Absolutely.TOS tech was most relatable.
The rest is just magical. I mean, TOS was with the warp drive and transporter too, but it felt more pragmatic. And, while I can enjoy a technical manual every once in a while that's not why I'm watching a story. I want stories about people. I don't care about representation other than it being a fitting cross-section of the society as best as casting can.
But, ultimately, I'm watching a story for people, and if the tech takes center stage I'm usually tuning out.
You care more about the theoretical technology being shown than minority representation?
Yes, the whole concept of Voyager was a fuckup.In TNG the Enterprise travelled 2,000 light years to Malcor in a matter of weeks. In Voyager the same journey would have taken 2 years at maximum warp.
They properly established the quadrants and how long it took to travel 70,000 light years in the season 3 TNG episode The Price and Voyager is consistent with that.Yes, the whole concept of Voyager was a fuckup.
I agree with your entire post other than the seeming implication that my comment you were responding to was sarcastic; I meant it sincerely, though I can see how it reads ambiguously.I don't think we should frame that cynically in terms of the writing. It feels rather natural to me, not "a prop"
Apols I must have misunderstood! I took it as a criticism about "nostalgia" in ST writing, but I obviously saw something not there!I agree with your entire post other than the seeming implication that my comment you were responding to was sarcastic; I meant it sincerely, though I can see how it reads ambiguously.
Unless I'm the one reading tone into something that isn't there, in which case never mind.![]()
No problem! I enjoyed your post enough to make it worth the confusion.Apols I must have misunderstood! I took it as a criticism about "nostalgia" in ST writing, but I obviously saw something not there!
Completely disagree. Tell the stories about people.
&
I did a double-take; the lighting hinders legibility but it looks like it read as "Non-Corporal Being"? Or do I need new glasses?
Oh, wow. It does say that instead of 'non-corporeal being'. Okay... I'm sorry, but that too? That graphic was just complete laziness.
Ironic is one word that could be used. There are others.It is ironic they're sloppier about these details in an era when they know the audience is going to be checking it out, but what can you do?
Except most of those errors in the current live action shows are small-medium sized graphics and none of those episodes are essentially tribute episodes to a past series.In regards to the computer graphics errors (like on the Sisko family tree), it should be noted none of the modern shows are very good at these. Remember in Disco, they established the Trill host they were seeking information from was living in the Dominion War, yet his computer file lists his birth and death dates in the 23rd century. So things like the Sisko family tree errors and other computer stuff in this episode are just cool and normal.
It is ironic they're sloppier about these details in an era when they know the audience is going to be checking it out, but what can you do?
I'm sure at this point mobile emitters are likely internalized. Something like Rimmer's Light Bee on Red Dwarf.One things this episode does make me wonder about is just how widespread the holoemitter network is. It seems the entirety of Earth can support humanoid holograms now but it could be interesting to have an episode that explores what it's like for SAM to need to use a mobile emitter because the Athena takes the crew somewhere that just can't project a hologram.
But probably still done by the same people who did those other graphics. At this point they're a known quantity and there's no point in being surprised at the fact they're making the same mistakes they've been making for the past nine years.Except most of those errors in the current live action shows are small-medium sized graphics and nome of those episodes are essentially tribute episodes to a past series.
This graphic was a large one that took up a good chunk of the tv screen and was part of a tribute to a beloved character and series. AND had MORE than just a single error... errors that were totally unforced.
It's definitely egregious.
I think irritation is a more accurate term to describe what is being said than surprise. At least, in my case. It's why this is a 7.5 instead of an 8 to me.I'm sure at this point mobile emitters are likely internalized. Something like Rimmer's Light Bee on Red Dwarf.
But probably still done by the same people who did those other graphics. At this point they're a known quantity and there's no point in being surprised at the fact they're making the same mistakes they've been making for the past nine years.
You dropped your score because the art department messed up a display that is hard to read even if you pause it? I guess I agree it's a negative mark, but I hope it didn't drop the score by much.
Actually, that graphic was not hard to read. It was front and center of the shot and took up most of the screen (tv, laptop, whatever this is viewed with). And it was how Sam found Jake, so it was a shot that held importance to the story and the character.[/
The art department doesn’t operate in a vacuum. This is not a hard thing to get right.
I realized that it was hard to read, but heck why even bother getting it right then?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.