Slashdot Mirror
Trekkies Director Roger Nygard Answers
Roger Writes:
Thanks for inviting me to field questions on Slashdot. I had no idea how wide a reach this site has. It certainly outed my geek friends, those who popped me an email saying they saw the first posting. One of my editorial assistants, and Final Cut Pro expert, Jeremy Rousch, looks at me differently now. One week ago I was just some guy who had made some movies. Big deal. Now, post Slashdot mention, "I'M FAMOUS!" Being mentioned on Slashdot crossed me over some invisible line of notoriety. Thanks for that, Commander Taco.
Before I get started, here's a little background. I have directed and/or produced six independent features (3 narratives and 3 documentaries), directed and edited for the HBO series "The Mind Of The Married Man," as well as having edited a few projects.
Prior to shooting Trekkies, I had never attended a Star Trek convention, but I had been to a Fangoria convention, where I witnessed the auction of a pair of purportedly authentic Vulcan ears. They went for $350 bucks. That blew me away, and led to making sure we filmed an action in Trekkies.
And now here is my pre-plug to tell you that my requisite shameless plug is at the end of the questions, where you can find links to locate my films. (I put the pre-plug here so those who grow weary of my ranting and click away before the end will not go away plugless.)
Re:Schadenfreude? (Score:5, Interesting)
by Chundra (189402)(#10754884)
Are you a Star Trek fan?
How do you define "Star Trek fan"?
By the definition of the folks in my documentaries, the answer would be, no. The dividing line might be whether or not you have ever attended a Star Trek convention, by your own choice.
I am a sci-fi fan. Star Trek was one of many shows I loved as a kid. (Other favorites were Time Tunnel, Lost In Space, Land Of The Giants, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, UFO, Night Gallery, Probe, The Man From UNCLE, The Invaders, etc.) The difference was that Star Trek was on in syndication every day after school and as a result I have seen every episode of the Original Series so many times that I can still quote lines. For example:
"This is Tranya, please drink. I hope you relish it as much as I."
"There are witches, there are!"
"I remember the old ones." (Very deep voice needed)
"The one that bore me was killed in a freestyle match."
"It is not a dance, it does not gather food, it does not serve Vol."
"Sterilize! Sterilize! Must Sterilize!" -- Anyone have a pair of anti-grabs?
This stuff is forever burned into my cranium.
accusations (Score:3, Interesting)
by Savatte (111615) (#10756263)
http://www.rit.edu/~mds2184
How do you respond to accusations that you condescended and were basically laughing at the subjects in Trekkies?
I laugh at and condescend toward all those who accuse me of laughing and condescending.
Uh, let me start again...
If there is condescension in my work, I don't feel it. I like my interview subjects. Many have become my friends. Gabriel Koerner is a perfect example. We chat all the time, and he worked on Trekkies 2 doing all the digital effects, in addition to baring his soul a second time.
It's true, there is a lot of laughter in Trekkies. My feeling is that as a documentarian, you provide a soapbox for people who can choose to get on it and speak their mind, or not. Some make a great point and some don't. They are adults and it is up to them.
I've screened Trekkies for both Trek fan audiences and civilian audiences. Guess who laughs harder? The Trek fans of course. They get it, they have a great sense of humor about themselves. Or most do, anyway. Perhaps the few that don't feel like they are looking into a mirror, and they don't like what they see; they have not accepted the geek in themselves. So they accuse those who point it out as being condescending.
Being a geek should be a badge of honor. The geeks are inheriting the Earth. Who are the CEOs and the inventors and the writers and forward thinkers? Those geeks we all remember being made fun of in High School, only they are all grown up now and making bank.
Taking advantage of Star Trek geeks..... (Score:3, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward (#10755971)
Some of the Star Trek "fans" in your movies, like the midget Daryl, clearly have mental health issues. Do you feel any need to get some of these people help or do you just profit from their stupidity like the people who make the Girls Gone Wild videos?
I don't provide counseling for anybody, but I do provide an avenue for somebody to express themselves.
All my films have been about obsession in one way or another. Obsession can be pretty funny when you take a step back and have a look at it.
And let's face it, there are certainly worse things to be obsessed with than Star Trek. Everybody has their little obsessions.
I wish I had thought of the Girls Gone Wild idea. Are you going to tell me you don't watch every nanosecond of those commercials?
Too Nerdy for The Movies (Score:5, Interesting)
by ThePolkapunk (826529) (#10756009)
Was there anything you shot or witnessed during the creation of your documentaries that was just too "hardcore" to put in? Were there things that were just so horrifically nerdy you had no choice but to leave them out? Anything that would alienate everyone except the heartiest star trek fans and alien conspiracy theorists? Was there anything that was just so scary you couldn't possibly put it on film?
No. We put it all in. The more exceptional the better. And you do have to focus on the extreme. If you made a documentary about baseball players, you wouldn't focus on the guy who bats .200, the average guy, the "normal" guy. People are intrigued by exceptional players. It's the same for any subject, including Star Trek fans.
Probably the most bizarre people I have ever encountered are some of the subjects in Six Days In Roswell, my film about UFO fanatics. We went to Roswell, New Mexico for the 50th anniversary of the alleged crash of an alien space ship and interviewed the pilgrims, the abductees, the experts, and the locals. The result? Are there really aliens? Abductions? Is that really the anal probe that was used on Whitley Streiber? You be the judge.
The award for the most extreme Star Trek fan in Trekkies 2 goes to Tony Alleyne, in England. He turned his flat into a space ship (70% based on ST: TNG) and lives in it. There is no bed, because he turned the sleeping area into transporter pads (which are functional, BTW). He sleeps on the floor. Does Tony have mental issues? I don't think so. He told us that building his Star Trek environment was therapy for him, after going through a break-up with his wife. And now he loves the publicity he gets from his creation. Similarly, anybody who goes out in public in a Star Trek uniform craves attention. What's the harm in giving it to them?
The most hilarious folks the second time around were the Star Trek theme bands in Sacramento. We shot five bands performing including, Warp 11, No Kill I, and a Klingon death metal band called Stovokor. They were so entertaining nothing else could follow them so we put that segment last in the movie. We also have released a soundtrack with two songs from each band, as well as some filk singers. ("Filk" is science fiction folk singing.)
Here are the lyrics to one of my favorite songs by No Kill I (be prepared for some profanity, the Gorn incites passions):
GORN! (by Ensign Baron von Grizman) Trekking through space Chasing some Gorn Fucking with the Federation A battle is born Taken from our ships Our savage nature calls Human pitted against Gorn Who's got the bigger balls? GORN! Can't kill Kirk GORN! Green fucking jerk! GORN! No can do! GORN! Fuck you! So we fight in an arena Amuse some fucking gods But this is Captain Kirk Not some fucking dog Gorn coming for me Like some fucking snail Death to humanity If I should fail. GORN! Can't kill Kirk GORN! Green fucking jerk! GORN! No can do! GORN! Fuck you! How 'bout a little chemistry Sulfur and coal Diamonds down the shoot Blow him a new hole! Hissing like a Sleastack The lizard king is torn Green motherfucker just got whacked! Toot my fucking horn! GORN! Can't kill Kirk GORN! Green fucking jerk! GORN! No can do! GORN! Fuck you
Why does... (Score:5, Interesting)
by WoodenRobot (726910) (#10755178)
http://www.buddhanet.net/
In your experience/opinion, why does Star Trek attract such a fanatical following, and why is there such ridicule directed towards those that consider themselves fans? It seems unique even among sci-fi franchises.
Star Trek has an underlying positive philosophy (IDIC, The Prime Directive, a better future for mankind, etc.) that makes it unique among sci-fi shows. This chord resonates among the Star Trek fans in such a way that it unites them and inspires this fanatical following.
The nerds will always attract ridicule from the less well informed (read ignorant), but the nerds have the last laugh.
Here we go (Score:5, Interesting)
by Jeffery (810339) (#10754797)
do you think the old or new Trekkies are more fanatical?
I think a cross section of each age group probably contains the same percentage of extreme fans. However, there may be fewer new Trek fans currently entering the club than there were in previous years--judged simply by the lesser interest in, and lower ratings for, the current series incarnation. By that reckoning, quantitatively, there are probably fewer fanatical new Trekkies.
Aging fanbase? (Score:5, Interesting)
by Darth23 (720385)(#10755425)
It seems to me that the Star Trek fanbase is aging, and there aren't really a lot of new fans getting into it. During the filming of Trekkies 1 and 2, did you notice large numbers of younger fans, and did there seem to be around the same number when you filmed the sequel - or did you notice any decline in the numbers of younger fans?
This is related to the previous answer. But I could add that although the numbers of new recruits per year may be fewer than in previous years, I don't think there is a declining fan base overall. Once a Trek fan always a Trek fan. But what's happening is that many, if not most, are satiated. After 6 series (I count the cartoon) and 10 movies and countless books and merchandise the fans need a little time off. I love a Thanksgiving turkey dinner as much as the next guy. But right after I've finished gorging myself, the last thing I want right then is another bite. I need some time off to digest--and then tomorrow I'll be just as hungry again for more. The fans need time to digest. That's all.
Audience (Score:5, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward (#10755241)
I am curious about the audiences of your films. Were you intending for them to cater to the non-nerd community? Nerd community? Only hardcore fans of Star Trek, Alien Conspiracy Theorists, etc.? What audience did your films end up finding?
Like all filmmakers, I want my work to find the broadest possible audience. Otherwise you're making home movies.
With Trekkies, we knew we had a core audience of Star Trek fans, but we also wanted the film to crossover to non-fans. The sometimes contradictory reactions/reviews are fascinating. Some think the films mock Star Trek fans, some think they are a celebration of fandom. Some think Gabriel Koerner is a geek (in a negative sense), some think he is a hero.
I think the Trekkies doc is like a Rorschach test. Because we had no narration, because we don't overtly comment on the fans and their lifestyles, because we present the fans and allow the viewer to judge, people tend to project motives onto the filmmakers that coincide with attitudes within themselves. If they are intolerant of lifestyles such as those presented, they see the film as an indictment. If they are open-minded about how other people choose to live their lives, they see the film's presentation as sympathetic.
With Six Days In Roswell, we made a film that we hoped that hard-core UFO enthusiasts would enjoy as well as skeptics who find the whole thing absurd. Renowned alien experts like Stanton Friedman, Budd Hopkins, Peter Gersten, Don Schmidt and others make excellent points. But on the other hand, some people are clearly riding the alien wave doing things like selling alien beer, alien beef jerky, alien ashtrays, and staging the production, "Roswell, The Musical." --If you see only one musical before you die, you must see "Roswell, The Musical." The opening number, "Something In The Air," has to be seen to be believed and appreciated...
I also directed Suckers, a dramatic comedy about car salesman starring Daniel Benzali, Louis Mandylor, and Lori Loughlin. We thought that anybody going to buy a car (which is all of us) would enjoy seeing a realistic peek behind the curtain at a new car dealership (we reveal the secrets to how car salesmen do their tricks). Curiously, the core audience for this film turned out to be car salesmen themselves. Go into any car dealership and ask them if they have heard of Suckers and see the reaction for yourself. For them, it is sort of like mobsters watching The Godfather. They enjoy seeing their evil deeds dramatized.
More than just fandom with Trekkies? (Score:5, Interesting)
by notmikey (825548)(#10755041)
On the surface, it seems like Trekkies are just really big fans, and that fandom propels them to participate in the universe.
It seems to me, however, that something different is going on. Fandom is often emulation--the Spock ears, the "Dammit Jim" variations, that sort of thing. But Trekkies take it a step farther: they create new material that is meant to merge with the pre-existing Trek world. In this way, Trekkie-ness is more like playing D&D than being in a Sci-Fi film club.
What I wonder (and here's my question) is whether you've noticed some common ground that launches people to go past being a fan and becoming a Trekkie? Is it dissatisfaction with new series and recent movies being weaker than past ones? Possibly some other characteristic that fans tend to share that, when merged with fandom will lead into Trekkie-ness? Is there something inherent about the star trek world that encourages people to internalize their identification with the star trek world? Or is there nothing at all consistent about the way Trekkies enter that world?
You have hit on another basic vibe that makes Star Trek fans different. One critique of Trekkies was that we didn't go deep enough into this aspect of fandom (so we did in Trekkies 2).
Many Star Trek fans take what they perceive as the positive message of the show and they apply it to their lives in the real world.
For example, to move up in rank in a Star Trek club, you have to perform a certain number of hours of community service. Another example is that there is almost always a charity benefit of some kind at every convention. Why? These folks are do-gooders. They are good people. They want the world (and ultimately the Universe) to move in a direction toward the ideal portrayed in the show.
Trekkie Questions (Score:3, Funny)
by FerretFrottage (714136)(#10754850)
Do any fans buy the fact that even the slightest blast cases fires/sparks on the bridge? Do they hold the lowest price enterprise contractor responsible?
Ha! Maybe Halliburton will be out of business by the 23rd century; let's hope the Federation will have better quality contractors by then. Either way, there will always be profiteers substituting cheaper wires and pocketing the difference. But here's the upside: if there weren't selfish, greedy bastards out to line their own pockets at the expense of everybody else, battles with Klingons would be far less dramatic visually.
Something to keep in mind, post presidential election, is that in the long run conservatives always lose. If this statement were not true, we would still be living in caves. We wouldn't have cell phones, vaccines, and rockets. Conservatives will never go to the stars. They are too busy trying to hold society back.
Every new idea that is introduced is liberal at first. The idea that the Earth is round and revolves around the Sun was denounced by conservative leaders at the time. Fact-based evolution is currently being denounced and taken out of some school curriculums, to be replaced, or taught side-by-side, with faith-based creationism. Faith has it's place for some people in society, but it didn't get us to the moon and beyond.
Shooting and Editing (Score:5, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward (#10754740)
What format are you using to shoot your documentaries (digital or film)? What workstations and applications do you use to edit your film?
Trekkies: Standard 16mm, 35 hours of raw footage, edited on an Avid, cut negative, 16mm answer print, blow-up to 35mm. We shot 16mm because we were self financing the project and that is the film format with the most cameras floating around. One of the main criteria we had when hiring camera personnel was, "Do you own a 16mm camera? You do? You're hired."
Six Days In Roswell: Super 16mm, 35 hours of raw footage, Avid, cut negative, blow up to 35mm answer print. I really wanted to try for better visual clarity on Six Days In Roswell. I love the look of Super 16mm. If you expose it properly you can't even tell it wasn't 35mm to begin with. 35 hours of raw footage is pretty low by most documentary standards, but in both Trekkies and Six Days In Roswell the footage was so rich, we didn't need to shoot more. Also, shooting film instead of video forces you to be more judicious. You can't let it run like you can with videotape.
Trekkies 2: DVCam (Sony DSR 500 and PD 150), 150 hours of raw footage, Final Cut Pro, mastered on DigiBeta. The future is digital. We shot a lot of footage, but since we were traveling to 8 different countries to create a portrait of foreign StarTrek fandom, we figured we should shoot as much as we could while there since we couldn't go back for pick ups. While Trekkies and Six Days took about 3-5 months of cutting, It took me 8 months to sort though all the Trekkies 2 footage. But the upside is in all the bonus material on the Trekkies 2 DVD, 80 minutes worth. I tried Final Cut Pro for the first time and welcomed the instant online capability.
polarity (Score:4, Funny)
by Fr05t (69968)(#10754695)
In your experiences, have you ever found a problem that couldn't be fixed by reversing the polarity of something?
A good solution in almost every exigency. Frost, you are a genius.
However, though some might, I personally wouldn't use this tactic for issues in the bedroom.
Extreme behavior (Score:5, Interesting)
by warrped (202864)(#10754840)
Have you ever considered juxtaposing the extreme yet socially reviled behavior of the 'Trekkies' against the no less extreme but socially accepted behavior of (for example) sports fans? Is it the 'socially aberrant' element that draws you to the subject?
Several fans discuss that issue in Trekkies 2. It would be humorous to dissect sports fanatics vs. Star Trek fans--but almost too easy. I'll wager that the average IQ of the guy wearing cheese on his head and screaming obscenities at a referee and the average Star Trek fan leave no comparison. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
There were dozens of comments suggesting future topics for Roger to apply his skills to, so I'm just lumping them all together. Roger, our readers suggest you document AD&D Players, Slashdot Readers, Football Fanatics, Everquest Addicts, and the LAN Party Phenom. They all essentially ask the question, "Why 'Trekkies'?" and how do you pick your subject matter.
I am an accidental documentarian. Trekkies was Denise Crosby's idea. I cast her in my first film, High Strung (which stars Steve Oedekerk, and will be re-released by Steve next year), and a few years later she pitched the Trek fan doc idea to me. I said, "I can't believe nobody has done this yet. It seems so obvious." After shooting our first weekend, I was hooked on documentaries. Unlike a narrative project, where it's a challenge to come as close to the script as possible, shooting a doc is a journey, it's exciting not knowing what's around the next corner, how the story will end.
What's next? I'll wager it will have to do with obsession. I'm sure all the ideas proposed above have their "extreme" members. But it will depend on the person, or persons, profiled. You can't make documentaries about things, you have to make them about people. When I meet the person involved in one of these activities who is so interesting that he has to be profiled, I'll start shooting footage immediately. Where are you? Are you out there? Drop me an e-mail (See my address below).
The quintessential question: (Score:3, Interesting)
by Jucius Maximus (229128) (#10754795)
Which captain do you think was the best?
I asked that very question of Star Trek fans in 1996 when we put up our first Trekkies website. The votes for 32 different captains are posted if you want to have a look. (Websites below.)
To summarize, Picard barely edged out Kirk, 2826 to 2799 votes. Q got the most votes for a non-Federation captain at 2079. I'm gonna go with Captain Pike (1178 votes).
For the last time... (Score:2)
by DwarfGoanna (447841) (#10755766)
I'm a Trek-KER you....*sigh* insensitive clod!!
That's cool. Is it cool for some to call themselves a Trekkie? We get even further into that world-rattling debate in Trekkies 2.
your last name (Score:2)
by latroM (652152) (#10755348)
Do you have Finnish or Swedish relatives? My surname is Nygård, so I'm quite interested.
Are you aware of the fact that you've been misspelling your name your whole life?
Ha! Yes. We don't have that "a" with the little knob on our keyboard over here. We will have to import some of those knobs.
My great grandfather, Louis Nygaard, came to Minnesota from Norway. He dropped the extra "a" at some point, saving the family thousands of pounds of ink over the generations.
Why weren't Shatner or Stewart interviewed? (Score:5, Interesting)
by GuyMannDude (574364) (#10756041)
My first question of the director is if he could verify my assumption: that Shatner and Stewart weren't interviewed for Trekkies because of money (as opposed to a conscious decision by the director to focus on the other actors). Second, if you did, indeed, want them in the film and they refused, did you work hard to get them? Did you try to negotiate their payment? Did they even consider your offer? Or did you simply get a letter from their agent saying, essentially, "Mr. Shatner is too important to be interviewed in your two-bit documentary."
We indeed wanted to include William Shatner and Patrick Stewart. Shatner is included briefly meeting with his fan club in Trekkies, but he refused to sit for an interview.
The way we got our interview subjects, was to ask to interview them whenever we crossed paths at conventions. When we tried to go through proper channels like agents, managers, and publicists, it was fruitless (Connor Trinneer is the exception). I think we are still waiting for Avery Brooks' agent to call us back. Our paths never crossed initially with Patrick Stewart, and the word we have gotten back since is that he is not a fan of the first film.
We never paid anybody for an interview. Documentaries typically do not pay their subjects. It's the nature of the form. If you had to pay everybody, documentaries would never get made because doc budgets are very low. Our budget on Trekkies was $120,000 by the time we got to a 16mm answer print. That money was coming out of our own pockets, so we couldn't afford to throw it around.
Favorite Episode? (Score:0, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward (#10754706)
Do you have a favorite Star Trek episode and a favorite series? If you say Voyager or Enterprise, you may be lynched.
The one where Frank Gorshin is running. Original series fans know exactly what I'm talking about.
Shameless plugging link zone! Here is where you can get Roger's films.
Trekkies & Trekkies 2 (available internet retailers, Best Buy stores, and hip DVD stores)
Favorite Captain tally
Official Paramount Site
Trekkies 2 soundtrack a Reboot Music release.
Six Days In Roswell on DVD or VHS
Lastly, here is Roger Nygard's Homepage and his email (which he included, so don't blame me, at least I fuzed it up for the robots!)
Thanks for your time Roger... Good luck on whatever you tackle next.
I seem to see a lot of comments lower than a score of 5. Don't we always use the high scores? Or is moderation so broken, you've given up using it as an excuse?
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
or is that so 90s now?
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I'm sure he means you slide some knobs and lights flash and it makes a noise, that's all.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
How do you respond to accusations that you condescended and were basically laughing at the subjects in Trekkies?
I laugh at and condescend toward all those who accuse me of laughing and condescending.
Spoken like a true geek. Often times, I do the same thing to people who _laugh_ and _condescend_ me. Have made a lot of people think of me as a jerk, but these aren't the kinda people I particularly want to be associated with, anyway.
Or is the first (TOS) series just incredibly boring? Don't get me wrong, I love The Next Generation. I even helped a petition by reporing on it in our online paper (it got 150 000 signatures in a country of 4 000 000).
But TOS seem to be for those who lived in an era with low expecations on story and effects. IMHO, TNG (WTF? BBQ!) was the first series that had acceptable story lines and effects to accomodate such a series concept.
I also, god help me, like Enterprise. * ducks * Hey! I like the prinicple that man is fallable and stumbles out in the universe. Kirk seems to be a pompous asshole in TOS, and McCoy is just a cockknocker. The characters develops in TNG, and even in Enterprise.
Conservatives will never go to the stars. They are too busy trying to hold society back.
Some conservatives, the classically liberal ones, not the neo ones, are trying to hold the government back so society can go forward.
Faith has it's place for some people in society, but it didn't get us to the moon and beyond.
Tell that to many of the Apollo astronauts. Some would say their faith got them to the moon and who is this atheist to argue.
And the church has a lot to do with the birth of the scientific method.
At least Kirk could bluff a Klingon by threatening to blow his ship up and contaminate the entire sector with radioactive crap every once in a while!
Of course, good and evil is pretty cut and dried in a lot of sci-fi universes and Trek's no exception. I much prefer the early seasons of Farscape (Before the whole thing turned into a soap-opera in space) where the good guys were sometimes bad, the bad guys were sometimes good and everyone had their own ambitions which made them behave unpredictably from time to time.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I would say it's the opposite, actually: Being intelligent makes you more likely to find science fiction interesting.
"the fanatical fans are probably just as stupid as the cheesehead,"
Just as fanatical, perhaps, but probably not as stupid.
"and guess what, the fans in general have the same intellegence level as anyone else."
Unlikely. Geeks tend to be smarter than average. It's part of what marginalizes them in the first place.
No insult or jab was meant, Fatcatman. I respect your political and religious beliefs. But I would hope that you don't really feel that because I disagree with you on some things it automatically makes me an idiot and an asshole. If you or anybody can provide some kind of verifiable evidence that the world was created in 7 days I will consider coming over to that side. But at the moment vast amounts of evidence in the fossil records supports evolution. It's cool that you are a supporter of space-based technology, there are always exceptions and you're one of the cool ones. But I wish the conservatives currently in power were more interested in funding NASA than corporate tax breaks. But here we are...
I emphatically agree. This statement is painfully over-generalized, and he clearly assumes he's "preaching to the choir."
To begin with, he accepts the "Red versus Blue" dichotomy of modern America as normative for the entirity of human history. True, this is a very American sort of thing to do, but that doesn't mean it's any more defensible. Accordingly, I'll begin by demonstrating that not all conservatives in history act like Reds, and subsequently move on to discuss the true motives behind the group which he does, rather ineffectually, manage to hit with his remark. They're not nearly as simple as he thinks.
To begin with, to defend another group which he explicitly goes after in this post -- and which is extremely often attacked by Americans of whatever ideology, courtesy of the extremely successful propaganda of Elizabeth I -- the Catholic Church.
His casual complaints about Copernicus and Galileo show that he knows extremely little about the history of astronomy. The ancient Greeks -- well, apart from crochety old Plato -- acknowledged that the world was round; Aristotle certainly said it, and there was another Greek scientist -- his name escapes me at the moment -- who managed to get a reasonably accurate calculation of the diameter of the Earth.
Galileo's case is one of the most badly obfuscated in history. Cardinal Cajetan, the Inquisitor who arranged to have him arrested, was not the whole leadership of the Catholic Church, and was certainly not acting on behalf of it. Moreover, he was a Platonist: a rather crude philosophy, characterized by getting matters of religion and matters of everything else rather badly confused. (It underlies most modern Protestantism, and was the only game in Christendom until about the 11th century.)
There was another, if anything more conservative, philosophy in the Catholic Church at that time, which has become its official philosophy: Thomism, the adaption of Aristotelianism by Thomas Aquinas. To paraphrase Chesterton, Aquinas observed that faith is superior to everything, but reason is superior to everything else, and in its own sphere is superior to faith. The Jesuits were to become the definiative embodiment of this philosophy, and made considerable scientific and social advances. I forget how many observatories they built; they often served as diplomats; their system of pedagougy was excellent, even if it misfired and produced Voltaire, and one could even say that they were the real inventors of the Montressori method. (Whether or not that's a good thing is left to the reader's discretion...)
The only things they were interested in "holding people back" from were things which they knew were harmful -- and which have been confirmed as harmful quite nicely by psychologists, the Freudian and Jungian schools in particular. I need hardly add that much of Jungian psychology, apart from the borderline-mystical business, was anticipated by Aristotelian and Thomistic psychology about seven centuries earlier.
So, to return to Galileo... Most of the Church hierarchy was unaware of what was going on, just as most of the American legal system is unaware of a particular case being heard in a given court circuit. Of course, Galileo came to no physical harm, although he was placed under house arrest; this is no refutation of the fact that Cajetan acted like an idiot, and the Church was at fault for letting him, but just in case you thought he was tortured or something...
The Catholic Church's conduct in the aftermath of the controversy is also interesting, and certainly puts the lie to any attempt to enroll it in the number of "conservatives always trying to hold people back"; analyzing the competing models of Copernicus and Tycho Brahe, the Church hierarchy, influenced by Brahe's demonstration that the as-yet-unobserved phenomenon of stellar parallax as the only piece of evidence which could prove Copernicus' model and disprove his own, decided that there was not yet enough information to rule on the matter -- and, one
But what's happening is that many, if not most, are satiated. After 6 series (I count the cartoon) and 10 movies and countless books and merchandise the fans need a little time off. I love a Thanksgiving turkey dinner as much as the next guy. But right after I've finished gorging myself, the last thing I want right then is another bite. I need some time off to digest--and then tomorrow I'll be just as hungry again for more. The fans need time to digest. That's all.
But there is still a lot of things left under-explored in the Trek universe.
For example, I would like to see a series based on a Klingon ship and crew that recently joined the Federation. Two earthlings are assigned to the crew, and have to deal face-on with Klingon culture. It would be like boyscout nerds joining the football team. A Klingon focus would bring in the wrestling crowd, football fans, etc., creating a whole new set of fans.
Table-ized A.I.
A bunch of us were at a friend's house, and the remote control for the TV wasn't working. I opened it up and noticed that the batteries had been put in backwards. I took great pleasure in saying, out loud;
"I just have to REVERSE THE POLARITY!"
At which point two of us were overcome with hysterical convulsions of laughter for at least a half hour. Everyone else just kind of stared at us, wondering what the hell was so funny.
I guess they weren't Trek fans..
Don't knock HTML email. It makes my life easier, since I
How about open minded?
Ha! That's my favorite line. You don't have the time? How much time did you just spend on that monologue? Holy cats! It doesn't seem like you are actually interested in a discussion--and if you are, great, here I am, but try a little brevity next time.
However, I will be happy to answer your direct question which appears a the end of your lecture:
(By the way, Mr. Nygard: "Faith has it's place for some people in society..." I thought your thesis was that it doesn't have a place? Oppose 'faith' or not, but be honest about it. Are you a man or some cowardly Ferengi?)
I don't know where you presumed I have a thesis that proclaims faith doesn't have a place. You spent a lot of words talking around something I didn't say. If you'd like to know what I think about that I'll be happy to tell you: thankfully our country is free and structured in such a way to allow folks to have the faiths of their choosing. However, as I did say, faith does not invent rocket ships. It can give comfort while you are stuck in on--and that's great. Just for clarity, what I actually said was:
Fact-based evolution is currently being denounced and taken out of some school curriculums, to be replaced, or taught side-by-side, with faith-based creationism. Faith has it's place for some people in society, but it didn't get us to the moon and beyond.
My other point was that creation being taught as equivalent to science-based knowledge is a backwards step for society. If you think otherwise, I respectfully disagree.