- MA files from this episode (6) • MA remastered files from this episode (28)
- Template:Titles/Pen Pals yields Pen Pals (TNG 2x15)
For general discussion on this episode, visit the TNG forum at The Trek BBS.
This article just needs fleshed out a bit across the board. --Renegade54 19:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Orange make-up Edit
- "Data and Sarjenka were originally meant to become much closer, but the orange make-up smeared too easily."
This sounds curious. I believe a source would be welcome. --Liberlogos 08:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- To quote from the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion:
Thank you VERY much, Jörg. However, the statement that they "were originally meant to become much closer" feels like an extrapolation, if this is the complete form of the source. --Liberlogos 08:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- There's a clear difference between "limit their closeness" (meaning physically) and "become much closer" (meaning emotionally). It makes the article confusing and misleading. I'm going to reword it. Lee Wilson 11:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Sarjenka's house Edit
Even though Sarjenka comes from a very low-tech civilization, I vaguely remember that her house had a very sophisticated-looking automatic "dissolving door". Does anyone else recall this? Glitch? Kellyterryjones 20:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Their civilisation was unaware of interstellar life, but "low-tech" is subjective. You should consider that Sarjenka, a child, possessed a powerful transmitter. While not especially high-tech, it's not inconceivable that they had developed many technologies that we lack and yet still lacked a means for interstellar travel. After all, she did have some very sciencey clothing ;-) – Pesky 16:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- And remember, in The Inner Light, they sort of did this - there you have a society that lacks interstellar transport (the scene at the end of Picard's vision/life suggests something like 20-21st-century rocket tech, but apparently has the technology to make a probe that can remotely produce a neural link to unknown brain physiology (well, mostly unknown - we have the "all humanoids are related" thing suggested in The Case), and run a neurally-interactive program that produces a subjective duration of 30-40 years at least. I wonder, was there ever a non-canon/semi-canon (meaning novels, convention-speculation, etc) "explanation" for that? Jimw338 (talk) 01:53, June 5, 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I know this isn't the place for this, and someone'll probably come along and remove this comment -- it's all good -- but man, this episode was awful. Poor writing, inconsistencies with how the characters would act... blah.
Whew. Feel better having gotten that out there. 18.104.22.168 04:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- In addition to you stating that the writing and such was poor for this episode, the creators/participants themselves also shared your opinion. For myself, I loved this episode and rank it among my favorites. I have seen every Star Trek episode numerous times, and I am confused with the statements of disappointment. You may be right, but I just don't understand. --Michaelwcrosby (talk) 04:28, December 18, 2012 (UTC)
- The Prime Directive as featured in this episode differs from its depiction in most other modern-era Star Trek, in that it is stated that the Directive ceases to apply in the event of a direct request for aid. In later episodes (such as "Redemption") the Prime Directive is shown to be completely immutable, even in the face of a request for assistance.
I removed the above. Such analysis should probably occur on the page about the Prime Directive.--31dot 00:33, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
I respectfully submit that there is a mistake on the main page: Data does not "ask the crew if they will listen to one of his exchanges with Sarjenka." Actually, when the Captain orders Data to sever the communication, he dutifully marches to the panel, and simply plays her plea for help for the crew, acting innocent, but probably having calculated the emotional impact on the Captain, expecting that it might change his mind. I found this very interesting on Data's part, and felt that this was a clever demonstration of his abilities to sway Human emotions, despite his inability to understand emotions. I hope I haven't insulted anyone with this contribution. --Michaelwcrosby (talk) 04:36, December 18, 2012 (UTC)
I wrote the above on December 18, 2012, but I see that no one has made any corrections/changes. What, if anything, can I do to help make the corrections on the first page. I truly enjoy the Memory Alpha pages, and have found that it enhances my enjoyment of repeatedly watching the programs almost as much as I enjoyed watching the shows in the first place. Thanks to all of you who have worked so hard to give this to the world.22.214.171.124 06:18, January 3, 2013 (UTC)
- I had always assumed that there was no "manipulative intent" on Data's part, and that her plea was something that was being sent at that time and the fact that the audio was on was simply part of the disconnecting the frequency procedure or whatever technobabble they said. Jimw338 (talk) 01:59, June 5, 2016 (UTC)