Post #2697001
2026-02-28 20:08 UTC
@johnofrobotz@mastodon.girolab.foo @virtualbri@mastodon.online @startrek@fedigroups.social Sure. There are anachronisms. I mentally stub my toe against those. In 08, when Ocam says, "Sick". Linguistic anachronisms often disrupt my suspension of disbelief.
Yet, I realize, we have to allow for some anachronisms. How can we possibly relate to a future a millennia from our present when perhaps almost every social construct we've had has been altered or replaced so thoroughly as to be unrecognizable? What would we look like and sound like to those living in the Dark Ages?
Replies (1)
-
@virtualbri@mastodon.online 2026-02-28 22:56
@elight@tenforward.social @johnofrobotz@mastodon.girolab.foo @startrek@fedigroups.social SFA is over a thousand years from the present. 600 year old English is a struggle to understand. This is a show for people *now* about *now*, so there has to be shortcuts for understanding. Or else it's a sociological exercise, not a TV show. The amount of people who want to watch a creation of just how different things would actually be I think is a lot smaller than who want to watch Star Trek as it is. Also new language needs to be defined and explained