Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 1x04 - "Memento Mori"

[fireproof78]

It's set in the 23rd century. That's a time period, even if it's in the speculative future.

Which has zero zip nada zilch goose egg real world rules of language as say a series set in ancient Rome might. And even then I'm sure such shows have some verbal shorthand for modern audiences.

The point is that we each have our "boundaries" of what we consider too current or not. I don't think it's "absurd" for one poster to say that one thing is too of-our-time for one's tastes. And personally, I have never heard anyone complain about the dialogue in TNG, for instance, being too "stilted". Seemed fine to me.

Well, it was stilted for me. Still haven't made it through TNG. And this is coming from someone who studied and performed Shakespeare.

 

[DaveyNY]

Well, if you play with a protractor you can play obtuse if you want!

But comparing playing with An Object to playing with The Use of a Word, isn't how it was denoted in the post I quoted.
And doesn't actually make much sense, comparatively speaking.

 

[Kaelef]

Just watched the episode... I was bracing myself for not liking it based on it being "the Gorn episode". Instead, it's the first time I've rated an episode of modern Trek a 10/10.

• References to real and interesting science
• Believable and meaningful human interaction
• Dealing with death in a mature and realistic manner
• Bridge crew's reaction (especially Pike) when Uhura finally responds at the end of the episode
• Some new and interesting shots of the Enterprise
• Making the enemy terrifying without showing us the enemy's face

More of this, please!

 

[Belz...]

Trek's not set in "particular time period."

It's set in a malleable and continually changing fantasy world.

I don't want to surprise you, but ANY piece of fiction set in the past is ALSO a malleable fantasy world.

But comparing playing with An Object to playing with The Use of a Word, isn't how it was denoted in the post I quoted.
And doesn't actually make much sense.

I was poking fun at my mistake, man.

 

[Mudd]

Just watched the episode... I was bracing myself for not liking it based on it being "the Gorn episode". Instead, it's the first time I've rated an episode of modern Trek a 10/10.

• References to real and interesting science
• Believable and meaningful human interaction
• Dealing with death in a mature and realistic manner
• Bridge crew's reaction (especially Pike) when Uhura finally responds at the end of the episode
• Some new and interesting shots of the Enterprise
• Making the enemy terrifying without showing us the enemy's face

More of this, please!

Yep.

 

[Belz...]

Just watched the episode... I was bracing myself for not liking it based on it being "the Gorn episode". Instead, it's the first time I've rated an episode of modern Trek a 10/10.

• References to real and interesting science
• Believable and meaningful human interaction
• Dealing with death in a mature and realistic manner
• Bridge crew's reaction (especially Pike) when Uhura finally responds at the end of the episode
• Some new and interesting shots of the Enterprise
• Making the enemy terrifying without showing us the enemy's face

More of this, please!

Sounds like Star Trek, to me.

 

[Mudd]

I don't want to surprise you, but ANY piece of fiction set in the past is ALSO a malleable fantasy world.

I don't want to disappoint you, but you just undercut the premise of your own reasoning - not mine.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Sounds like Star Trek, to me.

I've got my problems with the episode but it was absolutely Star Trek, by anyone's criteria.

 

[Belz...]

I don't want to disappoint you, but you just undercut the premise of your own reasoning - not mine.

MY reasoning is that it's easier to get immersed in a fictional world if makes reasonable efforts to be what it claims to be -- in this instance, a world hundreds of years in our future, in space. Whether that means that this idiom or that one is too much for you is entirely personal. That one can do anything they want with such a setting is not relevant -- in fact it's understood in the premise.

YOU are the one who brought up the fact that future settings are malleable, as if to create a distinction with ones set in the past. Pointing out that YOUR argument also applies to the past simply removes that distinction. It has no bearing on my argument. If you think it does, then you don't understand my argument.

 

[Mudd]

MY reasoning is that it's easier to get immersed in a fictional world if makes reasonable efforts to be what it claims to be -- in this instance, a world hundreds of years in our future, in space.

That's not what you said. You talked about a ""particular period" as if this were something for which there was a referent - like an historicl period.

I don't want to disappoint you, but in 250 years people will not talk like Picard. Why should they do so in a TV fantasy? Just makes it harder to believe.

The fact that Trek people don't talk or act like contemporary people was a weakness of the shows for decades, and it's past done.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I found The Next Generation and Voyager's dialogue to be a bit on the stilted side, while Picard and Strange New Worlds have strayed too far into the distractingly colloquial. If they could land the dialogue somewhere in between, that'd work better for me.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think bland, colorless and flat language is wrong no matter what era, real or fictional, a film or TV show is set in.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Unless it's Spock talking.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Unless it's Spock talking.

Even then there is a life to the dialog,

 

[fireproof78]

I think bland, colorless and flat language is wrong no matter what era, real or fictional, a film or TV show is set in.

What I find is often the case in studying history is that it is far more colorful, and less formal, than many people today realize. History is not full of drab lifeless people.

 

[cooleddie74]

Even Calvin Coolidge was interesting. In two-word increments.

 

[Tuskin38]

Timothy Peel has posted the 'Pike Maneuver' animation
https://twitter.com/timothypeel1/status/1530305888250122241

 

[Noname Given]

I’ve never understood this complaint, but I’ll bet credits to navy beans I’ll hear it again.

And maybe Pike will talk to Spock about dipping little girl's pigtails in inkwells; and when asked about a space buoy keeping the ship held in one spot, he'll mention fly paper again.

My point? Contemporary language has always been a part of Star Trek from day one. In season 1 of TNG, Geordie once replied to Riker with: "It's beaucoup trouble if you're wrong..." - and at the time it was a phrase I hadn't heard since the 1960s.

 

[Nerys Myk]

And maybe Pike will talk to Spock about dipping little girl's pigtails in inkwells; and when asked about a space buoy keeping the ship held in one spot, he'll mention fly paper again.

My point? Contemporary language has always been a part of Star Trek from day one. In season 1 of TNG, Geordie once replied to Riker with: "It's beaucoup trouble if you're wrong..." - and at the time it was a phrase I hadn't heard since the 1960s.

As a Ringo Starr fan I hear it somewhat regularly.

 

[cooleddie74]

Gotta pay your dues if you wanna scan for clues.