But not as many different experiences. There are adventurous sorts, and stay-at-home sorts. Some of the writers for TOS fought for their lives in faraway lands in WWII or Korea. The writers for TNG... went to college in California in the 80s.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
<Fires up Memory Alpha and Wikipedia>But not as many different experiences. There are adventurous sorts, and stay-at-home sorts. Some of the writers for TOS fought for their lives in faraway lands in WWII or Korea. The writers for TNG... went to college in California in the 80s.
Ron Moore went to Cornell on a Navy ROTC scholarship and served on a navy frigate for one month during the summer after his freshman year.
Naren Shankar, another Cornell alum, got PhDs in physics and electrical engineering.
René Echevarria went to Duke University in North Carolina, majored in history, and also acted in theater.
Melinda Snodgrass went to college in New Mexico, has had a distinguished prose career both before and after TNG, and has degrees in both history and law.
Tracy Tormé is the son of Mel Tormé and also wrote for Saturday Night Live.
Hilary J. Bader studied mime in Paris and toured the U.S. for ten years performing a story theater play she'd co-written.
According to Robert Hewitt Wolfe, Peter Allen Fields (who wrote for TNG before moving on to DS9) lied about his age, joined the Marine Corps at 16, fought in Korea and was a P.O.W. He also had a career as a lawyer.
There were also a lot of veteran TOS writers who wrote on TNG in the early days, like D.C. Fontana, David Gerrold, John D.F. Black, who brought in their wealth of life experiences during the time they'd written for the show. There is more to life experience than just fighting in wars and having adventures.
I would think that Starfleet and the Federation would have enough respect for personal privacy and individual rights to NOT do what you just described.
Sabin Genestra, for example, does not (as you claimed) screen everyone's thoughts. He can sense that Simon Tarses is hiding something, but he's not intentionally scanning him. He can't help but pick up on it. And even then, sensing emotions is not the gross violation of privacy that forcibly scanning someone would be.
It's not clear how much a Betazoid can get from your mind anyway. They seem to be able to hear surface thoughts, essentially tapping in to your inner monologue like someone eavesdropping on a conversation, but it's not like a Vulcan mind meld where they can uncover your innermost secrets at will.
Babylon 5 had a couple of episodes referencing court evidence obtained telepathically, basically saying it wasn't permitted because it bypassed due process and was ripe for abuse. Opening a door to actual thought police isn't something anyone wanted to set a precedent for, no matter how much Psi Corps may have wanted it.
I was thinking of it being used in a voluntary way.
US intelligence agencies and other government offices use polygraphs when hiring people. Police departments and federal agents use the offer of a polygraph when they're questioning suspects. And a polygraph is shit we don't even allow to be used in court because we're not 100% sure it's accurate. Within the Star Trek universe, we KNOW Vulcans and Betazoids can accurately read the thoughts of humans and other species. What would be the difference between something like we do now, and giving a suspect the ability to have their thoughts scanned in order to eliminate them from suspicion? If your loved one or friend just died and you were innocent and wanted to help the investigation with everything you know, would you allow your friendly Vulcan investigator to see your thoughts?
Beyond that... we have seen someone forced to share their thoughts in canon, when Spock rips the conspiracy out of Valeris' head in The Undiscovered Country. He does it publicly in front of the entire crew on the bridge with Kirk's consent. What Tuvok does to the Mari investigator in VOY season 4's "Random Thoughts" is not exactly consensual either. Or is what Spock does to Kirk in TOS' "Requiem for Methuselah," where he uses a meld on a sleeping Kirk to implant a suggestion to "forget"
Last edited:
Talk about a Pandora's box...
The only answer I have is maybe.
A polygraph is nowhere near the same as telepathy. All they're doing is asking you questions, and you answer them. Simple as that. They're not forcing anything out of you.
And most lie detector tests ARE voluntary, aren't they?
That smacks of "people with nothing to hide have nothing to fear".
In any case, if I wanted to help with an investigation, I'd simply speak to the police.
And most lie detector tests ARE voluntary, aren't they?
That smacks of "people with nothing to hide have nothing to fear".
In any case, if I wanted to help with an investigation, I'd simply speak to the police.
If there was a real chance it would help the investigation, I might think that having to share some of the thoughts with that investigator, thoughts I'd otherwise rather hide from someone else might be an acceptable price to pay for that.
However, the condition that it's strictly on the basis of voluntary cooperation would be extremely important. And if you were to introduce such a thing, there would always be the risk of slowly shifting acceptance of more dubious practices over the years. Starting with slight pressure on someone to cooperate ('wouldn't it be great if we could solve the crime that way?'), to more pressure, to becoming suspect when you refuse cooperation ('a decent person would not have hesitated, he's hiding something'), to -eventually- outright forcing people ('the end justifies the means').
Was it 2006 when Lucas finally took pity and released the ''episode''less first film with no new hope? He's basically ashamed of it, thus no BluRay for that unless I'm mistaken. Were I he, I'd be more ashamed of naming Count Dooku Dooku.
Since the "Charismatic Abuser" is a real thing people deal with, instead of getting rid of it, turn into the curve and have something to say about the subject.
There are varying degrees of diversity. (One might think an infinite combination of it.) Not everyone shares the same breadth of experiences — or these words would have no meaning. Roddenberry was born in Texas, raised in LA during the Great Depression, flew 89 combat missions in the Second World War, was a commercial airline pilot after that, a cop after that, a writer after that, and a producer after that. That’s a lot of life experience.
He released it with a really basic audio track, I belive the mono track. He regarded his works as unfinished and frustrated by his limits. To many they are great films; to him its a rough work needing to be made perfect.
At least one of my friends believes making a perfect film is impossible. He lacks an all-time favorite.
(He also feels MAD MAX FURY ROAD was nothing special and the first GODFATHER was too slow.)
(He also feels MAD MAX FURY ROAD was nothing special and the first GODFATHER was too slow.)
Just saying, that the novelization of The Undiscovered Country has it that Spock asked Valeris (mentally, before he enters her mind) permission, and he shares his mind with her in return. She then permits it. The reason she sobs is that she has access to his grief and disappointment in her.
I know this may not be indicated in the script or intended in the film, but it is my "controversial opinion" that it is true.
I struggle to imagine what he'd think of 2001.
He didn't get it. Neither did my brother. Maybe had they read Jack Kirby's Marvel treasury edition version they'd have been as content as I was with it. But my friend liked 2010 at least as much as I did. Still the most different sequel ever, really, barring HAMLET 2....
I agree with him that a perfect movie doesn't exist. And that the Godfather is too slow. All of them are slow and boring, actually, not just the first one.
Fury Road was something special to a certain extent, but not an all-time favorite, either.
There's no one true way to interpret 2001. Stanley Kubrick said as much. We may never know what he, personally, intended for it to mean, but both he and Arthur C. Clarke freely admitted that there's no one official way. Every viewer is free to interpret it however they want. So if somebody "doesn't get" it, there's no shame in that.
Me, I take it literally, just like Clarke did in the novelization - the Monoliths were created by aliens. But it means whatever you want it to mean.
That said, I also love 2010 and IMHO it is an entirely worthy sequel. I love the fact that Peter Hyams asked for, and got, Kubrick's blessing. And of course Roy Scheider knocks it out of the park.
Similar threads
- Locked
