Why Technobabble Makes Star Trek Suck

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Khell_Sennet:
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?

wadark:

rize:

House is pretty formulaic, but it seems like there are a lot of jokes referencing the medical babble, and even if 99% of viewers don't understand it, I have a feeling it IS based on actual medical conditions. By the end of the show they've carefully explained whatever condition it was.

In ST they just make **** up. I'm not saying that they don't just insert <medical> into the script, but replacing that with real words is probably a multi-part process that requires a lot more work than an episode of ST.

Oh, I totally agree. House is very smart, and they probably do copious amounts of research when replacing the "medical" in their dialogue. However, even if what they do is correct, that doesn't make it any easier to understand or get into for me.

Sorry for double post.

^ This

Not to mention as of ST: TG the technobabble has meaning if you actually listen to it.
Plasma Conduits will be plasma conduits, Dilithium crystals will be needed for the warp engine and power, etc.

The only thing they DO NOT explain, is when they are in warp (Beyond the speed of light) how are they firing lasers and not running into them? XD

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 <3 my imagination. This guy...does not.

wadark:

WhiteTiger225:

If technobabble, obscure, or made up disease, and long dialouge bores you... I am betting your favorite shows are Jack Ass and any PBS show.

Watch a war movie, watch a horror movie, watch a sports movie, watch an action movie, watch any sci-fi movie, watch a drama.. there will always be some sort of babble in it.

And how the fuck are you expecting a Medical Drama show NOT to be based heavily on dialouge? What? Does your shows comedic moments then consist of people taking pies to the face? Dry humor is dialouge heavy so you MUST hate that... I bet you would dread listening to a Comedian do standup XD

Every single thing you just claimed about me is incorrect. Jackass is freaking stupid (appropriately), and I don't care for PBS. Of course there is a bit of technobabble in basically everything, but that doesn't mean it has to make up 75%+ of a show.

I'm not expecting a medical drama to NOT have heavily medical dialogue. But having appropriately themed dialogue does NOT mean having a whole bunch of ridiculously technical jargon that only someone familiar with that terminology would understand (that's the definition of technobabble). I watched ER for years and was able to understand the MEDICAL in the medical drama with little to no trouble. I watch House and can't follow a damn thing because they use such obscure diseases, symptoms, and treatments that it might as well be, as someone said: "We should test the medical to see if there's any medical in the medical." Because that's all I hear.

Long story, short is: There's a difference between "appropriate dialogue" and "technobabble".

Appropriate dialogue is using correct terminology for your subject matter but using terms in a way that people can reasonably understand. This DOES NOT mean making your show 100% laymens-termed and being dumbed down.

Technobabble is using correct terminology for your subject matter but using obscure terms and language that only someone who has extensive training in your subject will understand.

Yes, because in ER when they give 10ccs of painkiller to a 3rd degree burned adult.. then go on to give the SAME dose to a child with a scraped knee, that's not at ALL unrealistic and nonsensical.

And I mean, it would be PERFECTLY interesting to watch house take on "The COMMON COOOOOOOOLD! Ooooooooo" or "THE FLU BUUUUUUUUG! MUAHAHAHA!" or "Upset stomaaaaaaach!" instead of an exotic disease that you never heard of.

And as many have stated, the Star Trek Technobabble DOES have consistency AND makes sense if you pay attention to the show rather then shutting off your mind the moment someone says something you might only vaguely know. Hell, at the age of 12 I understood it!

But what do I expect from people on a video game parody site based on jokes most non-gamers or people who haven't played the joke won't get and therefore won't be entertained by... *Hint Hint*

wadark:

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 :p) 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?

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.

Therumancer:
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.

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.

WhiteTiger225:

Khell_Sennet:
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.

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.

Frank_Sinatra_:

cononking:
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

Khell_Sennet:

WhiteTiger225:

Khell_Sennet:
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.

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.

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.

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...

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 post on the difference.

WhiteTiger225:
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.

Frank_Sinatra_:

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 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.

veryboringfact:
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.

Valiance:
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.

WhiteTiger225:

Khell_Sennet:

WhiteTiger225:

Khell_Sennet:
Snip

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.)

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 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.

veryboringfact:

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 :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

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

That is probably the truest thing said here so far.

WhiteTiger225:

veryboringfact:

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 :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.

Khell_Sennet:

WhiteTiger225:

Khell_Sennet:

WhiteTiger225:

Khell_Sennet:
Snip

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!

Khell_Sennet:

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.

Tinq:

Be careful what you wish for...

image

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

veryboringfact:

WhiteTiger225:

veryboringfact:

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 :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)

WhiteTiger225:

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.

A Star Trek Troll... That's a new one. Ten bucks he's really Will Wheaton, any takers?

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

Firefly and Battlestar Galactica.

cleverlymadeup:
i think he's wrong, the technobabble was necessary, sure you can remove it but it's needed for that type of scene.

Okay, this doesn't make any sense, at all.

cleverlymadeup:
i think he's wrong, the technobabble was necessary,

So it's necessary.
Fine.

cleverlymadeup:

sure you can remove it

So it's...not necessary?

cleverlymadeup:

but it's needed for that type of scene.

Now it's necessary again?

Wait what.

wadark:
I watch House and can't follow a damn thing because they use such obscure diseases, symptoms, and treatments

Annnnd that's completely justified, seeing as how, in-universe, House only takes rare cases.
Supposedly.

Khell_Sennet:
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

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.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here