The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Do you think the writers should have studied Trek more
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 11-22-2009, 08:49 AM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,480
Default

To try and get all technical about the how's and why's of transwarp transporter technology is just anal retentive. If you wanted to know how such a thing happened, Orci and Kurzman could've fell back on the whole "technobabble" thing, which would've degraded the new film to another TNG episode.

Scotty's line: "Oh, it never occurred to me to think of space as the thing that was movin'." should've been enough to say "Ok....so for this film, and for Star Trek, it works." And that's it. Done and done. No lengthy technobabble (b.s.) explanations, no egghead doubletalk. And ya know what....THAT's what the original Star Trek was like. Simplicity within its sophistication. And very effective stories were told that way.

But no....folks still want to b**** and moan that it's some kind of technical faux pas (like fans REALLY know how transporter technology actually works).

James Doohan (at conventions) had the perfect response for this kind of A.R. crap:
"Picky, picky, picky."

To be clear, it's one thing to debate Star Treknology for the sake of fun, and speculation. That's all cool. That's what science fiction and space fantasy are for...to promote thought, speculation, and imagination...except for the price of an utter lack of sexual activity.

It's another to decry it just because for whatever reason it doesn't hold with one's worldview of "what is quality Star Trek?". Then it just becomes anal retentive.
__________________


Last edited by martok2112 : 11-22-2009 at 08:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-22-2009, 08:59 AM
Dominus of Megadeus's Avatar
Dominus of Megadeus Dominus of Megadeus is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,099
Default

Oh, thank GOD they didn't fall into technobabble! It, to me, was the bane of ST: TNG! Loved the show, but when they started that techno-mumbo jumbo, it took away from the action and it also hemmed the writers into a corner. It's precisely the reason Ron D. Moore and all his friends at BSG avoided the technobabble trap. For example, if they wrote that battlestars weren't able to take atmospheric decent earlier in the series, then the battle of New Caprica could have never been written, and one of the best action scenes in all of sci-fi could have never taken place. Give enough tech to make sense. Leave the inner workings of the vessel to the imagination of the viewer.

...but, I understand that in the world of Trek, there is a need to have SOME understanding of things like Warp Drive, weaponry, and the like. I for one can't wait until they come out with the tech manual for the Alt. E. The writers just need not go so far into detail that they paint themselves into a corner.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-22-2009, 09:01 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martok2112 View Post
To try and get all technical about the how's and why's of transwarp transporter technology is just anal retentive. If you wanted to know how such a thing happened, Orci and Kurzman could've fell back on the whole "technobabble" thing, which would've degraded the new film to another TNG episode.

Scotty's line: "Oh, it never occurred to me to think of space as the thing that was movin'." should've been enough to say "Ok....so for this film, and for Star Trek, it works." And that's it. Done and done. No lengthy technobabble (b.s.) explanations, no egghead doubletalk. And ya know what....THAT's what the original Star Trek was like. Simplicity within its sophistication. And very effective stories were told that way.

But no....folks still want to b**** and moan that it's some kind of technical faux pas (like fans REALLY know how transporter technology actually works).

James Doohan (at conventions) had the perfect response for this kind of A.R. crap:
"Picky, picky, picky."

To be clear, it's one thing to debate Star Treknology for the sake of fun, and speculation. That's all cool. That's what science fiction and space fantasy are for...to promote thought, speculation, and imagination...except for the price of an utter lack of sexual activity.

It's another to decry it just because for whatever reason it doesn't hold with one's worldview of "what is quality Star Trek?". Then it just becomes anal retentive.
I disagree about the techno speak aspect, since TNG Trek started to include some loose real world science foundations like impulse engines = fusion power and warp core = matter-antimatter-reactor. It is neither necessary nor sufficient to tell a good story and I personally don't see the appeal of hard sci-fi which goes deep into the science side, but a bit of "making it feel real" doesn't hurt IMO.

I agree about the transwarp transporter thingy, the technology is obviously not very reliable, two times they ended up in the wrong location and the next time they might get stuck in a wall. By the way, transwarp could very well be a subtle nod to TSFS and the failure of "the great experiment".
There was also something like subspace beaming in a TNG episode and it didn't work too well either if memory serves.

Last edited by horatio : 11-22-2009 at 09:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-22-2009, 09:04 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominus of Megadeus View Post
Oh, thank GOD they didn't fall into technobabble! It, to me, was the bane of ST: TNG! Loved the show, but when they started that techno-mumbo jumbo, it took away from the action and it also hemmed the writers into a corner. It's precisely the reason Ron D. Moore and all his friends at BSG avoided the technobabble trap. For example, if they wrote that battlestars weren't able to take atmospheric decent earlier in the series, then the battle of New Caprica could have never been written, and one of the best action scenes in all of sci-fi could have never taken place. Give enough tech to make sense. Leave the inner workings of the vessel to the imagination of the viewer.

...but, I understand that in the world of Trek, there is a need to have SOME understanding of things like Warp Drive, weaponry, and the like. I for one can't wait until they come out with the tech manual for the Alt. E. The writers just need not go so far into detail that they paint themselves into a corner.
Indeed, and this is a similar approach to early TOS as well where a lot of the 'how's' of the ship really were not explained in minute detail - thus allowing them to chop and change and invent as they went.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-22-2009, 01:15 PM
Dr. Lazarus's Avatar
Dr. Lazarus Dr. Lazarus is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 17
Default

The technobabble in TNG was only hard to follow for the scientifically illiterate. The embarrassing reality is that the expression 'antimatter containment' is no more complex to hear or speak than 'bread and butter pudding', it's just that the latter is more familiar to your average moaning fan. We already live in a scientific age, an age where most people don't even notice the error when the media call the LHC an 'atom smasher' when it actually collides protons, or lead nuclei at most.

If people can't understand simple words from the science of 80 years ago ('proton', 'antimatter', 'photon', 'quantum' etc.) then how are they supposed to understand or, at least, appreciate the much more sophisticated science of the present? The so-called technobabble of star trek sounds much more benign if you understand some school-level physics (you don't need a degree at all). If this seems like too much, then as our technology continues to accelerate you will find the remainder of the twenty first century utterly incomprehensible.
__________________
Spock: Your illogical approach to chess does have its advantages on occasion, Captain.
Kirk: I prefer to call it inspired.
Spock: As you wish.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-22-2009, 01:45 PM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Well said. You don't need to be a genius or even remotely interested in physics to understand the technospeak in Trek. If the average Joe doesn't know what antimatters is (one of these halfwits must have come up with the term technobabble), there is something seriously wrong with our education system and average Joe might lose his job to average Wang sooner or later.
And if some people really don't understand the technospeak and it is just mumbo-jumbo to them, they can still enjoy the story (only some VOY stories are really based on technology).

If I watch a submarine movie like "Das Boot" I expect that the technology of that very submarine plays a role, they don't dive or shoot torpedoes via love, hot air or magic. Same with fictional starships.

Last edited by horatio : 11-22-2009 at 01:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-22-2009, 02:53 PM
Samuel Samuel is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,883
Default

I agree a majority do not know the minutia like the difference between an atom vs proton smasher. Not that they didnt know the difference in high school. But for adults its just details that do not matter in their present day lives. How many adults offhand simply know the Pythagorean theorem or even what it is? They would have to think about it because its not something they had to use since they were 18.

In this case its entertainment. Some may find scientific explanations enjoyable but most do not. The entertainment watcher in me is not particularly interested in how a warp drive works. Nor am I particularly interested in the difference between a 'quantum' vs a 'photon' torpedo (part of popular culture now). Seriously, I dont know the difference. When I do want to know, leave the explanation off the screen and I will get on Google.

Since Trek is more entertainment than anything else that fact overrides the science so long as it isnt too far out of whack or take up time. What Joe Schmoe considers out of whack that is, not Einstein. Lastly, comments suggesting that technobabble would be more enjoyable (for lack of a better word) if people were smart enough comes across as highly arrogant. One of the reasons why many people thought "Trek" = "nerd". Even cultish.

This is really sad but given some time I could probably write down every line from Star Wars (ep4 not the others) because I have seen it so much, both as a kid and an adult. If I had stopped watching it when I was 18... a long time ago on a planet very very close... I wouldnt know it nearly as much.

Oh I know what would be interesting, here in 2009. Keep the adventure high like in nuTrek, all technobabble out, but add a disclaimer in the credits reading "To learn more about the science of Star Trek visit www.startrekscience.com"... or some other site.
__________________
Never underestimate the power of a dark clown!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-22-2009, 02:58 PM
NCC-73515's Avatar
NCC-73515 NCC-73515 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 7,226
Default

Exactly, Lazarus and horatio.
And if you don't understand something, look it up on Wikipedia.
Technobabble is education and fun at the same time.
Those who are not interested in the technology can simply ignore the explanations. I'm not interested in the carpets, so I ignore them even though they are there.
__________________


"English! I thought I dreamed hearing it!"?
Khan, Space Seed (TOS)

Brought to you in living color by NCC.
-= first fan member =-

Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-22-2009, 03:07 PM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

How many people have chosen to become a doctor because of McCoy, an engineer because of Scotty or a black astronaut because of Uhura? And haven't you said that you were inspired by Trek to study a natural science, NCC?
Some people might have never heard the names Shakespeare (or they wonder about the origin of some strange episode names and then discover that it is a quote of The Bard) or Gilgamesh before they watched Trek and are perhaps inspired to read that stuff.

I don't want anything that might inspire people or make them curious to be cut out.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-22-2009, 03:52 PM
Dr. Lazarus's Avatar
Dr. Lazarus Dr. Lazarus is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 17
Default

In fact the founder of Motorola invented the first true mobile phone because of watching the original series. The first black female astronaut said she was inspired by Uhura. The head of the jet propulsion lab grew up watching the series and was inspired by it. I grew up watching the next gen and decided to study science; I am now doing a PhD in theoretical physics.

These stories of inspiration worked because they showed respect to the basic principles of science, even in the original series (without of course being too stressed about it). What I take issue with are disastrous mistakes or complete lack of basic knowledge. Samuel may think this is "highly arrogant", but surely it is not asking for much to know some very basic physics. That's why we go to school in the first place. Trek science doesn't have to perfect to inspire. The writers just have to avoid major goofs, then they can relax and concentrate on the story. No degree needed.
__________________
Spock: Your illogical approach to chess does have its advantages on occasion, Captain.
Kirk: I prefer to call it inspired.
Spock: As you wish.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:26 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.