Delibird
Since: Oct, 2013
May 4th 2016 at 9:10:17 PM
•••
"The heroes travel into the past, where they save a woman from dying in an accident." Anybody besides me think that this episode is what inspired the romantic subplot of "Back To The Future Part III?" At least in the latter, Clara got to live, and the only change to the future was that they didn't name the ravine after her, just as Marty predicted.
But getting back to City on the Edge of Forever, I agree that the decision to kill her off was cruel and not necessary. They could have brought her back to the future with them, thereby preventing her interference with the U.S. entering WW II and etc. It might have been traumatizing for her at first, but given the alternative, I'm sure she would have adjusted.
Edited by Delibird Six-Two and Even ... Over and Out.
Well, let's see. The heroes travel into the past, where they save a woman from dying in an accident. But the woman was a peace activist who would somehow prevent the United States from entering the World War II, resulting in Nazis winning the war and the Federation never existing. Fortunately (?) she had another accident, which the guys decline to prevent.
I really hated this episode. First, it makes no sense from the historic point of view. In the real history, the United States *did in fact avoid entering the war*, until it bit them in the ass at Pearl Harbor. And second, it's morally bankrupt. What would they have done if she *didn't* conveniently have the second accident? Would they kill her, or perhaps forcibly abduct her into the future? (No! You do the right thing where and when you are. There's no future set in stone - if you do this Nazis will win, if you do that they won't; there are only possibilities. Terry Pratchett specifically rejected and mocked this line of reasoning in Johnny and the Bomb.)
Long live Marxism-Lennonism! Hide / Show Replies