led to the Capellan’s government overthrow, I could see Picard “sacrificing” himself to save Eleen, and the Capellan’s respecting the strength and bravery of his play and allowing her to live.
    .
    Now, if the Capellans totally took the existence of spacemen in stride, and the government overthrow had NOTHING to do with the Federation, but was rather just a natural result of their politics, then the end result is pretty much a direct analog of the TNG episode “Angel One.” In that episode, the residents of Angel One are very similar to the Capellans, in that they are a gender-biased society, a bit aggressive in their politics, Federation contact has already been initiated because the Federation has an interest in their world (Capellans had an important mineral, Angel One was strategically valuable), the planet’s inhabitants are aware of (and tentative, if mistrustful, allies of) the Federation, and the Enterprise just so happens to be present during a potential government upheaval and subsequent state execution.
    .
    What did Picard do? Not a dámņ thing. Admittedly, he was seriously ill at the time, but even Riker (who is way more action-oriented than Picard) had no intention of actively stopping the execution on his own. At best, he tries to beam them all out ahead of time against their will, in violation of regulations, but when that fails, he makes no attempt to protect or free the prisoners through action. He merely makes an impassioned speech (much like Picard would have done) and is lucky enough to sway the ruler. If she hadn’t changed her mind, the execution would have gone through, and they would have stood by and watched, no choice. In the case of the Capellans, I find it highly unlikely that Riker’s speech would have changed their minds (especially considering that Riker probably wouldn’t have knocked boots with the Capellan’s ruler the previous night, so he wouldn’t have had a soft spot for Riker).

  18. It seems to me this is a very similar decision to the one Picard faced in the episode where Wesley accidentally broke a minor law on a planet and was sentenced to death. Ultimately, he defied the Prime Directive and saved Wesley. He was able to smooth things over with the aliens that were watching over this planet, but he still broke the Prime Directive to save Wesley.

  19. I think it depends on which Picard. Farpoint to end of third season? Maybe. Post Locutus to Generations? He’d have convinced the Teer and Eleen of the sanctity if life. First Contact forward? Deck Kras, flip off the Teer, and make Eleen pregnanter.

  20. Oh yes. Picard would have let it happen and then winged about it.I like him at times, but the writers wrote him into a weird moral corner.

    Kirk did what was right, dámņ the ‘law’

  21. Better question: Did McCoy ever go back to that planet and ‘hit it’? Eleen obviously was into him.

  22. But was it really interfering with the natural development of Capella when Kirk did that? Wasn’t Kras actually by whispering in Maab’s ear, as it was implied in “Friday’s Child”, already interfering with the natural development? I think if Picard had inferred as such, he MIGHT not have punched the guy, but rather accuse Kras of interfering…

    That’s why the Prime Directive has been frustrating for me. I get that you don’t go around, as a Starfleet officer, interfering in the natural development of a planet, even if it’s political in nature, but I always felt that, if there was anything that was already causing interference, Kirk, and by extension, Picard, should step in and stop the enemy from trying to get around the Organian Peace Treaty by interfering.

    That’s why I think while Kirk’s arming Tyree’s people, which you had revealed in New Frontier, had ended up in the Hill and River People killing each other in a case of MAD, I felt it would have been better served if Kirk had, oh, I dunno, busted the Klingons and made them take the guns away… (And Bones couldn’t have thought of a better solution… Guess Gene didn’t want to ruin the tone poem of the episode…)

  23. The Prime Directive has generally stated:

    “No Starfleet personnel, Federation citizen and/or representative may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture”.

    The Federation tried not to involve itself in other culture’s internal affairs even when other outside parties were involved, such as during the Klingon Civil War (Redemption Parts I and II) or the Circle’s attempted coup d’état on Bajor (The Circle, The Siege). Thus, the Prime Directive would still have applied after the sudden change in Capellan leadership.

    While Picard has directly intervened when one of his crew’s lives was endangered, he has not interfered when a non-Federation citizen’s life was endangered due to the laws/customs of that culture. Consider the following:

    Did not forcibly prevent Doctor Timicin from
    intending to commit suicide, but did consider
    granting him asylum after it was requested (Half
    a Life).

    Did not intervene to prevent Soren from
    undergoing psychotectic treatments (The Outcast).

    Did not forcibly intervene in the Klingon Civil
    War despite strongly suspected Romulan
    involvement, which was later confirmed. And he
    did not visibly intervene or object when Worf was
    given the chance to kill Toral (Redemption Parts
    I and II).

    Did not intervene when two Tizarian houses
    declared a blood feud and attempted to blow each
    other to pieces. Although a certain Federation
    ambassador did interfere due to unusual
    circumstances… (TNG #20: Q-in-Law)

    Given this pattern of behavior, Picard would probably have argued strongly and passionately to spare Eleen’s and her innocent child’s lives by suggesting/offering exile, asylum, offering to fight on her behalf, or other compromise that would have prevented both their deaths while adhering to Capellan laws, customs and honor. While direct, forcible intervention by Picard was possible, it was not very probable.

    Final note: this reasoning attempts to predict what an experienced, seasoned Captain Picard would have done. The actions of a young “heck-bent for leather” Picard or an equally young “stack of books with legs” Kirk may have been significantly different.

    1. You’re still looking at it from a TNG viewpoint. TOS limited the applicability of the Prime Directive to pre-warp civilizations. And in fact, TNG had a couple of episodes that made that point as well.

      1. I look forward to seeing PAD’s take on this, but I see it as the Prime Directive being a two-stage thing. Given already ongoing, ‘natural’ cultural development,
        .
        1 – For species still ‘locked’ in their own system and who have not been visited, it is forbidden to just walk in and announce “Hi! We’re from Out There”, much less do anything else which might affect the course of their civilization’s development.
        .
        2 – For species which have shown warp tech (no matter how limited) or undertaken STL (‘generation ship) interstellar flights, no matter how far from reaching their destination, contact is acceptable, but action may not be taken to affect their development.

        Bonus question: We have SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). It is reasonable to assume that other technologically capable species will also be looking out there for signs of off-planet life. So, if one of these species intercepts an old style radio broadcast or transmission, realizes it is of extra-planetary origin and transmits it back, along with a reply,
        is it Starfleet policy to ignore them, even though it is clear they know we’re out there? The ‘harm’, if any, has already been done and it isn’t as though we can just go in and make people forget it ever happened as they did to the little alien girl in PEN PAL.

  24. Picard most definitely wouldn’t have just decked anybody. But he would’ve made a stirring speech about the sanctity of life and whatnot, and offered to transport Eleen away from the planet, which *should* satisfy local custom.
    .
    Of course, the moment *Eleen* protested such an action would bring about an entirely different kettle of fish. And another speech, just time directly to her. And possibly some subterfuge that involved having Pulaski (’cause, y’know, second season *g*) give her a drug that made it look like she was dead and quietly beaming her up and then convincing her, on board the Enterprise, that even if she didn’t value her own life, what about her child’s?

  25. Picard would have launched into a stirring, two hour speech on the sanctity of life and the value of a civilization that treasures such life.
    .
    In the meantime, Ro Laren would have started swinging and dropping large fellows left and right.
    .
    Barring that period of the show, they’d probably kill her while Picard was still nattering on.

      1. You may, perhaps, have had a different experience, but the My Captain Is Better debates to which I have been witness did not include the sort of smacktalk I am witnessing with this one. (“Picard would have let her die and crowed about it!!!”, without, of course, any instances to back up a claim that ridiculous.)

      2. Except no one here said he would crow about it. So that’s pretty much just in your mind.
        .
        The closest thing here is someone saying that he would be proud that Starfleet had such a rule. Given how often he expressed such sentiments about the Prime Directive, I think the show makes that case for Don Campbell and then some.

      3. Jonathan hunter said “winged about it.” Perhaps you choose to nitpick and claim that this is not the same thing, though if you can argue a difference I would like to hear it.

        And,yes, Picard has spoken defended the Prime Directive. And he has skirted it to save lives (Pen Pals) or to repair damage (Who Watches the Watchers).

      4. It’s not a nitpick.
        .
        You used quotes to say that someone said he would crow about letting her die. This was a gross misrepresentation of what was said.
        .
        You now cite someone saying “winged about it” to back this.
        .
        To crow about something is to boast or brag. If you describe someone as having winged on about something, that’s not boasting or bragging. Moreover, Jonathan Hunter did say, “I like him at times, but the writers wrote him into a weird moral corner.”
        .
        This does seem to imply that he knows that the writing team did not always place Picard into this position.
        .
        The writing team likewise made him look like a giant hypocrite. When Picard was dealing with an individual he thought was from the future and could avert a disaster but wouldn’t because of a time traveler Prime Directive, he begged and pleaded and whined for him to violate his time traveler prime directive and do something. This was in stark contrast to Picard winging on about the importance of the Prime Directive before that episode and, hilariously, after that episode. The writers made him look stupid by putting the shoe on the other foot and never having him in any way noticeably change his position on the Starfleet Prime Directive.
        .
        “Every choice we make allows us to manipulate the future. Do I ask Adrienne or Suzanne to the spring dance? Do I take my holiday on Corsica or Risa? A person’s life, their future, hinges on each of a thousand choices. Living is making choices! Now you ask me to believe that if I make a choice other than the one that appears in your history books, then your past will be irrevocably altered. Well, you know, Professor, perhaps I don’t give a dámņ about your past, because your past is my future. And as far as I’m concerned, it hasn’t been written yet!”
        .
        Picard basically saying that someone else’s Prime Directive really doesn’t matter all that much when the shoe was on the other foot.
        .
        Jonathan is quite correct that the writing sometimes failed the character thusly.
        .
        You are incorrect in trying to pretend that “crow about” is the same as “winged on” by any stretch of the imagination.

      5. As to the episode that you provide to prove your point, interesting that Captain Picard’s purpose, in attempting to gain the information from Max Headroom, was to try to save lives, which was the point of the original question posted by PAD (“So if Picard had been standing there and they were about to execute Eleen, would he have allowed it to happen?” due to his upholding of the Prime Directive). The Picard Haters have stated that, yes, he would. The episode you quote, along with the episodes I quoted, would seem to indicate that he could be flexible on the subject, especially if lives were involved. (Tried to italicize ‘especially,’ but don’t know the coding.)

        I am not going to get into a kvetch-session over whether or not Picard was ill- or well-served by the episode writers (sides have clearly been taken and nobody is budging) but to note that, if anyone was ill-served by the writers in that particular episode, it was Doctor Crusher.

        And, yes, it is a nitpick, and no, I did not “grossly misrepresent” anything except that it is not convenient to your argument.

      6. You either sidestep the point or miss it completely.
        .
        Picard was trying to save lives? Well, yeah, when he didn’t have to decide if it interfered with the Prime Directive. But when Picard wanted it done, the fact that someone else said that they were bound by a Prime Directive from their organization, Picard didn’t care. Picard was great about going on (and on and on and on) about the wonders of the Prime Directive of Starfleet, but the second the shoe was on the other foot he wanted someone else to ignore the very same type of rule.
        .
        It made him look like a total hypocrite. Had the writers and creative team had a plan, it might not have been so bad. Had this been an arc where it would lead to Picard reevaluating his own views on the PD, that might have been something. As it was, he was back to the same old same old after the episode.
        .
        It was a perfect example of the writing issue with his character that others here and elsewhere have referenced. It made him look like the politician who lectures everyone about drinking and driving, but at the first opportunity gets busted for driving while drunk off of his ášš.
        .
        And, yeah, when you quote someone falsely and try to characterize what they said as something other than what they said, you have in fact grossly misrepresented their statement. And your reason seems to be, essentially, so that you can paint those who disagree with you as haters and dismiss them rather than actually have to face and address what they really said.

  26. I think Picard might respectfully insist upon a private word with Eleen to offer her asylum, just so she knows that there are options, but if she ultimately chose to abide by her society’s laws, then, given Picard’s reaction to Timicin’s acceptance of his planet’s laws in “Half a Life”, he would undoubtedly have respected Eleen’s wishes, even if begrudgingly.

  27. Picard would have done the best he could because he was as close to real human being actually being a starship captain. Kirk was a comic book character and acted as such. There were never any consequences to Kirk’s actions. It’s not Kirk’s fault or the writer’s that just the way TV worked at that point.

    Meanwhile, Picard was much closer to a fully formed almost human fictional character. What makes more sense as the captain of a starship? A cowboy who is always getting into physical fights with alien races or a thoughtful guy or gal who tries to mediate disputes?

    The first guy gets fired or never rises to that rank to begin with.

    So, yeah, Picard would have tried to talk them out of it. If he couldn’t, he would have let her die.

  28. I can see a few different ways the series might handle this.

    1) Picard comes up with a clever loophole that circumvents the law, such as using advanced Federation tech to “kill” her through some means of feigning her death or technically satisfying the society’s requirements for death (the classic “you can’t hang a man twice” trope). He then rubs it in the society’s faces that the woman is safe by their own rules.

    2) Picard gives an impassioned speech that convinces the society to change or suspend the rule in this instance, which he considers not interfering with their culture because hey, he was just talkin’, bro. They didn’t have to listen.

    3) Picard is reluctantly willing to let her die, but Riker decks the executioners and beams the woman up. Picard is placed into a moral dilemma (and possibly a physical one if it were up to me–maybe one or more crewmembers didn’t make it back to the ship and are being held hostage in exchange for the woman?) over whether to surrender her to certain death or interfere with a civilization’s sovereign laws. Would probably lead back into #1 or 2 in the end, but would help to stretch the episode out to an hour with a good B-plot.

    (Presumably the B-plot would involve Data learning wacky lessons about childbearing.)

Comments are closed.