An Ethical Analysis of Star Trek TOS “Where No Man Has Gone Before”

I am not going to do a scene by scene review of this episode as someone eminently more qualified has already done this.

What this review will discuss is the morality of Kirk and Spock actions in this episode and whether this episode really succeeded in portraying a story about how power can corrupt a good man and about the need for compassion.

The main message of this episode is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That you shouldn't give people too much power because if they abuse it, the consequences will be unimaginably bad and this was portrayed by having Gary Mitchell developing god-like powers which eventually led to him being insane with power which led to Captain Kirk killing him.

However I believed that this episode ultimately failed with that message. This is because Kirk and Spock jumped the gun. From the moment that it was established that Gary Mitchell had superpowers, Kirk and Spock were having discussions about stranding him on a nearby planet and run away as well as killing him. This was long before Mitchell did anything bad at all.

Spock prejudged Mitchell saying that Mitchell will eventually treat human beings as ants and therefore we should kill him before he has the chance to kill us.

Spock was right that it was certainly possible that Mitchell could become evil and had every right to be cautious. However you can not preclude the possibility that Mitchell may end up using the powers for good, or he could also become someone like Dr. Manhatten who was neither really good nor evil. The fact is Spock can not 100% say that Mitchell will definitely become evil just based on the fact that he has powers. At that point of time, Mitchell broke no law (there is no law against being arrogant) and the crew of the Enterprise decides to strand him on a planet without any due process.

Now just because it's a bad idea to give people god like powers in case they will abuse it, doesn't mean if someone develop powers they will definitely abuse it and that we should kill the person beforehand just in case the person will turn evil. Imagine if X-men portrayed humans who wanted to kill mutants just in case they abuse their powers as a good and necessary thing. There’s no way people would call that moral and yet this was exactly the message this episode was portraying.

Instead of displaying that power corrupts absolutely, what we ended up seeing was a witch hunt leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Now let look at what makes a witch hunt. We had a member of the crew who was different. Garry Mitchell suddenly become more intelligent, obtain photographic memory and can move objects at will. However like all witch hunts, instead of trying to learn more about the difference and what causes the change. The crew reacted with fear, the fear that the person who was different to them will hurt them. Despite the person helping the crew (by pointing out the problem with the shock absorber), their fear led them to persecute Mitchell. They sedated him; left him stranded on the planet and then rigged the facility where he was held captive with explosive just in case Mitchell wanted to escape.

Really Mitchell’s action throughout this episode was purely self defence even when he was killing Kelso (because he was rigging the facility with explosive) until the final battle with Kirk (who also intended to kill him as well).

Although Mitchell may well be showing signs of corruption and megalomania, the action of our heroes pushed him in that direction. The actions of Kirk and Spock made it hell of a lot easier for Mitchell to make the evil transformation. When Kirk screamed to Mitchell “Above all, a god needs compassion.” Did the crew show him any compassion? Did the crew give Mitchell any reason to not treat them with contempt?

This episode just ends up showing a self-fulfilling prophecy. Mitchell was developing powers. Spock said that he will end up abusing it and will treat us as ants if we don’t do something and because the crew assuming that Mitchell abusing his powers and acted accordingly, Mitchell started to abuse his powers.

This episode didn’t show that power corrupt, it shows that if you treat someone like crap, they will respond in kind. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Mitchell only started to see them as ants to be extinguished after the Kirk and the crew tried to strand him on the planet.

Unless you are a utilitarian, what Kirk and Spock done in this episode was morally wrong. Stranding a crew member on a planet and then rigging the area with explosive for simply developing powers without hurting anyone is simply wrong.

Now the only way out of this, is to take the “ends justify the means argument” and say that Kirk has to take the immoral action to preserve the safety of his ship and to serve the greater good. There may be some justification that Kirk took the pragmatic options.

However the problem was that this episode didn't take the "In The Pale Moonlight" or “City On The Edge Of Forever” type angle where Kirk was force into an unethical but necessary action to protect his crew. If the episode portrayed Kirk action was immoral and Kirk admit he done an immoral act at the end, maybe I would have been more lenient and possibly liked this episode even more even if I still disagreed with the action.

However the episode wasn’t about that. It was about how “God needs compassion”

This episode was preaching about being compassionate and how the more powerful you are, the more important it is for the person to have that virtue.

Having an episode preaching about compassion while also having an ends justifying the means message is incompatible.

You can’t on one hand have Kirk lecturing Mitchell about the necessity of compassion and have him showing no compassion by stranding Mitchell on that planet just “in case” the person may abuse their powers in the future because that’s just pure hypocrisy. If you going to have that message about compassion and how power corrupts, you have to expect the heroes to act compassionately and use power appropriately. Kirk should have only stranded Mitchell on the planet after Mitchell done something wrong not beforehand.

Some people may point out that Kirk did show compassion at the end when he paused during the fist fight with Mitchell. However that was when the horse was already bolted when that type of compassion is just foolish.

This is the way I would have done the episode.
When Mitchell got his powers, I would have had Kirk getting along with Mitchell and still be friends with him. However, Kirk recognises that Mitchell shouldn't have these gods like powers because no human should ever have these powers as we aren’t ready for it. Therefore he orders the doctor and the psychiatrist to work together to learn more about Mitchell’s condition and try to find a way to stop his growth in power and perhaps a cure to reverse his development. Initially Mitchell actually supports Kirk’s plan, after all he is a student of Kirk.

Spock, instead of him telling Kirk to go kill Mitchell or strand him. Have Spock just warn him that history has shows that when you give people power that more likely than they will abuse it gives people the freedom to reveal all aspect of their personality. That Kirk has to be prepared that he may not like what he will soon discovers about Mitchell and we have to keep an eye on him. Kirk uncomfortably agrees and make sure he has arm guards around sick back at all times.

However, Mitchell starts to use these powers. Firstly he used some of the power for good and perhaps has a situation where Mitchell ends up saving the ship. However those experiences changed him and he starts to believe that he deserves to have this and he is entitled to this power. That this power given to him was for a reason, that he was meant to have these powers to lead the human race to a new era and that he doesn’t want a cure. Kirk refuses to let him keep the power and refuses to let him “lead” the human race. This ended up leads to Mitchell attacking Kirk and the guards (perhaps killing one of the red shirts) but Kirk and the security guards manage to sedate him. Only then do they decide to strand Mitchell on the planet. The episode then continues as normally leading to Kirk sadly killing his best friend. The message could end up with Kirk telling Spock “Do you think so little of human nature, that it is impossible for us not to abuse power when we have it?” Perhaps Spock gives a response that humans may have advanced socially and technologically over the last hundreds years but human beings will always be flawed beings and power always reveals those flaws.

If this episode was done that way, the final Kirk speech would have far more meaning when he was telling Mitchell about "where's your compassion, a god must have compassion". The episode would have shown the process of power corrupting an essentially good human being and give a message why humans should never be given too much power and the importance of compassion.

Music (Over)Analysis - Highway Star by Deep Purple

The shear genius of Highway Star

This is my essay on why Highway Star is the greatest car song of all time and one of all time favourite song.

What makes me gush over this song is how the music of the song work to create this speeding in a highway atmosphere Whenever I listen to this song I get vivid imagery of street racing . Hell this is someone who doesn’t particularly enjoy driving and hate road hoons (I’m probably more in line with Thom Yorke’s feeling about cars). Yet this song manage to deceive me and make me think for a moment that driving car fast is fun. Oh yeah, also because this song kick arse.

So this is my fan fiction in creating a narrative (purely by the music) on what is going on in the song

So the song starts off with some chord strumming (mostly one strum per bar instead of the regular power chord that soon follow) by the guitar with a regular bass playing. This intro creates imagery in my head of the car being turn on and speeding off.

When the guitar starts playing some regular bar chords it sounds like the car is chuggling along at cruising (especially when the audible pick scratching noise give it a more mechanical sound to it) and then you hear Gillan screaming that signifies the car is speeding up and the adrenaline it feels.

Later in the song when you hear “it’s a killer machine, it’s got everything”, you hear a descending chromatic 4 notes. (F, E, D#, D), everytime I hear that four note sequence throughout the song I get imagery of the driver is changing gear (of course he is driving manual).

The chorus has Jon Lord playing chords in between Gillan singing. To me those chords symbolizes cars on the street beeping at the driver for driving like a maniac (as this is street racing he may even be driving in the wrong side of the road).

The chorus I hear this
(Beep) I love it (Beep) I need it (Beep) I bleed it (Beep) (Beep) (Beep) Yeah it’s a wild (Beep) machine, alright hold tight I’m a highway star.

Before the keyboard solo, you hear a buzzing noise (I think it’s a distortion from a guitar) that pan from the right of the speaker to the left. To me it sounds like another car that you are racing against is accelerating and catching up to you

Then Jon Lord plays a killer solo. To me this section signifies two cars are dualing with each other during the race. To me what added to this sensation that the two car are dualing is that Jon Lord plays this rapid keyboard section but with both of his hands and they are playing different notes harmonizing each other (but with the same rhythm). So with the left hand harmonizing the right hand it sounds like two cars are neck to neck battling it out with each other.

At the end of the solo you hear Lord’s solo go to a stop with a single chord finishing off the solo with a distorted sound whilst at the same time the rest of the song goes back to normal. So to me this signifies the protagonist cars spins out and goes to a stop whilst the opposing car drives on unharm (because you can hear the regular strumming pattern). The little interlude at the 2:50 minute mark signifies the protagonist getting the car back on and back to the race

So the song continues on and the protagonist catch up with the opponent and during the Ritchie Blackmore’s guitar solo. This signified the second car racing dual between the protagonist and his opponent and because I can hear some double tracking and hearing two lead guitars during that solo) again it does sounds like it’s two cars dueling each other.

At the end of the solo you hear Blackmore pulling the tremolo bar and that strange wobbling noise signifies the opposing racer spun out and is left behind as the protagonist drives on.

At the end, Gillan repeats “I’m A Highway Star” numerous time as this is him saying to himself that he is the star as he is reaching the finishing line. You hear Blackmore playing a ascending one string guitar line during that section and each time the guitar line ascend it signifies it’s getting closer and closer to the finishing line for winning the race. The final “Highway Star” with the drum doing a final fill, and Blackmore doing a final riff signifies the car crossing the finishing line and winning the street race.

So yes that’s the imagery I get from listening to this song. Man this song is just pure genius.

Music (Over)Analysis - Climbing Up The Walls by Radiohead

This is one of my favourite songs of all time and why I get disappointed when people say this song is too ‘difficult” or succeeds too much in its own goal or too uncomfortable to listen to.

I guess the reason why I like this goes back to one of the conflicts of ideology between Listenability and Emotional Resonance.

I’ll just define those two terms by the way I interpret it. The subjective component of listenability subjectively is whether you feel the song is catchy and the song is cohesive. The objective component of listenability it is whether the song follows traditional conventions of songwriting. Emotional resonance subjectively is whether you feel emotionally moved by the song but the objective component is the sincerity of the songwriter (or how good at acting is the performer) and whether the song attempts to capture a deep emotional state.

Usually those two category have a synergistic relationship because it’s based on happy = major scales, sad = minor scales and if you follow the western convention of song you could still create emotionally resonant music within the context of those emotions.

However what happens when a person tries to create an eerie, disturbing or violent or mentally unstable atmosphere. The idea of writing music following the traditional western conventions of songwriting where it sounds natural and everything fits together in a cohesive manner is in direct conflict to listenability So how do we resolve this conflict?

Well artist like Nick Cave, Kate Bush, PJ Harvey, Bjork, Can (by the way I love all of those artist) etc they try to deliberately sound ugly and break songwriting conventions. Some will add dissonance to the song, some will start screaming or start emulating a donkey, go on an angry vengeful rant, some will completely abandon cohesive structure in the song (I’m thinking of Peking O and Aumgm) etc. Of course they don’t completely go to the extreme and they mix those moments with conventional hooks and melodies but in the end it’s a compromise between listenability and emotional resonance. Those artist walk a tight line sacrificing elements of music that is pleasant to listen to with elements that accurately reflects the emotions of the song.

So the reason why I single out Climbing Up The Wall is because in my opinion judging the core elements of the song. There is no compromise.

IF you look at the song from an objective standpoint, this is a conventional minor key ballad. The chords of the song follow the conventional chords “allowed” in pop songwriting (the chords I, IV, V and the relative minor/major of those three chords are the 6 chords that summarise 95% of pop music), The chord progression of the song (Bm (I), G (IV of relative major), Em (IV), G. The chorus is just Em and G. So the chord proression is perfectly natural. Also the melodies, there is no dissonance. Thom Yorke perfectly sings within the key of the song and majority of the lead instruments and the tuned effects there is no dissonance either. There’s only one note in the entire song which was during the synth line in the instrumental break where they played an F over a Bm chord which is a tritone (the devil interval) and even then that tritone resolves the next note as the F becomes an F# (perfect 5th). However apart from that one note during that progression (and really it’s an effective used of dissonance but it’s hardly essential to the song and hardly anyone I heard criticising that song points out to the synth solo as a problem). This is a perfectly normal, conventional minor key ballad (although I haven’t looked at the score using this judgement but I’m listening to it by ear and I detect no dissonance but if missed out any, someone can point it out). Apart from that one note, this song is objectively listenable (whether someone finds it enjoyable to listen to is subjective as I admit listenablity as it subjective component as well) How they achieved the eerie atmosphere is by the production, the effects and the sound of the instruments and the sound of Thom Yorke’s voice.

To show how conventional the melodies is, have a listen to Powderfinger's My Happiness which in my opinion rips off the melody from Radiohead and yet this is essentially a pop song. The idea that this melody can be transform to have an eerie effect is genius in my opinion.

I guess I appreciate this song in the same way George Starostin appreciated Eight Miles High where he commented that Eight Miles High was “just about any other harmony-ruled, jangle-powered pop anthem on the 1965 albums. You could take away the atmosphere, change the lyrics to something more socially conscious and give it to Pete Seeger”. Well with Climbing Up The walls. without the atmosphere and the creepy lyrics, it’s just another minor key ballad that anyone can sing along to. Stripping this song to its core element and it’s just a well written pop song (a broad definition of pop perhaps) and you can do a acoustic cover of this song and it’ll still work. This song demonstrated that Radiohead understood that atmosphere, emotional resonance is not contradictory to solid melodies and making the song listenable.

That’s why I kind of get disappointed when people say this is a weak song and its too difficult to listen to. I can understand if someone says this song is too poppy and doesn’t go far enough but I don’t get the opposite perspective that this song is too unpleasant. To me it achieves the perfect balance. The core song is listenable whilst the atmosphere is given free reign to suit the emotions of the song

Of course someone can point out other songs that does the same thing (I can’t think of any in the top of my head) and please show me some examples of other songs that achieved the creepy atmosphere without compromising listenability however even if other songs achieved it before Radiohead, I will say that from a personal perspective this song was the first song that I heard that taught me that lesson.

Lyrics (Over)Analysis - Michelle by The Beatles

-->

So this song has a reputation of being a simple "love" song. However, perhaps there is more that meets the eye regarding this song and that this piece is actually a satire on teen pop music and "silly love songs". 

Don't believe me? Let's go through the lyrics

"Michelle, my belle.
These are words that go together well,
My Michelle."

So the beginning of the song starts off with Michelle, my belle (which means my beloved) but there isn't any emotional meaning or deep thoughts to those words. They are essentially just words that sound romantic and goes together well. Michelle is not really a real girl Paul knows, it's just a nice female name that matches the pop song archetype. Which is Paul satiring the nature of pop music.

"Michelle, my belle.
Sont des mots qui vont très bien ensemble,
Très bien ensemble."

Now Paul is just repeating the same line but in French because translating English language into French automatically makes the song sounds more romantic. However, like the message of the song, it's only done because it goes together well with the song not because of any real meaning or affection.

"I love you, I love you, I love you.
That's all I want to say.
Until I find a way
I will say the only words I know that
You'll understand. "

It's turns out that John Lennon suggested the incorporation of the "I Love You" section of the song. Which makes sense because John suggestion in songs generally incorporate the cynical, downbeat section to the song (see. Getting Better, We Can Work It Out etc).

You see this is the clever part of the song where Paul is singing generic "I Love You" to the audience not because he actually does love anyone, but because the audience can't understand anything other than "I Love you". "Until I find a way" to sing lyrics with deeper meaning and songs that are more intelligent, he will keep on singing "I Love You" types songs because they are the only type of songs that the teen pop audience will understand. They are too stupid to understand lyrics that mean anything more than "I Love You". Oh man, that really biting cynical satire there from Lennon/McCartney.

"I need to, I need to, I need to.
I need to make you see,
Oh, what you mean to me.
Until I do I'm hoping you will
Know what I mean."

So the whole I need to make you see what you mean to me. In normal pop songs that generally means that he wants the other person to know that he loves her but in the context of this satire, it's a twist because he wants the fans to know that they mean nothing to him. That he's hoping that one day the fans become intelligent enough to see through the facade so that he would be able to write songs that are more intelligent.

Then there's the generic "I love you..." to follow the trope of the pop song genre

"I want you, I want you, I want you.
I think you know by now
I'll get to you somehow.
Until I do I'm telling you so
You'll understand."

So Paul is singing "I want you" and repeating it multiple times until the audience understands and gets (I think you know by now) the "subtle" point that Paul "wants and love the girl" because if he makes the song more subtle without outright declaration of love and affection, they won't understand what he means (man Paul is ridiculously nasty and cynical in this song. I'm no lover of teen pop but the fans of that genre aren't that bad).

Then there is a few repetition of the previous lyrics and ends up with the declaration that "I will say the only words I know that
You'll understand, my Michelle." which summarise the song that they are writing simplistic love song lyrics that people can understand easily.

Now some people may disagree and that this song is actually about loving a French girl despite the fact that they can't really communicate with each other due to language difference (thanks to George Starostin for pointing out the literal interpretation, I honesty could not make that connection that there was a language barrier between the two lovers which led to the creation of this convoluted theory). However even if that was true, isn't it genious that the song can be interpret as a straight up "silly love song' whist simultaneously be a deconstruction of the same silly love song genre?

Now you may wonder why you should buy into this teen pop satire interpretation when there's a perfectly logical and more simpler love song literal interpretation of the song.

Well for two reasons, a) This interpretation perfectly symbolises the status of Rubber Soul being the start of the mature phase of The Beatles writing music beyond "I love you". What better way to say that we are more than just another teen pop band by writing a song that parodies it b) This interpretation creates thematic consistency with the rest of the album. The basic theme of rubber soul is basically disillusionment with their relationship with woman and relationship with the teenage fans that worship them. This interpretation completely gels well and complements songs like "Think For Yourself" and "If I Needed Someone" and if this interpretation is true it would create greater unity between songs. Hell you could almost make this album a concept album about this topic.

Now maybe it's unlikely that Paul McCartney intended the song to mean this (but I haven't completely ruled it out) but it certainly in my "head canon". I just find it amusing the idea of Mr. "Silly Love Song" writing a parody of songs the type of songs he has written a lot of and I have an image of McCartney laughing in his head when people sing this song sincerely. 

PS: I  thought of this "biting satire" interpretation because I was completely stump by this line "I will say the only words I know that You'll understand. " and I didn't know how that connected with a "love song" and I thought that sounded rather patronising and like Paul was calling her an idiot. I was thinking that maybe he was calling her an idiot and then I extrapolated from that this song that the lyrics are a parody of the fans who can't understand anything from music beyond "I Love You".

Now I didn't believe that Paul intended it that way (although I would laugh if he did though) but at the time, it was the only interpretation that actually made sense to me. Now the more plausible interpretation is that line just meant "I Love You" was the only thing she understood in English and that this song is a comedic love song about falling in love with a French woman without being able to communicate with each other but I didn't make that connection until George Starostin pointed it out. Although I don't know what it says about me that I couldn't make that simple and more straight forward connection but was able to string together this more convoluted theory instead.

Lyrics (Over)Analysis - Please Please Me by The Beatles

-->

You know The Beatles get the reputation as the clean-cut friendly rock band whilst the Rolling Stones are the dirty, bad-boy and sleazy equivalent. In reality though they are both dirty and sleazy but one band are more open about it in their image. The evidence I place is with their number one hit “Please Please Me” which is a song about Lennon trying to guilt trip his girlfriend (or maybe wife) to give him oral sex despite her reluctance to do that.

The Beatles written
"Last night I said these words to my girl
I know you never even try girl"

So Lennon is criticising the girl for not trying to "please" him (aka oral sex).

"Come on, come on, come on, come on
Come on, come on, come on. come on"

The protagonist is trying to encourage her to loosen her inhibition and the repetitiveness of come on signifies that he is desperate for it and is pestering her for a long time (although this would have been more effective in bringing the message across if the producer alternate the panning of each 'come on' from full pan left and full pan right to make it sound like the girl is being bombarded with request and each come on was increasing in volume to signify the growing desperation from the protagonist. Unfortunately production technique and making use of the stereo field wasn't that develop back then)

"Please please me, oh yeah like I please you"

After all the come on and all the effort trying to convince her, he lets off in frustration that he is willing to get down on her but she won't
reciprocate

"You don't need me to show the way love
Why do I always have to say love?"

Lennon is basically saying that this should be second nature to her and that he shouldn't have to try to convince her to do this and talk with her through the steps.

"I don't want to sound complaining
But you know there's always rain in my heart
I do all the pleasin' with you
It's so hard to reason with you
Oh yeah why do you make me blue"

Yep and this bridge just continues on the theme that Lennon is calling her a selfish lover. That she has an entitlement that the guy has to do all the pleasing and make the girl happy gets nothing back in return.

What a disgusting dirty song by The Beatles.

Suspension of disbelief and the challenges face by the Extended Cut DLC

First, I want to state the obvious. Video games aren’t real. I’ll also add “movies aren’t real”, “books aren’t real” or even “fiction by definition isn’t real”

No, I’m not going to write an post about why people shouldn’t get upset over a video game or story and that people who do have no lives.

The reason why I point this out is that recognising this is probably one of the most important factors in storytelling. Things that are dramatic in real life are simply not that interesting when presented in fiction.

A bomb that kills 20-30 people in real life would be emotionally moving if we see the impact on TV because we know that these people do exist. A bomb that blows up an entire planet and wipe out a civilization in fiction can be greeted with a yawn because people know it isn’t real. People dying in fiction are just pixels on the screen (video game), extras pretending to die (movies) or letters written on a page (books). Why should I care about a fake civilization that isn’t real die? That is the challenge that all fiction writers have to overcome.

A story that is primary event driven that attempts to hook the audience by relying on them to react to the event as they would if it happen in real life will seldom be emotionally gripping. Have a villain attempting to wipe out organic life and then having the hero stop them normally reads like a generic action movie. It could be entertaining if the action scenes are well crafted or in a video game if the gameplay is excellent but it can never really be emotionally gripping because people know it isn't real and doesn't exist.

Nevertheless despite the fact that fiction isn’t real, so many people are emotionally invested into works of fiction. So how do writers make a person care about what happens on the screen and be emotionally invested on something that isn’t real?

They achieve this by writing believable and likeable characters. If you have a character with a flesh out and develop personality that you could imagine could exist in real life and you could relate to. If that character is likeable then you develop an emotional connection to that character because that character seems real. The writers will ended up creating an illusion of reality and people ended up suspending their disbelief.  So why should people care about the villain threatening to destroy organic life in the universe? People should care because the characters that you develop an emotional connection to care about it.

Of course the more advance writers can create a situation where you can care about the surroundings and the general universe as a whole. After all a person develops an attachment to a location and the place they live in in real life and that can be imitated in fiction as well. They achieve this by creating scope by giving the illusion that there is a living and breathing universe beyond the lives of the characters. From Mass Effect point of view, that’s why when you go to the citadel you hear people chatting about their personal experience to the reaper invasion and you get involve in side-quest that don’t advance the main plot. That’s why in all of the planets you hear soldiers talking about their experience and their suffering and their own story. This is there to create an illusion that all those people you see in the universe has their own lives and their own story to tell. So we care if Palaven gets wiped out because we have been on Palaven and we see that there are people their (I guess you can call it mini-characters) with their own story to tell.  Of course this bond would probably be weaker than the bond people have to the main character but it helps increase the emotional attachment people have to the general world.

This leads to an important point; I don’t really cares about sentient life or the fact that people will survive 1000 years from now. I care about the character that I emotionally invested in and the world that I helped to save and the troops that I gather. The reaper threats is there to make the character care and be motivated to advance the plot but the characters are there so the audience care about the plot. It is of my belief that the plot isn't that important by itself and is only important when filtered through the characters motivation.

This leads to the problem with the ending. You make all these choices and none of the choices we see how it impacted on the characters or the troops that we gathered or the world that we are trying to save. Ok we saved the galaxy and the cycle are broken saving future races 50,000 years in the future and that humanity may exist long time in the future but like I mention before, that isn’t real because we never developed an emotional connection with the distant future, what is real is the universe here and now which is the universe where we were a part of for the entire Mass Effect series. So what happen to all the characters that we grow fond of and how do they adjust in a post-reaper world? We don’t really know apart from them landing in a jungle planet.

What happen to all the civilizations that we tried to save? Considering that the galaxy left with the mass relay destroyed stranding the fleet and putting a lot of current civilization and current crew in jeopardy. It’s no wonder why people who disliked the ending felt empty when the game ended because what else can you feel when you don’t see the choice impact on the universe you care about it and the few choices you do see left the universe in a pretty bleak state. The ending ignored all the things that made us suspend our disbelief and become immersed in this universe.

I do believe that this area could be something that the Extended Cut DLC could resolve. The challenge here is to connect the choices you make at the end with the consequence your choices have on the characters that made you interest in the franchise in the first place and the current universe that you been trying to save. The three endings of synthesis, control and destroy will have drastically different effects on the universe but we don’t see the difference in the original ending and a well made Extended Cut DLC could resolve that problem.

Here are the few questions that if answered could create the necessary resolution to the series:

• So we have Shepard dying in most of the ending. How did the death affect the rest of the crew and how did it affect your love interest?

• How did the combining synthetic and organic life improve anything and how does that affect the universe?

• What happen to the reapers in the control ending?

• How did the Quarians (and Tali) react to the Geth being destroyed after making their peace with them?

• How the current universe does moves on with the mass relay being destroyed and how would the fleet return home?

• What did the crew of the Normandy do now that the conflict is over?

• What about all the choices you made throughout the series, how did that play out on the galaxy?

It will be a tough job but I do believe that it is achievable for the Extended Cut DLC to resolve some of these issues. A few cutscenes that explain some of this mystery, a funeral scene of Shepard with the crew reacting to your death but have hope for a new future that Shepard sacrifice allows, a cutscene showing the fate of the fleet and the fates of the major planets followed by a Dragon Age Origin like epilogue or an Alpha Protocol like voice narrated credit that goes through the consequences of your decision would do a great job fixing this aspect of the ending and give the series closure.

Of course lack of closure wasn’t the only problem that broke the suspension of disbelief.  The lack of a coherent narrative also did the same thing as well. If a story is told logically, the audience will continue to suspend their disbelief and maintain the illusion that this story is real and hence maintain an emotional connection to it. Gaps in the narrative and illogical plot points will generally break those illusions and having too many plot holes will eventually break down the idea that this story contains is a living and breathing universe to something that is merely pixels on a screen.

The extended cut has it job cut out for them but it isn’t impossible because remember that plot holes aren’t things that are impossible to explain but rather it is gaps in narrative. In Mass Effect 2, if Commander Shepard died in the intro and then we suddenly see him alive working with Cerberus, that is a plot hole. However if we see Shepard getting reconstructed by Cerberus then that is a plot point. Plot holes are merely plot points that don’t exist. Therefore it is theoretically possible for the extended cut DLC to be able to fill in the gaps of the narrative of most of the plot holes of the ending. I am pessimistic about how they are going to achieve this and it may well require a brilliant or a genius writer to be able to plug all the holes in the story but it can theoretically be done and therefore I have to defer judgement before the ending are released.

Things that are important for the extended cut to fill are:

• Clear up the mass relay explosion and make it clear that it is different from the Arrival DLC explosion. This would probably be easy to fix in my mind. Simply show the massive red/green/blue explosion (that unfortunately as shown in the ending cut scene to be big enough to spread to the entire solar system) to be harmless to all the major civilization and perhaps some dialogue about why this explosion is somehow different.

• Explain why all the squad mates left the battlefield on Earth and board the Normandy and explain why the Normandy left the battle.

• Explain how the surviving fleet are able to get home without the Mass Relay or show the galactic civilization rebuilding the relay after they were destroyed.

However there are some things are simply impossible to explain satisfactory like how the crucible manages to merge synthetic and organic life of every life form in the entire galaxy. People in science fiction are able to suspend their disbelief out of a lot of implausible or impossible things such as faster than life travel, artificial gravity, inertial dampeners, universal translators, sound in space, biotics and psychic powers etc. However people accept these fantastical things when the writers establish the rules of the universe early on and then stay consistent with those rules. People can either take it and suspend their belief early on or leave it and don’t follow the series. However when writers add something unbelievable out of the blue without appropriate foreshadowing or explanation then it just seems ridiculous. A lot of people dissatisfied with the ending simply dismiss the crucible appearing and merging synthetic and organic DNA to be ridiculous (as synthetic DNA doesn’t exist) and space magic and that’s fair enough. It wasn’t established early in the series that this type of thing could exist and no amount of explanation or clarification can really solve this issue.

At best the extended cut can explain most of the plot holes but not all of the plot holes especially the one related to the crucible and catalyst which leads to my next point about the elephant in the room that is the confrontation between Starchild and Commander Shepard or for better words lack of confrontation.

My two points I mention before about characterisation and cohesive narrative are important for maintaining suspension of disbelief but this is the type of thing that is common with all forms of storytelling. In video games however, we the audience control the main protagonist of the series which in the Mass Effect series is Commander Shepard.  Essentially Commander Shepard is our personal avatar and one of the things the writers did effectively was to make Commander Shepard a reflection of our personalities or our own belief or at the very least the personality of the character we are role playing. The goal of Mass Effect isn’t just to maintain the image that this is a living and breathing universe which is something that all storytellers should be able to do but to maintain the illusion that I am Commander Shepard. Of course it is impossible to account for everyone and there were moments in the series were players on occasion felt they were limited with the options but as a whole there were significant diversity in the choices in the conversation and the behaviour of Shepard to at least satisfy a diverse amount of personality.

However one of the biggest complaints about the ending was the link between the audience and Commander Shepard was broken. That Commander Shepard no longer represented the player’s belief and values and because of that the players felt betrayed by the ending. Once the idea that I am Commander Shepard is broken, the suspension of disbelief is broken as well and the illusion that this world is real and matters is gone.

To summarise people’s problem with the ending,  a lot of people saw the catalyst/Starchild to be the primary villain of the series as they are the one controlling the reapers and were responsible for the mass genocide of the series and were directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of all the characters that were haunting Commander Shepard. There were a lot of people who wanted a more antagonistic confrontation between Shepard and the catalyst and some even wanted a renegade interrupt to shoot the Starchild and then have an option to reject all the choices made by the Starchild. There were also people who did not agree with the Starchild assumption that it was inevitable that synthetic life will destroy organic life and wanted to argue with the catalyst on that point. There were people who did not trust or believe anything the Starchild said to them because they were the villain of the series and felt that all the options given by them to be a reaper trap and felt that Shepard should have been inquisitive and get more information and evidence from them. There were people who were alarmed when the Starchild mention the mass relay explosion and felt that Shepard should have question the Starchild as it could be a trap to get Shepard to do the job for the reapers by wiping out solar system and advance civilization for them. There are people who feel that all the choices that you were given were morally abhorrent (destroy - genocide, synthesis - racial homogenisation, control - reaper trap).

Even if there was a reasonable explanation why Shepard was compliant to the catalyst such as Shepard had major bloodloss and had concussion and probably wasn’t in the right mindset to create a coherent argument, the fact of the matter is that whatever the reason, the link between Commander Shepard and the player was separated and lost.

Now there are people who were satisfied with the ending and happy with the choice given to them and have the ending that reflected their personality and that is fine and I’m not going to tell those people they were wrong to feel that way. Nevertheless the goal of the series was that people with diverse personality could be reflected by Commander Shepard and from that standpoint the ending failed.

The only way this can be fixed is to write extra dialogue and add extra choices in the ending. There have been articles that Jennifer Hale (voice actress of Commander Shepard) hasn’t been contacted to do record dialogue for the Extended Cut and the reports show that they aren’t changing the ending or adding additional choices. I’m afraid that if they are sticking with the line that the ending is a clarification and not a rewrite that this problem won’t be resolve with the Extended Cut DLC

My final thoughts on the extended DLC are that on the best case scenario, this could largely salvage the ending by fixing a lot of the plot holes and linking the ending with the personal connection the players have with the main characters and make the choices people have made throughout the series become meaningful. For people who their primary problem with the ending was a lack of closure and lack of resolution then I really hope that you will reserve judgement until the DLC is actually released. A well made DLC could potentially resolve a lot of this issue and create an ending that is satisfying for you. However with the restriction of clarifying the ending and not creating new choices and new endings, the ending can’t be fully redeemed especially if your main problem with the ending was the conversation with the Starchild and how the link between Commander Shepard and the player was broken during it.

If Star Wars had a Mass Effect 3 ending

So after Darth Vadar sacrifice his life to save Luke Skywalker by destroying the emperor. Luke collapsed onto the floor and became unconscious due to injuries sustained from being fried by the emperor and then wakes up on the surface of the Death Star.

Luke wakes up and then Jar Jar Binks suddenly appear who turns out to be the real master controlling Darth Vadar and the Emperor and was responsible for all the mass genocide by the Empire throughout the series. The motivation of Jar Jar Binks was that it was inevitable that the force powers will destroy the galaxy and therefore the emperor wipes out organics with force powers to prevent them from developing force powers to wipe out the galaxy. Luke Skywalker did not show any outrage that Jar Jar Binks was responsible for all the problems and all the death throughout the entire series and did not question the logic of his statements and did not demand Jar Jar Binks supplied any evidence to support his assertions. Luke basically took what Jar Jar Binks said on face value.
 
Jar Jar Binks give Luke Skywalker three choices, Luke will control all the force power in the galaxy, he could merge the force with organic beings so that everyone will become one with the force (so everyone becomes the Yoda or Obi Wan Kenobi ghost) or he could destroy all force power which results in the death of all force sensitive being (so Princess Leia must die with this choice). All of this is accomplished by using the "space magic" power of the Death Star. We have no idea how on earth the Death Star could somehow control the force power throughout the entire galaxy and this was never foreshadowed throughout the game that such device was possible.

No matter which choice he choose, Luke Skywalker has to die, all the Hyperdrive stop working which strands the Rebel Alliance fleet over Endor. Each choice results in the Death Star exploding in a red/green/blue colour depending on choice.

After the explosions we see the Millennium Falcon crash land on some planet we never seen before and then Lando, Han Solo, Chewbacca exits the Millenium Falcon implying that Lando picked up Han and Chewbacca from Endor and then ran away from the battle against the Death Star.

Then the credit roll

After that, George Lucas declared it was  a movie that has an ending that was intended to be ambiguous and interpretive and was designed to create speculation for everyone.

Thanks to Doyce Testerman for his Lord Of The Rings adaptation of the Mass Effect 3 ending that inspired this