Thankfully most of the science fiction isn’t in that technobabble but in the plot lines; questioning what it is to be human, to be civilised, and what meaning their is to life, post-scarcity.
This point needs more acknowledgement. Star Trek isn’t a sci-fi show because it does or doesn’t have magic, it’s because it tends to follow the genre conventions of a (very soft, pop) sci-fi show. Easy example, Star Wars doesn’t tend to focus on questions like “hey are these robots sentient? How could we know?” while Star Trek can’t stop litigating that issue.
I have nothing against a Star Trek comedy show either way, but I'm going to take issue with calling Galaxy Quest a mockery. Yeah, it's a parody, but I doubt a more loving parody exists. Everything it makes fun of in the first half comes around to be something admirable by the end, from Alan Rickman's catchphrase to the dweeb with encyclopedic knowledge of the series saving the day. The movie actually embraces us geeks who poured over the Franz Joseph deck plans and says "good for you, maybe your love of this shit will save the world someday."
I don’t love the idea that every Enterprise has been the flagship. I always assumed that’s just the role the D filled. Until SNW, no one talked about Kirk’s ship being the flagship. I don’t really see why we need to assume the G is either.
I mean, there were decades between the C was lost and the D was launched. The whole fleet doesn’t need to revolve around an Enterprise.
The G looks good for a late 23rd century ship. I'll never be able to accept it as a 25th century design. As far as I'm concerned, they slapped the Enterprise name on a 100 year old workhorse.
I was scrolling “new” and upvoted this not seeing what it was in response to, feeling pretty confident it was the right call. Now that I’ve checked, turns out I was right.
This makes the “content factory” accusation super confusing. What content? Like or hate the result, they’re taking their time developing the show, and aren’t branching off into a dozen spinoffs like I’d expect a “casualty of the franchise machine” to do.
Any skepticism here falls downstream of the initial failure to credit that woman’s contribution. Accepting the reduction of a contributor’s identity to “a mother” would be more misogynistic than the responses I’m seeing.
Agreed, it presents as an abstract logic puzzle, but then gives a very concrete answer. It’s like presenting the trolly problem to someone, and when they give one of the two expected answers saying “no, stupid, you run ahead and untie the victims before the trolly reaches them.”
It’s compounded by the fact that the proposed physical solution isn’t even very reliable, as lots of people in this thread have said. If we’re stepping outside of the logic puzzle constraints, why not just leave the door to the room open? Or have someone stand inside and shout when the light turns on? Or ask someone who knows these switches? Or any number of boring non-brain teaser solutions.
Go into the room and unscrew the bulb. You can now truthfully say that no switch affects the bulb’s condition, without messing with a bunch of switches whose function you don’t understand. You even know for a fact that the lack of bulb won’t cause a problem down the line, since the room is apparently no longer accessible.
This point needs more acknowledgement. Star Trek isn’t a sci-fi show because it does or doesn’t have magic, it’s because it tends to follow the genre conventions of a (very soft, pop) sci-fi show. Easy example, Star Wars doesn’t tend to focus on questions like “hey are these robots sentient? How could we know?” while Star Trek can’t stop litigating that issue.