Spoilers The supporting cast
- Thread starter EnriqueH
- Start date
0:46+
that doesn't count, because it was only used occasionaly
On the contrary. In lieu of evidence that something has changed (e.g. alcoholism has been totally eradicated throughout the entirety of human civilization), we generally assume that it is the same as we've experienced. Therefore if you posit that it has changed, you are the one that has to prove it. And random characters saying random things in the dialogue is not proof for the very reason that human thought and opinions are subjective. They'll say the ills of society have been eliminated because the vast majority of people don't encounter them daily. Poverty, crime, addiction etc. has been eliminated in the sense that it's not an ever-present dysfunction of the system, at least on Earth. But it's still a problem on the frontier like we've already seen hundreds of times in Star Trek, and individual people can still fall victim to them if the circumstances arise.
Does something really only exist in Star Trek if it has been depicted on screen without doubt? We haven't seen Seoul in Star Trek, therefore the nation of South Korea doesn't exist? We haven't seen Siberian tigers in Star Trek, therefore they're extinct?
I'm turning UFP I think I'm turning UFP, I really think so
Turning UFP, I think I'm turning UFP, I really think so
I'm turning UFP, I think I'm turning UFP, I really think so
Turning UFP, I think I'm turning UFP, I really think so
No sex, no drugs, no wine, no women
No fun, no sin, no you, no wonder it's dark
Everyone around me is a total stranger
Everyone avoids me like a Fenris ranger
Turning UFP, I think I'm turning UFP, I really think so
I'm turning UFP, I think I'm turning UFP, I really think so
Turning UFP, I think I'm turning UFP, I really think so
No sex, no drugs, no wine, no women
No fun, no sin, no you, no wonder it's dark
Everyone around me is a total stranger
Everyone avoids me like a Fenris ranger
^ more evidence that drugs still exist
"What a piece of work is DaveyNY!
How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty!
In form and moving how express and admirable!
In action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god!
The beauty of the world. The paragon of animals."
<Shakespeare : HAMLET - Act 1, Scene 2>
(my apologies to the Author)
I read that in Picard's voice.
@Dix: Please just stop. I'm begging you. I have a literal headache, because you won't stop ranting.
I did, too. Of course, I've memorized most of the episode, so...I read that in Picard's voice.
Nope.
I am asking for evidence of a change with regard to alcohol. You cannot provide that, because it isn't there. Alcohol remains the same chemical, that is stated. Humans remain biologically humans, we know that unequivocally given the bans on genetic enhancements and eugenics.
Nothing in Star Trek has ever suggested that the negative effects of alcohol have been averted by society, merely that a safer alternative is available (synthehol). That burden is and remains on you.
You are ascribing claim after claim to the setting (no war, no disease, no poverty, no drug addiction, no crime) which are common but incorrect myths about Star Trek in popular culture. Disease, war, crime, addiction and poverty are all major themes throughout the series and story drivers in dozens of episodes.
You have made claims about the intentions and behaviours of GR with regard to creating the show, again claims which have found their way into the popular culture despite being untrue (again, we have posters here who worked on TNG). In other words you have bought into the myth.
You have made claims about what he created which are factually incorrect (GR had nothing to do with the United Federation of Planets for instance).
Everything I cited debunks your baseless claim(s). Escaping from reality/ dulling pain is exactly what Scotty, Picard (in "Family") and Tom Paris do.
Even Starfleet officers get very drunk at times without knowing their limits. People of the 23rd/ 24th century still got problems, counselors and psychologist exist for a reason, hell, as mentioned earlier, holo-addiction is a big deal. This means you can be damn sure that there are many among the more or less average joes who abuse alcohol in order to deal with their issues.
Wait, isn't she in a "social setting" with Picard? She has two glasses of bourbon we know about which makes her a drunkard? Oh, the double standards...
That was exactly my thought about it from the outset as well. I mean... it takes exactly as much effort to say "J.L." as it does "Jean-Luc" for goodness sakes.
Some want to give the show leeway enough to say that maybe Picard mellowed out as he got older. Fine. But it strikes me that as much as they want to sell the viewer on character they could have added some depth to that in a way to make most people happy...
I picture it something like this...the first time you hear Raffi call him "J.L." Picard says something like "I still hate it when you call me that" in an obviously pleasant or playfully amused way..Raffi then says something like "Well...you did lose the bet...." and leave it at that.
I dunno, maybe it's cheesy but I think it'd go further to add small character moments like that versus overly bombastic stuff like pulling a gun on somebody because you got fired in a guilt by association action by an essentially corrupted organization for trying to do the 'right thing'
Nicknames are not always about brevity.
The length is really more of a side note that isn't central to my criticism of its usage. That said, in my experience, use of initials is usually done to abbreviate a long name rather than serve as a proper nickname like Jean-Luc "Stinky Pajamas" Picard. My own name has been given this treatment at times with the effect of reducing 6 syllables to 2.
agreed. Jack somehow is a nickname for John and I will never understand why
I don't think clarification is needed. It's a nickname that Raffi uses. End of story.
I think Jack is really more of an alternative form of the name rather than a nickname per se.
It just happens to be a nickname that seems to some to be a overly obvious contrivance to convey familiarity for a previously unknown character. Hence why many have pointed it out.
Since when are nicknames about effort?
Similar threads
