1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
SerMufasa
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:00 pm UTC
Location: Casterley Rock

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby SerMufasa » Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:59 pm UTC

exoren22 wrote:
SerMufasa wrote:I look forward to BHG donating $1 million to a recipient based on the resolution of this debate. As of moment of theatrical wide release, if it's "i" the money will go to pro-choice activists, if it's "I" the money will go to pro-life activists.


Can we switch these? Because I have my horse in the choice/life debate, and I think I know how the title one ends.


Are you kidding? It's the self-conflict that makes it better than the original Wiki challenge.
"Winter is Coming, Simba"

bluon
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:33 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby bluon » Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:04 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
bluon wrote:I think the debate should be reframed on this. Instead of Star Trek into Darkness vs Star Trek Into Darkness, I'd say it should be changed to Star Trek into Darkness vs Star Trek: Into Darkness. If Wikipedia is concerned about internal consistency and if Into Darkness is really a subtitle, then there should be some sort of separator to signify this. Colons are what they have used historically for that, so seems like that's the way to go.


But wouldn't it be so much more fun to have the argument spill to the pages of all previous Star Trek movies and series where wikipedia added the colon in an effort to remove them?


Actually, I think it's more fun after 40,000 words of discussion to propose a completely different solution :)

rmsgrey
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:11 pm UTC

bluon wrote:
Klear wrote:
bluon wrote:I think the debate should be reframed on this. Instead of Star Trek into Darkness vs Star Trek Into Darkness, I'd say it should be changed to Star Trek into Darkness vs Star Trek: Into Darkness. If Wikipedia is concerned about internal consistency and if Into Darkness is really a subtitle, then there should be some sort of separator to signify this. Colons are what they have used historically for that, so seems like that's the way to go.


But wouldn't it be so much more fun to have the argument spill to the pages of all previous Star Trek movies and series where wikipedia added the colon in an effort to remove them?


Actually, I think it's more fun after 40,000 words of discussion to propose a completely different solution :)


For the record, the colon has already been suggested, more than once.

If you dig further into the underbrush, there's a number of comments by people (on other pages, two or more links away from the main discussion) effectively saying "how do we keep the new people from upsetting our carefully defined and defended status quo?" and "Don't worry - just hold tight for a few days and it'll all blow over and we can go back to business as usual"

wurlitzer153
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:47 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby wurlitzer153 » Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:16 pm UTC

bluon wrote:
Klear wrote:
bluon wrote:I think the debate should be reframed on this. Instead of Star Trek into Darkness vs Star Trek Into Darkness, I'd say it should be changed to Star Trek into Darkness vs Star Trek: Into Darkness. If Wikipedia is concerned about internal consistency and if Into Darkness is really a subtitle, then there should be some sort of separator to signify this. Colons are what they have used historically for that, so seems like that's the way to go.


But wouldn't it be so much more fun to have the argument spill to the pages of all previous Star Trek movies and series where wikipedia added the colon in an effort to remove them?


Actually, I think it's more fun after 40,000 words of discussion to propose a completely different solution :)

Here's something completely different:

How about...."Into Darkness (Star Trek)"?

This is just based on looking at the poster, it appears that "Into Darkness" is the main title and "Star Trek" is the series name.

[/just sayin...]

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Whizbang » Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:38 pm UTC

I disagree. Clearly Picard is the better captain. Kirk was a shoot from the hip renegade, and look where it got him, in trouble with the Tribbles. Picard had class and honor, was decdisive without being rash, and fought off the Borg, for Pete's sake. Picard, FTW!

User avatar
EpicanicusStrikes
Random Boners = True Attraction
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:36 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby EpicanicusStrikes » Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:50 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:I disagree. Clearly Picard is the better captain. Kirk was a shoot from the hip renegade, and look where it got him, in trouble with the Tribbles. Picard had class and honor, was decdisive without being rash, and fought off the Borg, for Pete's sake. Picard, FTW!

Kirk never staffed his crew with children. Kirk wins.

Why on Khan's green earth would you house civilians on a starship which saw military action every week? At the very least they knew their mission was one of the most dangerous in all of Starfleet. Picard was happy to haul newborns around disease ridden, war-torn planets of dark mystery. Kirk showed a more mature and disciplined manner by not putting up with that nonsense. He ran a damn tight ship.

Kirk wins.

User avatar
thevicente
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:19 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby thevicente » Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:02 pm UTC

Some time ago there was a movie called "Aqua Teen Colon Movie for Theaters" and due to some aberration in my English learning track I didnt knew "colon" was the name of the punctuation mark, only that it is the name of the last part of the digestive system in most vertebrates.

Took time to make any sense of that. (btw, IMO that movie is terrible )

Now as I wade carefully through the net trying to not have the new Star Trek movie spoiled I look around and see STAR TREK COLON something.

I found out my brain still is forcing me to read it as Star Trek Intestines Into Darkness.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby orthogon » Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:52 pm UTC

Curiously, I have a similar problem with e.g. Plaza Colon in Madrid. I believe that a mere tilde separates the great explorer from the aforementioned digestive organ. No wonder he set sail away from Spain at the first opportunity. School must have been hell.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4462
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Jan 31, 2013 8:05 pm UTC

EpicanicusStrikes wrote:
Whizbang wrote:I disagree. Clearly Picard is the better captain. Kirk was a shoot from the hip renegade, and look where it got him, in trouble with the Tribbles. Picard had class and honor, was decdisive without being rash, and fought off the Borg, for Pete's sake. Picard, FTW!

Kirk never staffed his crew with children. Kirk wins.

Why on Khan's green earth would you house civilians on a starship which saw military action every week? At the very least they knew their mission was one of the most dangerous in all of Starfleet. Picard was happy to haul newborns around disease ridden, war-torn planets of dark mystery. Kirk showed a more mature and disciplined manner by not putting up with that nonsense. He ran a damn tight ship.

Kirk wins.

You think Picard voluntarily had kids on his ship? Picard hated kids and wanted them off his damn bridge every time they got there. The difference between his and Kirk's Enterprises was a difference in Starfleet culture between generations, not a difference between captains.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1242
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Thu Jan 31, 2013 8:56 pm UTC

wurlitzer153 wrote:Here's something completely different:

How about...."Into Darkness (Star Trek)"?

This is just based on looking at the poster, it appears that "Into Darkness" is the main title and "Star Trek" is the series name.

[/just sayin...]

Actually, the idea that "Into Darkness" is the main title was also brought up on the talk page.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Klear » Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:06 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
EpicanicusStrikes wrote:
Whizbang wrote:I disagree. Clearly Picard is the better captain. Kirk was a shoot from the hip renegade, and look where it got him, in trouble with the Tribbles. Picard had class and honor, was decdisive without being rash, and fought off the Borg, for Pete's sake. Picard, FTW!

Kirk never staffed his crew with children. Kirk wins.

Why on Khan's green earth would you house civilians on a starship which saw military action every week? At the very least they knew their mission was one of the most dangerous in all of Starfleet. Picard was happy to haul newborns around disease ridden, war-torn planets of dark mystery. Kirk showed a more mature and disciplined manner by not putting up with that nonsense. He ran a damn tight ship.

Kirk wins.

You think Picard voluntarily had kids on his ship? Picard hated kids and wanted them off his damn bridge every time they got there. The difference between his and Kirk's Enterprises was a difference in Starfleet culture between generations, not a difference between captains.


I recently watched Encounter at Farpoint again and do you know what is one of Picard's first actions as a captain? Surrender. Typical Frenchman =)

But he can still kick Kirk's ass...

Pipcard
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:33 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Pipcard » Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:52 am UTC

The alt text reminds me of those people that have usernames like "xXxXx~AnGeL_3939~xXxXx"

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby PolakoVoador » Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:24 am UTC

Whizbang wrote:I disagree. Clearly Picard is the better captain. Kirk was a shoot from the hip renegade, and look where it got him, in trouble with the Tribbles. Picard had class and honor, was decdisive without being rash, and fought off the Borg, for Pete's sake. Picard, FTW!


Picard wants to personally thank you for the kind words:

Image

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4462
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:55 am UTC

Klear wrote:Typical Frenchman =)

Oh sure, pick on the French why don't you. Go for the easy targets.

You could at least pick on someone who would fight back... ;)
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

vector010
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 9:17 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby vector010 » Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:14 am UTC

I'm actually surprised that everything I've seen ignores the most obvious argument that immediately came to my mind for "Into Darkness" being a subtitle. This is the Star Trek name and trademark. Having Star Trek be the title with Into Darkness as a subtitle is fully leveraging the trademark and name of the Star Trek franchise while a title like (A) Star Trek into Darkness could reasonable be argued to be separate from the the franchise. But whatever, that's just me... and it isn't that big of a deal as far as I'm concerned.

Vorkoz
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:42 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Vorkoz » Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:44 am UTC

magnificient?

rmsgrey
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby rmsgrey » Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:27 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
EpicanicusStrikes wrote:
Whizbang wrote:I disagree. Clearly Picard is the better captain. Kirk was a shoot from the hip renegade, and look where it got him, in trouble with the Tribbles. Picard had class and honor, was decdisive without being rash, and fought off the Borg, for Pete's sake. Picard, FTW!

Kirk never staffed his crew with children. Kirk wins.

Why on Khan's green earth would you house civilians on a starship which saw military action every week? At the very least they knew their mission was one of the most dangerous in all of Starfleet. Picard was happy to haul newborns around disease ridden, war-torn planets of dark mystery. Kirk showed a more mature and disciplined manner by not putting up with that nonsense. He ran a damn tight ship.

Kirk wins.

You think Picard voluntarily had kids on his ship? Picard hated kids and wanted them off his damn bridge every time they got there. The difference between his and Kirk's Enterprises was a difference in Starfleet culture between generations, not a difference between captains.


Exactly. Kirk was off exploring the wild frontier on a 5-year mission to tame the galaxy; Picard's Enterprise was exploring the corners of a mostly civilised region. Plus, while Kirk's Starfleet had multiple hostile races with ships of equivalent power to contend with, Picard's Starfleet had no known enemies capable of threatening a starship. Kirk's was a primarily military mission with some civilian support crew; Picard's was a primarily civilian mission, with military command staff.

With the Borg and then the Dominion, Starfleet started building actual warships again rather than science vessels capable of taking care of themselves.

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby PolakoVoador » Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:07 pm UTC

Nerd-sniping is so easy in this forum :P

User avatar
Cymbidiinae
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:48 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Cymbidiinae » Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:04 pm UTC

miraclef wrote:Regarding the comic, is it even valid to start article titles with non-alphanumeric characters?

Yes, when it is part of the article subject's name. For example, intergeneric hybrids under the plant Code are typically given the symbol × before the combined nothogenus name, e.g. × Amarcrinum is a nothogenus (and the title of a Wikipedia article) that contains nothospecies resulting from crosses between species in the genera Amaryllis and Crinum. Likewise there is the example of graft chimera that are indicated by a + sign, such as the cultivar +Laburnocytisus 'Adamii'.

User avatar
bmonk
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:14 pm UTC
Location: Schitzoed in the OTT between the 2100s and the late 900s. Hoping for singularity.

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby bmonk » Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:58 pm UTC

villadelfia wrote:This reminds me about the misconceptions about the name of a location in Final Fantasy 9. In the game's font the uppercase i looks exactly like the lowercase L, so people have been discussing endlessly if the location is "Iifa tree" (that's iifa) or "lifa tree" (that's Lifa).

All very understandable, because the game has a shitty font... On the other hand, there is exactly one moment in the game where it uses a different font to render it:

Spoiler:
Image

I recall a similar discussion about the difference between the Panzer IIL (as IIl) vs. the Panzer III.
Having become a Wizard on n.p. 2183, the Yellow Piggy retroactively appointed his honorable self a Temporal Wizardly Piggy on n.p.1488, not to be effective until n.p. 2183, thereby avoiding a partial temporal paradox. Since he couldn't afford two philosophical PhDs to rule on the title.

User avatar
bmonk
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:14 pm UTC
Location: Schitzoed in the OTT between the 2100s and the late 900s. Hoping for singularity.

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby bmonk » Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:03 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:I disagree. Clearly Picard is the better captain. Kirk was a shoot from the hip renegade, and look where it got him, in trouble with the Tribbles. Picard had class and honor, was decdisive without being rash, and fought off the Borg, for Pete's sake. Picard, FTW!

On the other hand, Picard put up with Wesley Crusher.
Having become a Wizard on n.p. 2183, the Yellow Piggy retroactively appointed his honorable self a Temporal Wizardly Piggy on n.p.1488, not to be effective until n.p. 2183, thereby avoiding a partial temporal paradox. Since he couldn't afford two philosophical PhDs to rule on the title.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby jpk » Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:49 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
bluon wrote:
Klear wrote:
bluon wrote:If you dig further into the underbrush, there's a number of comments by people (on other pages, two or more links away from the main discussion) effectively saying "how do we keep the new people from upsetting our carefully defined and defended status quo?"



And of course as always the answer is to distract them with a completely trivial argument over something that will never matter in the least to anyone.

User avatar
AlexTheSeal
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:57 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby AlexTheSeal » Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:19 am UTC

Quicksilver wrote:Star Trekkin', across the universe
Boldly going forward, because we can't find reverse!


+1

Incontrovertible proof, from a descriptive linguist's point of view, that "to Star Trek" is a legitimate verb.

(BTW, I just realized that the joke in the second line of the refrain is probably lost on anyone under the age of 30 or so, since it clearly alludes to the frustration of learning to drive on an older stick-shift car like an air-cooled Volkswagen where it was indeed hard to find reverse, or really any particular gear.)

Code: Select all

10 REM WORLD'S SMALLEST ADVENTURE GAME
20 PRINT "YOU ARE IN A CAVE (N, S, E, W)? ";
30 INPUT A$
40 GOTO 10

Lulled to sleep by the one-hertz chuckle of Linux logfile writes since 1997.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5092
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Xeio » Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:02 am UTC

I have to laugh at this.

TortoiseWrath
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 12:28 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby TortoiseWrath » Sat May 11, 2013 5:04 pm UTC

Update: the debate seems to have ended a couple weeks ago, having totaled 134,603 words. (The solution was a capital I.)

User avatar
mittfh
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:43 am UTC
Location: Kenilworth, UK

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby mittfh » Sat May 11, 2013 8:39 pm UTC

More title fun from the Talk page:

Wikipedia: Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness wrote:I super don't care, but I thought it'd be fun to let American editors know that the BBFC certificate for the film that appears before it in UK cinemas renders the title as "Star Trek - Into Darkness." Do with that as thou wilt. - Chris McFeely (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This is HUGE!!! I suggest we spend the next month settling whether that is a hyphen or a dash between "Trek" and "Into". It could be the whole key to understanding the film!!! 99.192.77.194 (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't be silly. The title remains the same. -- MisterShiney ✉ 16:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

User avatar
ElWanderer
Posts: 285
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:05 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby ElWanderer » Wed Aug 06, 2014 9:33 am UTC

Ran into this cartoon unexpectedly today, in the middle of a BBC article about edit wars:
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28426674
Now I am become Geoff, the destroyer of worlds

User avatar
PTGFlyer
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 6:15 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby PTGFlyer » Wed May 04, 2016 5:28 pm UTC

Just did this to the entire article.

teelo
Posts: 746
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:50 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby teelo » Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:09 pm UTC

Bored.
Attachments
xkcd1167.png

speising
Posts: 2196
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby speising » Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:22 pm UTC

teelo wrote:Bored.

so, you're in the habit of performing vandalism when bored?
do you also scratch cars or smash windows when you feel like it?
(anyway, it lasted for all of a minute)

teelo
Posts: 746
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:50 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby teelo » Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:04 pm UTC

speising wrote:
teelo wrote:Bored.

so, you're in the habit of performing vandalism when bored?
do you also scratch cars or smash windows when you feel like it?
(anyway, it lasted for all of a minute)

You're comparing a summary offense against pissing someone off on a website.
And yes there seems to be a bot setup to instantly reverse edits like that. It was reversed in less than a second. But the screenshot will last forever.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3073
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Soupspoon » Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:33 am UTC

If we're revitalising old and tired things, please let me make a note regarding Picard and having children on his ship. Glory in the TNG episode 'Rascals', and the epic tantrum that child!Picard performs in order to get to see his 'father'!

I think Picard has a lot of first-hand experience with the behaviour of children, good and bad, whilst Kirk probably hasn't (since his own childhood, and not even so many then). He likely never even met his own countless half-green/etc children he may have unknowingly fathered with complicit native females upon various briefly-visited worlds. There was the Squire Of Gothos, I suppose. But it was mostly Trevelyan's own parents who Deuxed ex the Machina for that case, and it was practically only then that his actual immaturity was revealed.

Cuvtixo
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:41 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Cuvtixo » Sat Jan 06, 2018 1:25 am UTC

I never saw any "half-breeds" on the Original Star Trek other than Spock, and his very existence was scandalous. I'd say Kirk's "indiscretions" were guilt-free in that department because of alien-human DNA conflicts. :mrgreen: Then again I'm an orphan myself and probably projecting my own issues a little here. I'm actually a little tempted to socially deconstruct everything about Spock's biological heritage and Rodenberry's intended or unintended commentary on race relations at the time to totally intellectualize my own issues, but I'll spare you all that. Although Gene's episodes DO often seem like psychotherapy sessions, each character of the Enterprise a one dimensional reflection of his own psych -Kirk is the ego- naturally he can't help being a jerk, he's not a whole human being just a projection of primitive instincts, Spock the intellect, etc, etc.
Also, I have no idea how old Picard was supposed to be, but in a population of futuristic humans that get to be a couple hundred years old, in addition to the real-world low birth rates of economically prosperous populations, humans of the age range 1-16 would probably be quite a rarity. The danger would be that they would be incredibly smothered and spoiled "-oh look hon, it's a CHILD!- Let's go see it. Do we have anything like candy or a toy or anything?"

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3073
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Soupspoon » Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:57 am UTC

Cuvtixo wrote:I never saw any "half-breeds" on the Original Star Trek other than Spock, and his very existence was scandalous. I'd say Kirk's "indiscretions" were guilt-free in that department because of alien-human DNA conflicts. :mrgreen:

B'Elanna Torres was a human/klingon child (and had a child with a human, proving that she's not just an ass - or tigon/lyger). As was the mother of Worf's son, Alexander (who is, hinself, therefore quarter-human, the rest Klingon, even if two of the remaining quarters are culturally all-Klingon-but-raised-by-Humans)
Councillor Troi was half-human, half Betazoid.
There's been Romulan/Vulcan offspring (unsurprisingly as they're in-canon stated as virtually cousins) and Human/Romulan ones (disproving mere 'ring species' compatibility at the Vulcan/Human part of the Euler Diagram (and that despite the problem of mixing cupro-blooded Vulcan and haemo-blooded Human traits… somehow! You aew right to be sceptical!)
I recall there being a Bajoran/other hybrid in DS9, but can't remember the full details off-hand.

And all this is 'explained' in the TNG episode where it is discovered that many (all?) different galactic races are linked by DNA 'clues' left by some progenitor species of some kind, who seeded each races biogenesis origins with fragments that 'do stuff' when combined, even after aeons of evolution.

(How this meshes with Q's showing of Picard the moment that primordial slime started life on Earth, I don't know. But I'd probably trust a miraculously self-rebuilding chemical 'program' over that trickster Q any day, so I'm giving the DNA message the benefit of the doubt.)


Although Gene's episodes DO often seem like psychotherapy sessions, each character of the Enterprise a one dimensional reflection of his own psych -Kirk is the ego- naturally he can't help being a jerk, he's not a whole human being just a projection of primitive instincts, Spock the intellect, etc, etc.
In TNG, they were slightly less 1D. Even ignoring pre-/post-Locutus Picard (or pre-/post-emotion Data) they generally mixed and matched the singular qualities of the TOC crew into newly rearranged packages for the TNG one. Data takes logic (and strength) from Spock, but the majority token-Alienness goes to Worf (also strength, but note the Worf Effect, which was basically the Tasha Yar Effect made plot-proofly non-lethal) and the mental alienness sprinkles onto Troi (who otherwise takes on Ensign Rand's token feminine dimension, given Yar never used it when not affected by Random Space Phenomena, Crusher already had her kid to deal with at first (Pulaski never strayed far from the professional), the females in engineering before Geordi/during his time were basically techheads, etc, etc).


Data vs Wesley vs Geordi is certainly very Rock/Paper/Scissors (or 'one goes rogue, the other two might need to team up to handle the other, two of them rogue at the same time needs Picard or Riker to trump the duo in a psychological manner) in a way that nobody could best Scotty if he was on proper form. Except for a GNDN pipe at head height in a Jeffries Tube.

Also, I have no idea how old Picard was supposed to be, but in a population of futuristic humans that get to be a couple hundred years old, in addition to the real-world low birth rates of economically prosperous populations, humans of the age range 1-16 would probably be quite a rarity. The danger would be that they would be incredibly smothered and spoiled "-oh look hon, it's a CHILD!- Let's go see it. Do we have anything like candy or a toy or anything?"
I don't think the post-scarcity Feceration was post-reproduction in any (*ahem*) conceivable way. We see more kids than in Kirk's time because Picard is on a 'keep the home fires burning' type of ship, keeping an ambasadoreal overview much of the time, compared to Kirk's "Where No Man Has Gone Before" seemingly perpetual First Contacting (And To Hell With The Prime Directive!)… Maybe in some way we can say that Picard carries a cresh because many more of his staff are their mothers (and/or fathers) taking their kids along. It's arguable about whether it's wise, but it's definitely more socially forward-thinking. Very '90s. Or 2360s.

That said, the age-balance of characters does seem to more reflect Central Casting's output of the time (when not trying to fulfill "loads of children in this scene"), and it's overwhelmingly mature people seen around Ben Sisko's father's restaurant on Earth (time of day/cultural drift?). Incidentally, Joseph Sisko had several children other than Ben (one on-screen grandchild) and had medical support but wasn't even anywhere near being a centarian and no indication that he'd have a living bicentennial. There were very few human Methuselahs outside of Khan's tribe (even discounting their cryogenic sleep) and Scotty (cheated with a transporter-loop). Data's 'father'? Obviously Spock (being Vulcan, still going strong for some time around a rebooting time-loop) and some notable Klingons/others, but Humans are somewhat to them as the Ocampa are to us. We just pack in a lot more depth and breadth.


(IIRC, Picard was late-50s+, a career officer, and had no children of his own. But he grew up (in a rural setting) with a brother, and had a nephew, so may not have been overwhelmed by schoolfriends/etc, pre-Academy, probably knew the kids of families with neighbouring vineyards. Though he was shy, in his early years, and gave up his musical performing; maybe why he later took to commanding like he did, with holodeck performance mainly for his own enjoyment, as a way of overcoming that.)

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5734
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Angua » Sat Jan 06, 2018 2:37 pm UTC

TNG is 100 years or so after TOS so Spock being a mixed race person at that time would have a lot more stigma than TNG.
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3073
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Soupspoon » Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:22 pm UTC

Spock was also subject to racial prejudice on post-TOS Vulcan. Logical, but stuck-in-their-old-ways, the bias against 'Muggles' and (more so) 'Half-Bloods' was shown to be deep and nigh-on implaccable within some quarters of the homeworld (at least).

I was really addressing the DNA conflicts bit. It might (although there's no evidence for this, with so few known inter-race relationships) be less likely than your average matched-species mating attempt, and I'm not aware of any intercourse with a Horta, other than the conversational kind, but canon has all kinds of mismatched-race mating not only produce offspring but also offspring that have (even more occasionally, but surprisingly often given the few opportunities to take this experiment further) been able to become parents themselves.


(They probably habitually use a finely woven handwavium/plotinum alloy in their knicker elastic which radiates tuned meh-wave fields during their foreplay, interacting specifically to convert genetic information into far more miscible memetic information, then back into the idealised genetic form required to express this in the fertilised egg. I bet the Ferengi sell such underwear, whether the buyers know it or not. That's why their females aren't generally allowed to wear clothes.)

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 25935
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby SecondTalon » Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:36 pm UTC

Cuvtixo did specifically say The Original Series, which means Torres, Troi, Dukat's half Bajoran daughter and so on are irrelevant, especially as the comment was more about what Gene was trying to say, Gene not being nearly as involved in TNG as he was in TOS, and completely un-involved in everything thereafter.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests