Because that is what the novels are, serving a very small portion of hardcore fans. I expect an actual TV series to strike out and give us new things that the novels can then embellish on later on.
Discovery Showrunners fired; Kurtzman takes over
- Thread starter StCoop
- Start date
Because that is what the novels are, serving a very small portion of hardcore fans. I expect an actual TV series to strike out and give us new things that the novels can then embellish on later on.
Probably because Novels are not a TV series
Hey! My grandfather died in that war under the brutal hand of the Khanate.
The myriad universe novel where they developed that idea was pretty cool. Maybe they could do a “city on the edge of forever” type episode where Khan wins the EW and DSC could firm up the dates and whatnot.
Oh and Edith Keeler would also have to die (again) so that Khan doesn’t win.
GiggetyIf you're going to wank it, might as well wank it until it is raw!
Yeah, this is what I mean when I said your definition is way stricter than most people's.
I can.
"You have matter transporters, ftl travel, human-alien hybrids, but I'm sorry, the Eugenics Wars happening in 1996 is just too far, man!"
Since I know people who refuse to watch a show because it looks "Too 80s" or the effects are not up to par, yes."You have matter transporters, ftl travel, human-alien hybrids, but I'm sorry, the Eugenics Wars happening in 1996 is just too far, man!"
Yep. This is not at all comparable the the cloaking device issue. The cloaking device being new and unheard of in Balance of Terror was a major plot point, '1996' is just a number, you can imagine it was some other number and the story does not change one bit.
Yes, because those other things are supposed to happen in the future."You have matter transporters, ftl travel, human-alien hybrids, but I'm sorry, the Eugenics Wars happening in 1996 is just too far, man!"
I can't believe people think a small piece of the lore being in 1996 would somehow chase off people from watching the show.
I'd rather the novels and the series be good with little navel gazing. Greg's installment in the "Captain to Captain" trilogy managed, as do many other TOS novels.
Probably not, because smart writers would avoid mentioning it in new stories.
The objectification was toward all sexes in a fully ironic way. The point, again, is not to take oneself so seriously as to be mirthless. It's hyper-focusing, and it only masquerades as piety.
Not every discussion had with a male is "mansplaining"...he said, very mansplainingly.
Yes, and sometimes we use irony to point out our past mistakes. Look at what I was replying to. I was talking about Trek's use of sexist outfits.
(Apologies to the moderators for the double post.)
EDIT: and I mean we (individuals) use irony to point out our (society's) past mistakes. I've never actually called a woman a chick in ernest.
Last edited:
That's almost, "Relax, I was joking."
It's already been pointed out to you that "chick" in reference to a woman is often offense, whereas "guy" in reference to a man virtually never is. "[T]oward all sexes," my ass. Your text does not treat men and women with the same degree of respect.
But if you want to quadruple down, that's on you....
Derp.
This is one of my dictionaries.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chick
3 informal, sometimes offensive : girl, woman
"Sometimes offensive" should be close enough to "offensive" to get the advice to handle with care, lest you offend someone.
No kidding....
Given the things that often chase people away, I have many reasons to think such things.
