i suppose agree to disagree. i really like trek novels that hew to how the dialog was written in each era of show / movie. to me that provides an extra level of immersion when reading fiction based on existing media properties. when reading a TOS novel feels like watching the show.Star Trek is not historical fiction. It's an attempt to approximate the future in a way that's accessible to its contemporary audience. That meant that in the '60s, it was written with the vocabulary used by '60s writers and viewers, but now it's the 2020s and it would be pointless to present a 2020s audience with 23rd-century characters who sound like they're from the 1960s.
Gene Roddenberry himself saw ST as a dramatic recreation of the "actual" events in Kirk's logs, and he was the first to say that any change in a new version (like giving the Klingons ridges in TMP) was just a refinement in how the events were dramatized for the audience, rather than an actual in-universe change. He believed that later versions of ST should be updated for their contemporary audience's taste and understanding, because he was trying to evoke the future, not the past.
Incidentally, I can find no reason to believe that "good call" is a term of recent vintage. The term originally comes from sports, referring to the call made by a referee or umpire, and an Ngram search shows its use in writing peaking in the 1920s with a lesser peak in the late 1950s, though declining by the later '60s. Older documents seem to use the phrase in a different sense, but I found one document from 1970 that used the phrase to convey approval of someone's decision.
still, there's no excuse for The Mission District.
