New Picard Trailer just dropped

Yeah, don't care. You like one, not the other, and have latched onto some catchy nonsense to justify your position...why I cannot imagine. No one really cares that much that you like one and not the other, so no justification is really necessary. I just find your chosen justification totally hilarious. You remind me of a D&D player who wants to argue about the aerodynamics of...dragons. Star Trek, in EVERY incarnation, has neither had nor needed continuity. It is soft SciFi space opera. Any "discontinuity" detected by overzealous fanatics can be dismissed by adding another row of chompers to the crawlspaces.

There needs to at least be some kind of pretense, so that fans who wish to can at least imagine them having continuity.
 
Last edited:
Dunno. Universes that are consistent within their framework are generally better. Technobabble can be forgiven as nonsense to make the "fi" part of sci-fi work. But if Jim kills Bones one week and then he's back without technobabble the next, that isn't even Dr. Who level plot, and Dr. Who can do literally make up any random crap it wants to given it's Time Lord plot nature.

I fundamentally do not like the Star Wars-ification of Star Trek with the parallel universe reboot. Yet the parallel universe reboot was totally liberating for "taking it back" at number of years. Great idea. It's working out particularly well as Disney seems to be defecating on some of the "keeping it real" vintage sci-fi fans, so Star Trek delivering the laz0r blasts and "humanitarian man-slut dickings alternating with interstellar fisticuffs for universal peace" isn't a bad niche to have filled.
 
Honestly, the argument we're having here is a child's picnic compared to some of the ones I've been in over at TrekBBS (not that I'm in favor of getting nasty, but just a comment that I've paid my faanish dues on this and other similar issues).

The Space Channel here runs hours of Star Trek every day, and Monday's episodes included the very first TOS episode I saw: "By Any Other Name". That's the one that was the catalyst for how my life's twists and turns eventually sent me here, typing this post. Funny how one episode can lead to trying others out, and then a couple of weeks later buying two Blish anthologies that would become the foundation of not only my Star Trek collection, but my entire SF/F and history library that now numbers in the thousands. And somewhere along the line it also led me to working backstage in musical theatre, joining the Society for Creative Anachronism, and meeting the people who would introduce me to a board game and then a computer game called Civilization...

That happened nearly 44 years ago (the actual anniversary is in late November).
 
No, a hatter MAKES hats as a profession, though in modern days of textiles factories, it's rarely a separate occupation from those who work in the making of clothing in general, much as the cobbler has been generally lost as a distinct occupation as well, and thus the term is technically anachronistic, but not incorrect.

Ah well it should be hat-maker then.
 
Yeah, don't care. You like one, not the other, and have latched onto some catchy nonsense to justify your position...why I cannot imagine. No one really cares that much that you like one and not the other, so no justification is really necessary. I just find your chosen justification totally hilarious. You remind me of a D&D player who wants to argue about the aerodynamics of...dragons. Star Trek, in EVERY incarnation, has neither had nor needed continuity. It is soft SciFi space opera. Any "discontinuity" detected by overzealous fanatics can be dismissed by adding another row of chompers to the crawlspaces.
Fans had to put a lot of work into making the older shows internally consistent with the show's universe and timeline. There was a lot of fan-created supplementary material to stitch things together. I do think the new movies/show made a complete hash out of the timelines, both intentionally and unintentionally, but it really isn't the case that the show was a paragon of consistency to begin with. I do think a key difference though is that with the old stuff, for most of the inconsistencies you had to be a hardcore fan to notice the incongruities. With the new stuff, anyone with a passing familiarity with the source material can point out big issues. That doesn't necessarily make it worse but it is a recipe for disaffected hardcore fans.
 
No different than ignoring hardcore civ IV fans. The made V and VI to make money, not satisfy IV hardcore fans.
 
Dunno. Universes that are consistent within their framework are generally better. Technobabble can be forgiven as nonsense to make the "fi" part of sci-fi work. But if Jim kills Bones one week and then he's back without technobabble the next, that isn't even Dr. Who level plot, and Dr. Who can do literally make up any random crap it wants to given it's Time Lord plot nature.

I fundamentally do not like the Star Wars-ification of Star Trek with the parallel universe reboot. Yet the parallel universe reboot was totally liberating for "taking it back" at number of years. Great idea. It's working out particularly well as Disney seems to be defecating on some of the "keeping it real" vintage sci-fi fans, so Star Trek delivering the laz0r blasts and "humanitarian man-slut dickings alternating with interstellar fisticuffs for universal peace" isn't a bad niche to have filled.

Well, Disney is indeed defecating over that, and a LOT of other stalwarts that once defined pop-culture fandom, and when a mouse does a lot of defecating, hanta virus gets spread as well, killing even more that's good and worthwhile in the affair.

Ah well it should be hat-maker then.

That's not the proper term of someone who makes hats AS A PROFESSION, though, I suppose, pedantically, someone who just happened to made a hat where the reason, purpose, and context were in a void could qualify as a "hat-maker," it's obviously Carol meant someone who did it for a living, and, in fact, extensively enough to be driven insane from the use of mercury that PROFESSION hatters of Victorian England made extensive usage of, usually with their bare hands.

No different than ignoring hardcore civ IV fans. The made V and VI to make money, not satisfy IV hardcore fans.

CivIV (as well as CivV) were the only two of the six Civ iterations I never touched or really looked at, so I couldn't say for sure. But, to be fair, I don't think the developers of the franchise owe it to devote themselves to pleasing only the players of one of six iterations (and a middle-later iteration, at that), and it's not at all remotely analogous to what I'm saying.
 
I disagree. Moving to 1UPT was no different then doing things inconsistent with Canon. to be fair. But we're all entitled to our own opinions.
 
I disagree. Moving to 1UPT was no different then doing things inconsistent with Canon. to be fair. But we're all entitled to our own opinions.

Yes, we're all entitled to our opinions, some opinions sound more credible to others than others. Opinions may be inherently, ideally equally in an Enlightenment natural human rights sort of way, but how they fly in general and the scope, impact, and reception they have in general, and among crowds, varies them extremely and loses all sense of "equality" at the later stage, I'm afraid.
 
Yes, you're enlightened so your opinion is more naturally right. Got it. When everyone else here chimes in and agrees with you, it may make me rethink it.
I'll check back later.
 
Yes, you're enlightened so your opinion is more naturally right. Got it. When everyone else here chimes in and agrees with you, it may make me rethink it.
I'll check back later.

I don't believe that's what I said at all. But clumsily putting words in my mouth that any fool can see weren't there doesn't make you look very good.
 
Nah, I'm a 'hardcore cIVer' and one just has to realise the horse has left the station. I still get some fun out of the new games, but I don't have the thousands of hours on them as I do cIV - or the longest record of being installed on any and all of my computers like they do.
 
I don't believe that's what I said at all. But clumsily putting words in my mouth that any fool can see weren't there doesn't make you look very good.

Feel free to point out those fools.
 
That's not the proper term of someone who makes hats AS A PROFESSION, though, I suppose, pedantically, someone who just happened to made a hat where the reason, purpose, and context were in a void could qualify as a "hat-maker," it's obviously Carol meant someone who did it for a living, and, in fact, extensively enough to be driven insane from the use of mercury that PROFESSION hatters of Victorian England made extensive usage of, usually with their bare hands.

It might be the correct term but it's obviously not grammatically correct.
 
If it's the correct term then it's grammatically correct by default. Kind of like how a person was hanged by the neck until dead instead of hung.
 
Nah, I'm a 'hardcore cIVer' and one just has to realise the horse has left the station. I still get some fun out of the new games, but I don't have the thousands of hours on them as I do cIV - or the longest record of being installed on any and all of my computers like they do.

My favourite iteration of Civ was CivII - before CivIV was ever realeased. But you and @rah speak as though the series literally began with CivIV and there were no preceding iterations of the game that ever existed (I've actually seen a few polls on this site with that distorted, revisionist point of view too, here and there - "what's your favourite iteration of Civ? - IV, V, or VI," with no option for even "other," "alternative," or "earlier." Sorry if I'm not part of the "shiny, pretty, bells-and-whistles, and animated units and leader heads, are ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to enjoy a game of Civ" crowd.

Feel free to point out those fools.
Even though you may not be one of THOSE fools, you are definitely A fool, and I'd be a fool for carrying on with your idiocy. Have a nice day....
 
Between I II III and IV. I have the most fond memories of nostalgia for I because it introduced me to the game.
II was probably my favorite in terms of MP. The only thing I didn't like about it was the lose one battle lose the entire stack mechanic.
But I probably played more II mp games then IV mp games.
III was interesting but I stopped playing it before they fixed the corruption problem that took all the fun out of the game. And I heard it was only a partial fix.
IV was probably the best balanced of the games and I still play it today. I play-tested V and stopped playing it when it was released.
Never played VI and not inclined to based on most of the comments about it.

And fortunately I really don't give a rat's ass what you think. But you are entitled to your opinion.
 
Fans had to put a lot of work into making the older shows internally consistent with the show's universe and timeline. There was a lot of fan-created supplementary material to stitch things together.
One person who created some of these supplementary materials back in the '70s is currently posting on TrekBBS. I refer to Mark Andrew Golding, who wrote several articles for Trek (semi-professional fan magazine published in the '70s and later the best articles were anthologized in a series of paperback books called The Best of Trek).

I read Golding's articles, and the sheer scope of detail in them is amazing - particularly given that he wrote those articles back in the days before we had VCRs, never mind computers, the internet, or being able to borrow or buy episodes at libraries or video stores (modern fans are damned spoiled by all this and seem incapable of understanding that). He would have had to read copious articles, re-watched the episodes many, many times (not sure if Bjo Trimble's Star Trek Concordance had been published by the time Golding started doing his articles), and taken a mountain of notes.

When I realized who "MAGolding" was over there, I read all of his posts, and was transported back 40 years to when I'd first read his articles. He only had TOS to work with at the time; I've no idea if he's produced similar output regarding the other series.

I've tried to explain all this to the people there who can't stand his extremely detail-oriented posts (I do suspect he might be more than a bit OCD, but that's normal enough for people in the SF community). His posts are long and exacting, and he outlines every step of his reasoning, and the evidence for it.

And the modern generation of fans over there just can't wrap their heads around it. They have someone who is probably 60+, who started writing about this stuff over 40 years ago, and rather than using the opportunity to ask him questions, they just revert to being trolls.
 
One person who created some of these supplementary materials back in the '70s is currently posting on TrekBBS. I refer to Mark Andrew Golding, who wrote several articles for Trek (semi-professional fan magazine published in the '70s and later the best articles were anthologized in a series of paperback books called The Best of Trek).

I read Golding's articles, and the sheer scope of detail in them is amazing - particularly given that he wrote those articles back in the days before we had VCRs, never mind computers, the internet, or being able to borrow or buy episodes at libraries or video stores (modern fans are damned spoiled by all this and seem incapable of understanding that). He would have had to read copious articles, re-watched the episodes many, many times (not sure if Bjo Trimble's Star Trek Concordance had been published by the time Golding started doing his articles), and taken a mountain of notes.

When I realized who "MAGolding" was over there, I read all of his posts, and was transported back 40 years to when I'd first read his articles. He only had TOS to work with at the time; I've no idea if he's produced similar output regarding the other series.

I've tried to explain all this to the people there who can't stand his extremely detail-oriented posts (I do suspect he might be more than a bit OCD, but that's normal enough for people in the SF community). His posts are long and exacting, and he outlines every step of his reasoning, and the evidence for it.

And the modern generation of fans over there just can't wrap their heads around it. They have someone who is probably 60+, who started writing about this stuff over 40 years ago, and rather than using the opportunity to ask him questions, they just revert to being trolls.

A literal treasure. After all, Fan is just shorthand for Fanatic. And honestly, I like some of the Fan stuff over the Canon Stuff (Starfleet Museum anyone?)
 
There needs to at least be some kind of pretense, so that fans who wish to can at least imagine them having continuity.

Bruh, fans that wish for continuity can produce continuity out of anything. My amusement is with the people who say "well, this has continuity (which I produce because I am a fan) and this doesn't (which is why I'm not a fan."
 
Top Bottom