Why Technobabble Makes Star Trek Suck

veryboringfact

New member
Apr 2, 2009
113
0
0
WhiteTiger225 said:
veryboringfact said:
WhiteTiger225 said:
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 :D

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 :p
I was only half-mocking you, i just didnt want to annoy people by quoting huge blocks of text that have already been seen by everyone, if i really wanted to mock you and the validity of your opinion then i would reference the badge under your name boasting that you know more about Star Trek "than the Enterprise computer".

And i liked Serenity, i did not notice the flaw you referenced therefore it did not bother me. Star Trek however is one long series of flaws and bad decisions, sorry if this is difficult for you to hear.
 

WhiteTiger225

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,039
0
0
Khell_Sennet said:
WhiteTiger225 said:
Khell_Sennet said:
WhiteTiger225 said:
Khell_Sennet said:
Snip
Snip
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.
You are obviously too much of a fanatic, or simply too thick headed, to see reason. I will only state that as much as I liked Star Trek (except TOS), it was bad television. Great acting, bad writing, horrible continuity. They fucked up. Often. Only the truly devout could say it wasn't flawed. Doesn't mean we can't still enjoy it, but compared to other shows in the genre, it is just a time killer.

(Oh, and a million or two fans out of the billion-plus audience of North America and Europe is just "a few people". One in a hundred, one percent, marginal at best.)
Reason? That a viewership of 27 million (Thats just at the begining)
It has recieved the following awards.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092455/awards

Whats this? Even a peabody award? But how did they manage that? I mean surely since they are so awful, you can write better.. so.. how many awards do you have for your long running series that has yet to be canceled? Huh? None!? How SHOCKING!

How many people were alive in the 1990's? How many of those owned televisions? How many of those had a cable package that allowed them access to more then local channels? I mean theres billions of people in china so obviously this means Britian is no good since britian doesn't even have 50% of the population china has... or... maybe the fact is that viewership also does not dictate quality. Wanna go ahead and call FireFly a piece of shit, seeing as it had lower viewership then TNG AND was canceled? Go on, call FireFly shit, I dare you!
 

WhiteTiger225

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,039
0
0
Khell_Sennet said:
Not like the new movie which basically says "Fuck it all, let's start over".
Sorry to tell ya, but any Star Trek fan will accept that movie as cannon as much as any Zelda fan will accept Wand of gamalon as Cannon, or how any true star wars fan will even acknowledge the series rape that is Episodes 1-3.
 

bushwhacker2k

New member
Jan 27, 2009
1,587
0
0
Tinq said:
Be careful what you wish for...



Generations... *Shudder*
I liked that movie. I'd totally watch it, too.
:D

I didn't mind the technobabble, sometimes sense can actually be made of it and it's just there to make it sound better.

If I had to pick between reroute the power to the auxilliary core for additional maintanence over tech the tech then I'd pick the former :p
 

WhiteTiger225

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,039
0
0
veryboringfact said:
WhiteTiger225 said:
veryboringfact said:
WhiteTiger225 said:
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 :D

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 :p
I was only half-mocking you, i just didnt want to annoy people by quoting huge blocks of text that have already been seen by everyone, if i really wanted to mock you and the validity of your opinion then i would reference the badge under your name boasting that you know more about Star Trek "than the Enterprise computer".

And i liked Serenity, i did not notice the flaw you referenced therefore it did not bother me. Star Trek however is one long series of flaws and bad decisions, sorry if this is difficult for you to hear.
Well unlike Serenity's series "FireFly" TNG is still going :p Not to mention the movies also grossed aobut as much as serenity did.

How could that be if the series is so awful? Hmmmmmmm... *Chin Rubs*

And yes, because I cannot at ALL cheat during the quizzes and look up the answers online (Notice my time is 20 minutes? XD)
 

Ancientgamer

New member
Jan 16, 2009
1,346
0
0
WhiteTiger225 said:
I mean surely since they are so awful, you can write better.. so.. how many awards do you have for your long running series that has yet to be canceled? Huh? None!? How SHOCKING!
Even if I marginally agreed with your point, this killed it. That is stupid, that is something that should never be done even in an aggressive debate. That's such a low form of argument.


I mean theres billions of people in china so obviously this means Britian is no good since britian doesn't even have 50% of the population china has... or... maybe the fact is that viewership also does not dictate quality. Wanna go ahead and call FireFly a piece of shit, seeing as it had lower viewership then TNG AND was canceled? Go on, call FireFly shit, I dare you!
And wtf is this? analogies exist for a purpose, they have to make some actual corralational sense. If what you throw back at someone is baseless it's just fluff, and should be removed from your post. Making someone quit talking to you through exasperation is not winning an argument, even on the internet.


Oh, and painfully forced in red herring at the end there, nice work.
 

Zer_

Rocket Scientist
Feb 7, 2008
2,682
0
0
Khell_Sennet said:
A little more on-topic, anyone else a big fan of Enterprise, and how they actually tried to make sense? Loved the imperfect Vulcans, showing they weren't always so noble, that it was in fact their involvement in the federation that improved them. And the explanation of how Kingons went from Worf-style "True" Klingon, to humans with bad eyebrows, then back to real Klingons... Finding ways to include the old, but not be bound by it, made the show my favorite of the Star Treks (despite being the least impressive cast).

Not like the new movie which basically says "Fuck it all, let's start over".
I hope you realize that most of the continuity errors in Star Trek are due to the budget. Each episode is only allowed a certain budget, and if they go over that budget then they either have to cut some things from the show, or they take from another show's budget.

In fact Klingons in TOS were basically brown humans with eyebrows because they really didn't have much more money to give them proper costumes. When it comes to the movies, that's where we started to see Klingons with ridges on their foreheads.

Another example is from the TNG series, where Photon Torpedos would sometimes be seen coming out of the wrong section of the ship (I think phasers were being fired from where the photons should be fired from). In this case, though it's not at the fault of the writers and the fault of the special effects crew.

Also; when they made the switch from scale models of vessels to CG animation some things were also changed. When it comes to the scale of some ships, you can never be sure since what is seen on screen is often contradictory.

When it comes to the different species in the Trek universe, they aren't all that two dimensional. You can't just say it's all BS because the Ferengi are all capitalists. Each Ferengi, Klingon or Romulan will have their own personality, but like it or not they still come from the same culture as their fellow species members. Klingons are trained as warriors from birth. A Ferengi's views on economics is pretty much a religion, therefore most of them follow those beliefs (some don't, watch Deep Space Nine, you'll see).

Throughout the course of the Trek series' starting from The Next Generation there was a team specifically assigned to do some research on the science within the Trek universe. These are the guys who would go out to the libraries and read physics books and all that jazz. Of course there are things in Trek that can't really be explained (if they could we would have that technology by now, wouldn't we?), but for the most part Star Trek tends to keep up with current science at the time.

When it comes to technobabble within Trek it tends to be fairly consistent throughout the series. Subspace is basically similar to hyperspace although the theory behind it is slightly different. (Subspace is the reality through which vessels are capable of communicating great distances almost instantly provided they have the signal strength to do so. For instantaneous communication over long distances, there needs to be a subspace relay station within a certain distance of the vessel).

Bussard Collectors are also another component of the vessels within the Federation at least (aliens may use different technologies to achieve the same ends).
According to the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, the main function of a Starfleet Bussard collector is to collect interstellar hydrogen atoms for fuel replenishment. The device consists of a set of coils which generate a magnetic field. Collected gases are compressed and stored into holding tanks.
Bussard Collectors have been used to collect other types of matter from space for different reasons (IE they are pretty adaptable).
Bussard Collectors are based off of a theoretical method of spacecraft propulsion shown here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet]

Although a Bussard Collector only uses the magnetic field to collect hydrogen, whereas the ramjet uses it to serve as a propulsion method. Regardless, these are just two examples of "Technobabble" that is not only consistent throughout Star Trek, but also possible given the technological knowledge.
 

Gildedtongue

New member
Nov 9, 2007
189
0
0
Well, this kind of stuff is certainly why I prefer Philip K. Dick's work over Gene Roddenbury (that and Dick doesn't have a starry-eyed fetish for ultra-tech solving all of mankind's issues, turning us into a lovey-dovey fascist, socialist commune). Take Blade Runner. The tech is extremely background compared to the story. What are replicants? Well, they're robots... kinda. What's a spinner? A flying car, that's all you need to know. What's a Voigt-Kampff machine? Something that makes the blade runner determine repicants from humans. It doesn't hide behind its tech by overexposing it or making it the focal part. Blade Runner is a simple noir story about a detective who's on a high speed chase while at the same time questioning what it means to be human.

But, in the end, out of all the sci-fis out there, I'd say Red Dwarf has got to be the most accurate. The more science makes our lives easier, the more we'll sit back, relax, and just want some chicken vindaloo.
 

Necrofudge

New member
May 17, 2009
1,242
0
0
Incurring the wrath of the nerds is not wise. Then again, I doubt they would do anything other than whine.
 

General Vagueness

New member
Feb 24, 2009
677
0
0
Khell_Sennet said:
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?
I always figured it was the same way we do. We're talking about a universe with sentient androids, I think the ship's main computer could be programmed figure it out.

Raithnor said:
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.
You're forgetting cars are very complicated, and spaceships are even more complicated. It's totally realistic to have issues that most people wouldn't understand.


Oh and by the way, dilithium isn't the fuel for warp drives, it's what they use to control the matter/antimatter reaction.
 

More Fun To Compute

New member
Nov 18, 2008
4,061
0
0
I'm a Stross fan so I read this on his blog and agree with him even if I'm not as negative.

If the science doesn't come in at the conceptual level then it's all just tosh. Next Generation did have some science content at that level like introducing a lot of people to concepts like Dyson Spheres and Simulated Reality even if it had more than it's fair share of techno babble soap opera. Doll House currently has a fairly neat concept.

Things like Battlestar Galactica, Enterprise, and Babylon 5 completely miss the target for me. I'll avoid mentioning things that are I just find embarrassingly bad because I think I'm being controversial enough as it is.

Luckily people like Charles Stross are out there proving that novels can still have wicked cool science fiction concepts and be more exciting than TV sci-fi. Novels and short stories have always been the real home of Science Fiction.
 

Booze Zombie

New member
Dec 8, 2007
7,416
0
0
Yeah, I always find the tech stuff rather boring.

I think they should try reinventing Star Trek from the beginning, make it look more real.
I mean, having these "food replicators" and "phasers" makes no sense to me.

Wouldn't it be more energy efficent to use a regular firearm and cryo-storage to keep fresh food onboard at all times?

Ah...
 

More Fun To Compute

New member
Nov 18, 2008
4,061
0
0
Necrofudge said:
Incurring the wrath of the nerds is not wise. Then again, I doubt they would do anything other than whine.
Someone has never seen the geek hierarchy chart. Science Fiction writers are at the top. Star Trek fans are only slightly higher up than furries. A real nerd would be too ashamed to disagree.
 

dreadedcandiru99

New member
Apr 13, 2009
893
0
0
CantFaketheFunk said:
"And then Data pops up and says, 'Captain, there is a theory that if you tech the other tech ... '" Moore said. "It's a rhythm and it's a structure, and the words are meaningless. It's not about anything except just sort of going through this dance of how they tech their way out of it."
This has been my biggest problem with Trek for, like, years now: watching people push buttons, and talk about all of the buttons they're pushing, is boring. The Abrams movie wasn't perfect, but at least it didn't have the characters blather for minutes at a time about how they're going to magically resolve the plot by recalibrating the polarity of the primary plasma isolinear trilithium bullshit-o-tron conduits.
 

More Fun To Compute

New member
Nov 18, 2008
4,061
0
0
dreadedcandiru99 said:
This has been my biggest problem with Trek for, like, years now: watching people push buttons, and talk about all of the buttons they're pushing, is boring. The Abrams movie wasn't perfect, but at least it didn't have the characters blather for minutes at a time about how they're going to magically resolve the plot by recalibrating the polarity of the primary plasma isolinear trilithium bullshit-o-tron conduits.
Red matter.
 

dreadedcandiru99

New member
Apr 13, 2009
893
0
0
More Fun To Compute said:
dreadedcandiru99 said:
This has been my biggest problem with Trek for, like, years now: watching people push buttons, and talk about all of the buttons they're pushing, is boring. The Abrams movie wasn't perfect, but at least it didn't have the characters blather for minutes at a time about how they're going to magically resolve the plot by recalibrating the polarity of the primary plasma isolinear trilithium bullshit-o-tron conduits.
Red matter.
What about it? It's this magical stuff that makes black holes, and the villain has some of it, and that is bad. Of course it's not realistic--no more realistic than, say, a magical torpedo that turns one kind of planet into another kind of planet--but as a plot device, it pretty much works. And, again, the characters don't deal with it by rejiggering the hyperphasic science emitters for the last fifteen minutes of the movie.