Zagorath

Oh yeah for sure. But this goes back to the other discussion I was having about Doylist vs Watsonian explanations. For this sort of issue, I strongly prefer to have a Watsonian explanation that we can use. And there is an official Watsonian explanation…it’s just a dumb and unsatisfying one compared to the one I prefered.

The problem with the 12 parsecs thing didn’t come from G-canon though. It was in extended universe, and later in the Solo movie, where the black holes explanation came in and removed the ability to interpret it as Han bullshitting.

Yeah no I get that, and normally I’m a big fan of finding Watsonian explanations for writing decisions rather than just accepting that something was done for production reasons or because of a studio note or some other Doylist reason. But for whatever reason when it comes specifically to visual changes I tend not to care as much.

Honestly the Klingon thing is the sort of thing I don’t feel needs a serious canon explanation. If I had been alive pre-TNG my preferred explanation would have been “they look different because they had different production budgets. In-lore they haven’t changed.”

It’s the same with Star Wars for me. I never cared for the fancy explanations for Han doing the Kessel Run in under 12 parsecs. Up until the Solo movie, my headcanon was just that Han was bullshitting. It fits his character, it doesn’t require some weird space-fantasy explanation. And best of all, it fits the suspicious reaction Obi-Wan gives after he says it.

I think it’s also why the visuals of the Klingon look in Discovery never bothered me. It always seemed like just another increase in budget and modern production design to the same fundamental design they’ve always had, the same way TNG improved upon TOS.

There was a great thread on Daystrom on Reddit about this. The theory is they have 3 languages. Basically, the bare function words taught to children and in which the stories are told. The main language of metaphors with which we are familiar. And a language of technical jargon. Until they have learnt the stories, language A can be used as a general purpose language for children, but it would be regarded as baby talk by adults except when used for its functional purpose in telling metaphors. The jargon would be necessary even at higher levels.

What app/UI you using? Some of the former Reddit apps that were converted to Lemmy haven’t implemented markdown according to the Lemmy specification, especially regarding ^superscript _subscript

If you’re submitting it to Lemmy as a post (or Reddit, if you still use that), just don’t share the short URL at all. Get the full www.youtube.com/watch?v= link for maximum compatibility with cross-post detection.

Change it to /watch?v= to have the normal standard YouTube URL. Since comments have no such detection, feel free to use the short URL there.

Yes, and avoid the youtu.be short links for the same reason.

Holy shit these are incredible. Reminds me of the skit easter egg in the credits to Summoner.

Who is that, ajdnwhy do they look like a mediaeval fantasy character sitting on a modern couch?

Gotta put a closing caret on your superscript words in Lemmy. And end a line with two spaces if you want the text to appear on the next line.
^{in the details}