Whatever happened to Starship Exeter?

[Captain Robert April]

Sh..

[Expo67]

They carry fireboxes!

[ST-One]

Dennis wrote:

---

There are a couple of other quoted lines buried in there somewhere, although some may have been changed during filming. Harris's explanations of how the Tholian device worked were cobbled together from phrases used in episodes like "Mirror, Mirror" specifically because I didn't want to invent new technobabble for a TOS-era story. Explanations also tend to be TOS-style by using analogies to common phenomena or notions - "ripples in a pond" as compared to "doubling a penny" etc.

Somebody caught "shuttle bay" early in the revision process, which we changed to "hangar deck."

And those analogies are infinitely better than incomprehensible technobabble, that no one really cares about and doesn't make any sense anyway.

"The notion of transwarp beaming is like tryin to hit a bullet with a smaller bullet while wearing a blindfold riding a horse."

The "tailpipe" in TUC.

Or the nearly complete lack of explanation in TWOK for the Genesis device ... "life from lifelessness"

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yeah, Trek originally got by with almost no technical dialogue - and it's just not at all necessary. Make a list of five other sf tv shows - or movies - that you like and see how much (that is, how little) technobabble is required to make them work.

Battlestar Galactica
Farscape
Firefly

There are three right there (for my tastes). The new Doctor Who uses quite a bit but it always strikes me as employed for comic effect there. I may be cheating not to count it as an offender, but what the hell.

[Barbreader]

For me, there is a difference in the quality of the technobabble. If it genuinely ties the device to recently discovered science or known laws of physics which have not yet been exploited, I like it. If it's just trying to sound like it does, skip it. Of course, you never know what the reader knows. The Sci Fi novel I was writing in 1980 included a discussion of quarks, up, down, color. It was a discussion of a science lecture a character teaching Introduction to Physics was preparing. My sister read it and circled it and said, "This is bad. No one will believe anyone would name a subatomic particle a quark, or say types of it are up, down. etc. It sounds insane."

That comment gave me a whole different view on the whole technobabble matter!

[Shaw]

Dennis wrote:

---

Make a list of five other sf tv shows - or movies - that you like and see how much (that is, how little) technobabble is required to make them work.

I don't watch any SciFi other than Trek, but if we remove that arbitrary restriction to SciFi, I can think if a few shows that use a fair amount of technobabble...

Bones
CSI
CSI: Miami
CSI: NY
Numb3rs
NCIS
NCIS: Los Angeles
House

While I don't think technobabble was needed to play a part in every Trek episode, I think it is quite clear why it wasn't a hindrance either. There is an audience for shows that revolve around a lot of technical jargon... an audience that isn't schooled in that jargon.

I think technobabble has it's place... and as long as it doesn't undercut a good story (or is used as a replacement for an actual story), there shouldn't be any problem with it.

[Barbreader]

There is also a lot of technobabble in the (possibly defunct) Sci Fi show, "Lie to Me." Although real scientists are looking at microexpressions and trying to figure out what they mean, the show is based on a guess of what they might be used for. The technobabbel on it is well written.

Similarly, on the medical drama, ER, they used real technobabble.

[DestinyCaptain]

It is a process where by molecular structure are reformed using life generating matter of equal mass.

[Captain Robert April]

Some early technobabble...

MITCHELL: So, er, so, how go the repairs?

KELSO: Well, the main engines are gone, unless we can find some way to re-energize them.

MITCHELL: You'd better check the starboard impulse packs. Those points have about decayed to lead.

KELSO: Oh, yeah, sure, Mitch.

MITCHELL: I'm not joking, Lee! You activate those packs, and you'll blow the whole impulse deck.

[Expo67]

Dennis wrote:

---

It's a nice thing. I was nominated for a Nebula back in the mists of prehistory, and my prize is that I get to drop that in conversation for the rest of my life every time I feel like attracting undue attention to myself for no good reason - as a deep-dyed narcissist, I find that very satisfying. .

While you won't get any argument from me concerning that admission, I should point out that such egotism can also lead to one's downfall. Look at what has happened to both Mel Gibson and Charlie Sheen as of late. Two artists who had a lot going for them, only to let their successes cloud their judgements. Or as Abraham Lincoln would say 'The better angels of their nature.'

As the Vulcans would say, such illogic and extreme mentalities are distateful and unproductive.

Surely, as an author, you realize that narcissism has its share of dangerous pitfalls.

[Expo67]

On the subject of technobabble, it's a blessing that Star Trek(the original series)did not overuse such scientific accuracy and realism.

Unfortunately, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise did. And most of that technobabble did not make any sense, or help the episodes of the aforementioned useless spin-offs under Rick Berman's reign. If anything, all it did was just hinder the episode and made the story boring as hell.

While it is great to use realism in a story, especially science fiction, overusing it(i.e. the technobabble)can just run the story into the ground. That was one of the other reasons why Star Trek entered that period of franchise fatigue after the ratings and box office failures of both DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and Star Trek:Nemesis.

Rick Berman, and to some extent Ronald Moore, obviously did not take their artistic cues from the old school of cinema and television arts. Something that the late Steve McQueen and Paul Newman often used in the perfection of their respective crafts.

That something being 'less is more'.

[USS Intrepid]

Expo67 wrote:

---

On the subject of technobabble, it's a blessing that Star Trek(the original series)did not overuse such scientific accuracy and realism.

Unfortunately, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise did. And most of that technobabble did not make any sense, or help the episodes of the aforementioned useless spin-offs under Rick Berman's reign. If anything, all it did was just hinder the episode and made the story boring as hell.

While it is great to use realism in a story, especially science fiction, overusing it(i.e. the technobabble)can just run the story into the ground. That was one of the other reasons why Star Trek entered that period of franchise fatigue after the ratings and box office failures of both DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and Star Trek:Nemesis.

Rick Berman, and to some extent Ronald Moore, obviously did not take their artistic cues from the old school of cinema and television arts. Something that the late Steve McQueen and Paul Newman often used in the perfection of their respective crafts.

That something being 'less is more'.

Neither DS9 or Voyager were the ratings failures you suggest. If they were, they certainly wouldn't have lasted 7 years each. Furthermore, DS9 wasn't a major offender on the technobabble stakes, thought it certainly had its moments. Nor was Enterprise for that matter.

Moore's no fan of technobabble, and if you actually watched his work rather than declaring it worthless based on a narrow cross-section, you'd know that.

[Expo67]

Maybe so. However, I have seen Moore's work, and frankly I was not impressed by it. I'll cut him some slack as far as Star Trek:First Contact is concerned, but as for the rest, the less said the better.

As far as DS9 and Voyager's ratings are concerned, perhaps I should have phrased it like this. The ratings were getting lower and lower with each season. Especially after the producers of DS9 tried to steal ideas from their rival Babylon 5(a show that was more fun to watch).

As with Voyager, they were just recycling the same old storyline over and over again. Artistically speaking, nobody wants to view the same thing over and over. That gets as old and dull as stale bread, itself.

The way I look at it, when a show is suffering from ratings that are low(if not poor), and attempts to steal ideas from a rival or recycles storylines that have already been used(just to boost ratings), then you know that the show is in desperate trouble and is destined to become a ratings failure.

And because of that type of mismanagement, it is one of the many reasons why Star Trek went through that dry period before 2009. Rick Berman and the staff at Paramount should have known better and should have taken a different direction. If they had to add something to the franchise, then it should have been a Star Trek series about Captain Sulu and the crew of the Excelsior.

That would have been the better choice, let alone much easier viewing for the fans.

[USS Intrepid]

A Captain Sulu show would have been no more successful than any other random crew on a random ship. The core fans are not the people that need to be watching week in, week out. It's Joe and Jane Public, who are unlikely to be any more interested interested in a show about Sulu than they are about anything else.

Could a show about Sulu have worked? Sure, but it's no more or less likely to be successful than any other concept.

The new movie was successful because it catered to non fans and casual viewers. It's no more complex than that.

[CorporalCaptain]

Expo67 wrote:

---

Especially after the producers of DS9 tried to steal ideas from their rival Babylon 5(a show that was more fun to watch).

Even if the theft was true, and that's a mighty big if, there's no evidence whatsoever that there is any correlation between the timing of any such alleged theft and the decline in ratings of DS9. Its decline in ratings has been discussed elsewhere in TrekBBS, for example in the thread of this post. The decline appears indicative and entirely typical of a trend that encompasses DS9, VOY, and ENT together.