Why Technobabble Makes Star Trek Suck

[WhiteTiger225]

Yep, because we don't have keyless interfaces nowadays, so I-Phones... I mean LCARS aren't realistic.
And yes we all know 2-Dimensional nature of space is not at all realistic, and it can't possible be plot, and it COULDN'T be the fact it is to keep things easier to understand.
And non-phone communications? BLASPHEMY! Bluetooth doesn't exist!

I am sorry but you self defeated yourself. Engineering terminals are in engineering so the engineers can work in the engine room without having to run up to the bridge to type in a simple request for a can of polish. Captain Picard HAS commanded from other rooms and the bathroom on occasion, but as a federation (Naval) captain, his duty is to be on the bridge and command if it is possible.
Picard commands from his bridge because it is the rules. Star Fleet follows naval rules basically. And why multiple terminals? Well since all hell breaks loose in the engine room a lot.. why would you put your captain in there to be potentially killed? And why would you put 1 terminal in 1 place to control the ship which means if it gets damaged, you're fucked?

Just have to say, your sarcasm isn't very helpful to any discussion.

And Bluetooth is not "non-phone". Bluetooth is still your phone, its just a wireless mic/speaker. You can't use Bluetooth without a phone.

I am pointing out that one touch communication technology can easily be fit into the badges, especially given the advancement in their technology. given 10 more years, a Razr's parts can easily be fit into one of those badges, just add a high quality speaker and link the badges communications to the Starship above and you will be able to communicate flawlessly with someone in space. But as we have seen in star trek (Or I have since you can't seem to watch something for 10 seconds unless someones head is being blown off ) the communicator is not infallible. Put it below a decent amount of rock, and it ceases to function, they can't even track it to teleport you out.

You claim phones are realistic and phoneless communication isn't... Then why the hell do many companies, office buildings, big buisness', low budget apartments etc have access to technology where you push a button, and communicate with someone? Why can I set my phone so I push a button, and talk via speaker without ever picking up a phone?

 

[wadark]

I didn't say it had to be about the cold or flu. But let me run down a common scene in house:

*House and his team sit in a conference room*
Foreman: Symptom X could mean its <7-syllable condition>.
House: No, because he also has symptoms Y and Z.
Australian Guy: What about <10-syllable condition>?
Hot Girl: No, because Test D showed increased levels of Chemical E.
House: No, I know the answer, let's go watch me be right.

This is not interesting.

 

[Zac_Dai]

loooonnnnnnnnnnggggg

tl;dr

Only joking

Was a good post. But brings to mind the question, "Has there ever been any Hard Sci-Fi TV series?"

I really can't think of one right now to be honest.

 

[General Vagueness]

Technobabble does suck but technological explanations are fine and that's what you get in Star Trek-- if you look pretty much any technical aspects of the Star Trek universe outside of the original series (and most of them in TOS) you'll see they're completely consistent, and if you research, or just already know this stuff (like I do), you'll see the vast majority of it has a grounding in physics as we understand it today. As for using terms most people don't understand, almost all of them (or their parts, e.g. the Heisenberg compensator in the transporter) and the concepts behind them existed before Star Trek, so that's what they're properly called.

 

[Raithnor]

The worst use of Technobabble is when it's the solution to the problem facing the crew. The very laziest of Trek episodes did this, where Data, Wesely et al would pull an 11th hour workaround that solves the problem. It's just plainly bad storytelling no matter the show or genre.

Technobabble has it's place but it should be rooted in elements and concepts the audience is familiar with. The Ship = Car metaphor is always good, you have a engine which needs fuel and you need some way to steer it, the rest is just useless bull that fandom obsesses over.

The biggest reason Stargate worked was because they had a "Resident Dullard", someone to always ask "What does that mean in plain English?"

The trouble with sci-fi is that the science started to get in the way of TV production values, which is why almost every Sci-Fi TV show has had Artifical Gravity. It's impossible to simulate Zero-G effectively with a low budget TV show and not have it be CGI.

EDIT: PS If you're looking for your 18th century sailing ship show. I *STRONGLY* recommend the Horatio Hornblower mini-series that came out a couple of years ago from BBC.

 

[veryboringfact]

And that was why Firefly was so damn good... (but clearly not good enough for FOX)

I will say this to my dying day. Firefly was not a sci-fi show. It was a western that just happened to have a spaceship in it.

OT: Ugh the technobabble in Star Trek drove me nuts, hence why I didn't watch it for too long. The lack of excessive technobabble in SG-1 worked though, especially since they used theoretical laws of physics to formulate their technobabble.

As SG-1 is present day, it makes sense that they would make more of an effort to tie the stories into reality. And Firefly was good because it had likeable characters and good plots, not because it had a "better" storyworld.

Oh and Star Trek is not, and never was, Science Fiction.

It was all about the Shatner - battleth duel commence ! *cue music* DUN DUN DUUN DUNDUN DUUN DUNDUN DUUN DUN

 

[WhiteTiger225]

OH SHIT! Reverse the polarity. That always works.

Yeah, Trek goes overboard. I like Galactica because it's real. There are phones, and keyboards, and locks on the door. The Star Trek comm system, absurd keyless computer interface (LCARS), and lets not forget the two-dimensional nature of space in Trek... All these things detract from the show. And why can you fly the entire ship from the captain's chair some times? If any computer can control any system, why the need for a bridge. Why doesn't Picard command from the shower, or why isn't the helm in engineering where all hell always breaks loose?

Yep, because we don't have keyless interfaces nowadays, so I-Phones... I mean LCARS aren't realistic.
And yes we all know 2-Dimensional nature of space is not at all realistic, and it can't possible be plot, and it COULDN'T be the fact it is to keep things easier to understand.
And non-phone communications? BLASPHEMY! Bluetooth doesn't exist!

I am sorry but you self defeated yourself. Engineering terminals are in engineering so the engineers can work in the engine room without having to run up to the bridge to type in a simple request for a can of polish. Captain Picard HAS commanded from other rooms and the bathroom on occasion, but as a federation (Naval) captain, his duty is to be on the bridge and command if it is possible.
Picard commands from his bridge because it is the rules. Star Fleet follows naval rules basically. And why multiple terminals? Well since all hell breaks loose in the engine room a lot.. why would you put your captain in there to be potentially killed? And why would you put 1 terminal in 1 place to control the ship which means if it gets damaged, you're fucked?

Talk about missing my point entirely.

Lack of a keyboard and the invention of touch-screen interface are not even on the same page. The LCARS layout is a jumble of nonsensicle buttons with no actual typing interface. How do you input commands without a keyboard? Sure, some commands can be used shortcut style, but on some level, you will need to actually type data or code. My comments are clearly illustrated in Voyager, how the Doctor could be conducting "research" or filing a report all by alternating between the same three buttons on his terminal.

As to the comms, it's not about wireless communication. It's about how in the fuck does the computer know when and what to transmit? There are countless errors in use, where people just start talking and it goes over the comm, but they could say the same words and it's just conversation. They don't always hit their communicator pin, so how in the hell does the computer know when someone is talking about someone instead of to someone?

Bottom line is Star Trek, in all its incarnations, has been full of plot holes big enough and plentiful enough for the mass audience to slip right by it, leaving only the die-hard fans behind. Possibly because most of them are obese or dense enough they can't fit through the plot hole.

1. The Doctor is a Hologram run by a computer, so have you considered his main computer components may be directly interfaced to the ships computer?

2. That's called "Director" issues. I guess it's also a bad movie to you when the light goes off a milisecond before the light switch is actually flicked upright.

3. Only a few people watch Star Trek? The Millions of Fans and Fanboys would beg to disagree with you.

 

[WhiteTiger225]

Technobabble does suck but technological explanations are fine and that's what you get in Star Trek-- if you look pretty much any technical aspects of the Star Trek universe outside of the original series (and most of them in TOS) you'll see they're completely consistent, and if you research, or just already know this stuff (like I do), you'll see the vast majority of it has a grounding in physics as we understand it today. As for using terms most people don't understand, almost all of them (or their parts, e.g. the Heisenberg compensator in the transporter) and the concepts behind them existed before Star Trek, so that's what they're properly called.

True., Technobabble is just saying whatever comes to the top of your head. In the Star Trek Universe (at least TG) the babble is not babble, it actually means something. When they claim they are running low on dilithium crystals, it won't even mean they are out of potatoes, it will always mean they are out of Warpcore fuel.

 

[LiquidGrape]

Personally, I'd say that loud, shiny, dumb action intermixed with tween-spunk is what finally made Star Trek seem rather crass. Not the technobabble.
J.J Abram's, you inept buffoon...

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

As SG-1 is present day, it makes sense that they would make more of an effort to tie the stories into reality. And Firefly was good because it had likeable characters and good plots, not because it had a "better" storyworld.

I mentioned nothing about story so how much water does you argument hold? About as much as a bucket missing the bottom.
What I was pointing out is Firefly isn't science fiction, it's science fantasy with a nice western twist. See this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.149530#3490505] post on the difference.

 

[veryboringfact]

blah blah blah i love star trek

Continuity errors and anachronisms DO make a movie bad, and DO detract from the immersion, the same way that plot holes and shallow writing detract from Star Trek. Everything is one-dimensional, the alien species are formulaic and usually embody a single human notion or emotion - klingons have rage, ferengi love money and have big no- ... ears, cardassians are slimy and underhand - you can figure out an episode just from which kind of alien is featured in that show.

Star Trek entertained me fine as a kid, and that's wehere it ended, i don't take it anymore seriously than He-Man, and it certainly isn't sci-fi.

 

[veryboringfact]

As SG-1 is present day, it makes sense that they would make more of an effort to tie the stories into reality. And Firefly was good because it had likeable characters and good plots, not because it had a "better" storyworld.

I mentioned nothing about story so how much water does you argument hold? About as much as a bucket missing the bottom.
What I was pointing out is Firefly isn't science fiction, it's science fantasy with a nice western twist. See this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.149530#3490505] post on the difference.

I wasn't aware my post contained any "argument" at all, and i certainly didn't specifically disagree with what you said, merely elaborated on it with my own input - unless you are saying that you dont agree firefly has good plot and characters ? If your original post contains nothing about the story, then how can you take my comments on it as an argument ?

Really, stop shooting from the hip and take time to aim, not everyone is an enemy.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

I wasn't aware my post contained any "argument" at all, and i certainly didn't specifically disagree with what you said, merely elaborated on it with my own input - unless you are saying that you dont agree firefly has good plot and characters ? If your original post contains nothing about the story, then how can you take my comments on it as an argument ?

Sorry I'm mostly ruffled up because after I posted my thoughts on Firefly elsewhere I was bombarded by Joss Whedon fans shooting dumb arguments at me.
I guess I overreacted.
Lo siento again.

Really, stop shooting from the hip and take time to aim, not everyone is an enemy.

Don't ever say that again, very cheesy. If I need some cheese I'll go to my 'fridge.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

And that is why most of the original episodes were not about that kind of thing...

Yeah, most of the original shows were about having sex with green chicks.

 

[kspiess]

I won't put too too much stock in the opinion of Charlie Stross. It's just that: his personal opinion and preference.

There is room for all sorts of science fiction -- from the most Hollywood space opera, to the diamond hard stuff that he writes. For example, I'm not sure if any of you have read a Charlie Stross novel, but I have, and in my opinion, many more people would enjoy reading a Star Trek novel with technobabble than some of the difficult to follow, and tech-drenched of his stories.

It's all a matter of taste. Certainly many more people would enjoy watching a Star Trek TV show than would enjoy reading one his hard-SF books.

The science fiction he writes is an incredibly niche market. I think his comments are being taken out of context somewhat. He's just saying what he likes (and what many strict hard-SF fans like.) But I don't think he is presuming that Star Trek should actually be changed to be more scientifically accurate.

Star Trek is more an exploration of character and adventure than it is of science and speculation.

 

[WhiteTiger225]

You cry a lot.

Wha wha life isn't perfect so I must take it out on a movie

See? I can use the most primitive debate tool and mock your quotes too

And stay away from Serenity then, I mean the fact one girl is holding her gun like a bow and arrow because they digitzed the bow and arrow out of her hands and photoshopped a gun in it's place to save time and money would make this movie go from 10/10 to 1/10 to you