Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by Civ001, Apr 16, 2014.
Nothing; it went back to its owner in the future at the end of the episode.
The fact that they are officials and (possibly) also law enforcement (they had to do this accessing of info on TOS to figure out who 'Leo Francis Walsh' really was) in the sector of the galaxy where they sometimes are doesn't seem to be apparent to you? It did to me. And one gets the feeling that they were just accessing that info on a need-to-know basis, because they needed to know.
Accepting death is something that people should be doing, and doing better (although the crying that Troi did when Tasha died and Data died shows that people do mourn, as did the crying of Captain Kirk in Into Darkness.)
It's there for a good reason, as shown in 'A Piece of the Action' and a lot of other examples not shown on the series; I think that the story about this powerful alien from this comic book company illustrates why they have it.
Roddenberry had no business writing TV shows or showrunning again to begin with, IMHO; he was rusty at doing it, and it showed in the quality of the scripts and the way the characters were written, plus it also set a deadly precedent for Voyager, Enterprise, and (to a lesser extent) DS9 that was carried out by Berman & Braga. All that he should have done was come up with the concept, be given the 'created by' credit, and packed off after that. I'll also agree with you on that.
The question is, is how do you show this (and show it well enough to satisfy a lot of people) on an episode? Especially when said characters aren't the lead characters? It's easy for fans to say 'just do it', but actually executing it (especially in conservative religious fundamentalist North American society) isn't easy, as evidenced by the reaction to the Phase II episode 'Blood and Fire'. (Not to say it shouldn't be done; it should, but just sayin'.)
Overall, I don't think even Gene knew whether or not complete non-interference was a good idea. I point to the episodes "Assignment: Earth", "For the World is Hollow..." and "The Paradise Syndrome", where interference was obviously a good thing.
That's an interesting way to approach the character. I don't think I've seen that voiced before. Nicely done!
Honestly, I don't know if it's something I came up with or if it's something I've picked up somewhere over the past thirty-odd years of being a fan.
It has been rattling around in my brain for a long time though.
That being said, its not a bad idea to let it out for a little air now and again.
In "The Long Ladder" I think Picard talked mate sharing and multiple languages.
I think we may be talking about two types of human utopia--the spiritual/religious version, and the technological based one.
The spiritual version has it that by following a strict moral code 24 hours day, humans can achieve eliminate suffering and achieve Utopia. (There is some truth to this.)
Since Trek's version is more technological, humans aren't really needed to be perfect.
The truth is, discovering that there was life on other planets shocked the human ego into changing (according to trek).
And the resulting technological advancement eliminated greed, hunger, elitism, poverty, social class isms.
I think the two versions clash, because from the spiritual point of view, saying we'll achieve utopia by technology and science seems sacrilegious and arrogant.
The technological view is that by solving the problem, you eliminate suffering- That seems to be Trek's view as well.
I'll be good. *crosses fingers*
The Prime Directive was always a sticky wicket for me, anyway. So they won't give technology to developing societies, I get that, but to let an entire planet full of people die off? Nah, I don't get that one. The excuse that "we don't know what might evolve later" is a piss poor one, IMO.
We already had that with forbidden mind melds and mind meld transmitted diseases.
Except Spock preceded Enterprise by close to thirty-five years.
Retcon. That's never a fiery topic.
Why don't you try substituting "heterosexual relationships" or "interacial relationships" for "gay relationships" in your sentence.
Your "personal preference" is bigotry whether you realize it or not. How would you feel if you were gay and someone told you they don't want to see your kind of relationship on tv ever?
Neither officials nor law enforcement should ever be able to access information on anyone without legal cause.
Harry Mudd was in violation of a number of laws, and he was told he would have legal information for his defense, and the accessing of his information occurred at a formal hearing. This was the proper way of doing things.
Not just pull info up casually.
No, people shouldn't be expected to simply accept death, and placing such a expectation upon a young child is the sign of a twisted culture.
Exactly the same way you would with a hetero character.
One example, we learn in Mantrap that Uhura is hetero because when the salt vampire changes into someone Uhura would be attracted to, it becomes a handsome man.
Indicating that a character is gay would be as simple as that.
Remind me to keep the salt vampires at bay, just in case.
Exactly tgirl. Or as simple as the use of pronouns in referencing someone's partner.
This would be the most subtle way of doing it, and something that could be slipped into any conversation without much effort.
Yeah people often react to these discussions with "but star trek shouldn't be about sex it's a family show ". But we are not talking about sex here, it's about no longer clinging to a false normative, gays don't exist, as the default.
Infertility is the inability to have offspring, NOT the unwillingness to have offspring. A huge difference:
You see, a person who mimics the symptoms of blindness/insert medical condition isn't blind/insert medical condition.
You complain about a lack of homosexual relations in star trek because they're viewed with some social opprobium and you think homosexuality is not propagandized enough in trek/whatever medium.
Well, polygamy is not only viewed with social opprobium, its criminalized - see bigamy.
But you don't even think about complaining vis-a-vis this - asking for the legalization of bigamy, for equal legal standing with monogamous couples, for removal of social opprobium, for propaganda in support of these things.
Simply because "opinion makers" did not preach about these, and, as such, you were not properly indoctrinated along these lines. Consistency, logic? - these were never part of the equation - but I'm sure you think otherwise.
I'm pretty sure that IF Star Trek ever comes back to TV, not only will there be at least one gay character, there will be plenty of references to gay relationships (not in a sexual way, but in an off handed way, like asking a male officer "how's your husband)and seeing as each iteration of Star Trek tried to push the boundaries of social convention (in a positive way, such as having an articulate black woman and an Asian as officers) there will likely be a transgender human or alien.
Exactly. A same sex relationship is the same as a hetero relationship, except that the genders are the same. Everything else still applies.
Separate names with a comma.