The Trek Technology Cliche

[CoveTom]

From J.J. Abrams' interview at IGN: "We all have the iPhone that does more than the communicator."

Is anyone else tired of this cliche concerning Star Trek technology? Our modern cell phones are nowhere near as sophisticated as Star Trek's communicators, yet I've constantly heard about how the 60's Star Trek wouldn't work today because we've got all that technology now. Here's even Abrams himself claiming that the iPhone does more than Kirk's communicator. Funny, he must have gotten the model that can talk to starships that I missed.

 

[JoeZhang]

Our modern cell phones are nowhere near as sophisticated as Star Trek's communicators

Em yeah they are - Kirk's communicator only beats an iphone (or indeed any modern smartphone) on one score - transmission power - that's it.

 

[Brian]

Let's see, the communicator has what, one function? Talk, listen. Okay, call it two.

The iPhone has dozens of functions.

Last time I checked, dozens > two. Hence the use of the term "more". He didn't say it was more powerful. He said it does more.

 

[anais]

By what we do know about the communicator - it's two functions, it is less sophisticated than the iPhone. But, technologically speaking, that's just one top layer (what the user sees) of a handful of layers forming a comm system model, with physical connections, aka hardware, at the bottom. There's no telling what is in those layers with the communicator.

 

[Brian]

You're imagining lots of cool stuff that just wasn't there, trying to make it more than it was; a classic example of ret-con.

Did we ever see them use it for anything other than two-way communication? Did they ever even say that it would do more?

 

[The Wormhole]

Bah! Two-way communication is all you need. Personally I find the direction cell phones are taking ridiculous and stupid. Why the hell do I need my phone to be able to go on the internet, play music, play video games, or take pictures anyway? I'm not even going to get started on the stupidity of text messaging.

 

[anais]

You're imagining lots of cool stuff that just wasn't there, trying to make it more than it was; a classic example of ret-con.

Did we ever see them use it for anything other than two-way communication? Did they ever even say that it would do more?

If I am imagining the physical link, the communicator is definitely sophisticated. I'm not saying it is more sophisticated. I said it is impossible to tell.

 

[Brian]

I see. But still, J.J.'s assertion that the iPhone "does more" is correct. No matter how sophisticated or powerful the communicator is, all it "does" is two-way voice communication.

 

[RobertScorpio]

From J.J. Abrams' interview at IGN: "We all have the iPhone that does more than the communicator."

Is anyone else tired of this cliche concerning Star Trek technology? Our modern cell phones are nowhere near as sophisticated as Star Trek's communicators, yet I've constantly heard about how the 60's Star Trek wouldn't work today because we've got all that technology now. Here's even Abrams himself claiming that the iPhone does more than Kirk's communicator. Funny, he must have gotten the model that can talk to starships that I missed.

Kirk didn't have Video feed..at least none that I can remember. Heck, it didn't even have silent mode..

Rob

 

[The Old Mixer]

The communicator also serves as a tracking device for establishing transporter locks...sort of a very precise one-way GPS. So there's another function!

 

[Biggshow]

Bah! Two-way communication is all you need. Personally I find the direction cell phones are taking ridiculous and stupid. Why the hell do I need my phone to be able to go on the internet, play music, play video games, or take pictures anyway? I'm not even going to get started on the stupidity of text messaging.

Exactly. That's what my tricorder is for.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

I see. But still, J.J.'s assertion that the iPhone "does more" is correct. No matter how sophisticated or powerful the communicator is, all it "does" is two-way voice communication.

Well, a Macintosh computer from 1986 "does more" than a TOS communicator so what's the point? So does a Commodore 64 for that matter. An IPhone is a computer first and a personal communication device second, just as my Blackberry is.

Abram's implication obviously is that the IPhone is more technologically advanced than the TOS communicator and that's simply not true. You show me an IPhone that has a subspace tranceiver and has a line of sight range of 330 miles without a tower or satellite and I'll be impressed.

The fact is that for military applications, personnel communication devices don't need to have the entertainment applications that a civilian model might have. These really are apples to oranges comparisons by Abrams (and others who have come before him) and I'm surprised that with him being such of "fan of Trek" that he claims to be that he doesn't understand that before making dopey comments like this.

Just because a Starfleet communicator doesn't have all the capabilities an IPhone has doesn't mean that it couldn't if they wanted it to. We know that there are other devices shown on Trek that are miles ahead in technological capability compared to the IPhone. A fair comparison would be the phone part of the IPhone (only) against the TOS communicator.

What the concern should be is that this seems like a thinly veiled attempt by Abrams to justify violating Trek canon. It seems like the logic is going to be, "Well, the stuff in the early 21st century is far more advanced than what the vision of the 23rd century was back then so I can just change things around to coincide with my vision of Star Trek."

To be quite honest, I wasn't worried about the Trek XI until now.

-Shawn

 

[Newspaper Taxi]

What would happen if the helmsman was playing Snake on his Communicator?
What would happen if a crew member was text messaging their friends on duty?
What would happen if a crew member was watching porn on their communicator during duty?
What would happen if a crew member was jamming out to 23rd Century Rock on their communicator and missed a Red Alert?

I mean, seriously. Have you ever seen how much people just sit and fiddle with their cell phones when they're bored? Or behind their bosses' backs? They've got computer consoles practically everywhere on the Enterprise and they have an endless number of Tricorders. Might as well stick to business with such an important item.

 

[JoeZhang]

I see. But still, J.J.'s assertion that the iPhone "does more" is correct. No matter how sophisticated or powerful the communicator is, all it "does" is two-way voice communication.

Well, a Macintosh computer from 1986 "does more" than a TOS communicator so what's the point? So does a Commodore 64 for that matter. An IPhone is a computer first and a personal communication device second, just as my Blackberry is.

Abram's implication obviously is that the IPhone is more technologically advanced than the TOS communicator and that's simply not true. You show me an IPhone that has a subspace tranceiver and has a line of sight range of 330 miles without a tower or satellite and I'll be impressed.

The fact is that for military applications, personnel communication devices don't need to have the entertainment applications that a civilian model might have. These really are apples to oranges comparisons by Abrams (and others who have come before him) and I'm surprised that with him being such of "fan of Trek" that he claims to be that he doesn't understand that before making dopey comments like this.

Just because a Starfleet communicator doesn't have all the capabilities an IPhone has doesn't mean that it couldn't if they wanted it to. We know that there are other devices shown on Trek that are miles ahead in technological capability compared to the IPhone. A fair comparison would be the phone part of the IPhone (only) against the TOS communicator.

What the concern should be is that this seems like a thinly veiled attempt by Abrams to justify violating Trek canon. It seems like the logic is going to be, "Well, the stuff in the early 21st century is far more advanced than what the vision of the 23rd century was back then so I can just change things around to coincide with my vision of Star Trek."

To be quite honest, I wasn't worried about the Trek XI until now.

-Shawn

And he's right - I'm afraid you are being too geeky about this. A person watching this film would not go "wow, the communicator has a subspace tranceiver!", they are going to say "wow that sucks! my iphone does more than that!".

We don't live in the Star Trek universe, this isn't real, he has a film to sell to the general public.

 

[Deckerd]

Comparing anything in ST to real life is daft.

 

[jgdst]

Bah! Two-way communication is all you need. Personally I find the direction cell phones are taking ridiculous and stupid. Why the hell do I need my phone to be able to go on the internet, play music, play video games, or take pictures anyway? I'm not even going to get started on the stupidity of text messaging.

Porn sites, porn audio, porn games and porn pictures. Porn text?

I mean... it's obvious. Isn't it?

Why do you think the iPorn is so popular?

 

[votd]

Ah but can you create sonic shockwaves to cause a rockslide with an iPhone?

 

[SFRabid]

I agree with the opinion that if the communicator was really advanced you would not need a tricorder, medical scanner or phaser. It would all be included in one device. They could not even use the communicator to take a picture. Truth is, in the 60's they did not invision something that small doing all the things a modern cell phone can do.

By the way, do they have porn in the Federation or do you have to go to Orion for it?

 

[Nardpuncher]

Did anyone mention that cell phones need towers to help them? I am going to assume the communicator just needs a ship in orbit to talk to and all's well.
Also, good point about crewmen just goofing around on the thing instead of just talking on it!

 

[Brian]

Well, a Macintosh computer from 1986 "does more" than a TOS communicator so what's the point?

A Macintosh computer from 1986 is not a portable communications device, so you're comparing apples (ha) and oranges.

The simple fact is that in the late 60's a 2-way radio you could put in your pocket was "the future". It no longer is. The little PADDs on Voyager are the future now, and even then barely so. Why would someone carry an array of devices (communicator, tricorder, medical scanner, whatever), when they can carry it all in one tiny package?

People who want the future to be like 1966 are what will kill this movie, if anything.

I was at a convention last weekend where some dude was angrily asserting that Abrams has no respect for Star Trek because they're building the Enterprise on Earth and it was really built in orbit, dammit! (A conclusion he drew from 3 seconds of teaser trailer.) If that's the worst thing wrong with this movie, I would consider myself lucky.

He was also incensed that Abrams isn't feeding us plotlines and images on a weekly basis to fuel the internet circle-jerk. As if he has any responsibility to do so and ruin any anticipation for his film.