The Trek Technology Cliche

[3D Master]

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.

Not to mention a military commander that is Kirk.

Court Martial Admiral: "Kirk! Why the hell did you not answer your communicator, and get your team out of the way of the asteroid rain!?"

Kirk: "Well, I was playing Super Mario Bros. 536, and I was just about to beat the boss of level 7 and got to save progress right after, so I uh... It was better I lied, right?"

Indeed, trust me, a tricorder and communciator will always remain apart in Starfleet or any other military or space fleet, and the communicator will be used only to communicate.

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.

Right, so every movie going public walked out on every present-day movie with a military where their communication devices couldn't play Pong 3D. I can see them now: "The Military sucks! My iphone does more than there communication device! That's just so unrealistic! Let's leave man!"

Granted, the general public is stupid, but they aren't that stupid.

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.

Oh, wow, so now the present-day audience will walk out of the theater if half the redshirts don't accidentally phaser their own heads off as they try to use their communicator/tricorder/phaser/death trap?

 

[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

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.

Wait a minute... The Star Trek universe isn't real??? No friggin' shit?! And all this time I was convinced that all of those shows with Kirk and Crew were PBS documentaries about life aboard the Enterprise filmed in the mid-1960's! Thanks for clearing that up for me! You know what? The last time I checked Middle Earth, a Galaxy far, far away, Gotham City and the world of Harry Potter were also not real yet those fantasy worlds don't seem to have a problem with believability and putting asses in the seats.

No, I'm not being too geeky about it, I'm being objective in regards to the conversation at hand. Although, I'm a strong proponent of Trek needing to appeal to a broader audience (devoted fans like us generally make up 2% of the Trek viewing audience) his statement and your argument are complete non sequitirs. As I pointed out in the first line of my post that you quoted, there are a lot more archaic devices that "do more" than a TOS communicator. Again, so what?
Again, for military applications, two-way communications devices traditionally and typically only serve one purpose: voice communication.

Another thing too: on one hand your giving the audience far too much credit (who the Hell is going into any scifi film and comparing their IPhone to the technology shown in the film?) as people go to enjoy action films with the expectation of suspending disbelief to begin with.

On the other hand you're not giving the audience enough credit to recognize accept that a TOS communicator is a pretty advanced piece of technology considering the fact that it can communicate with an orbiting space ship, something an IPhone can't do (yet).The fact is that audiences aren't going to focus on the capabilities of a TOS communicator compared to their IPhone anyway because your average movie goer doesn't give a shit about such minutiae.

So why does Abrams have to bring his interpretation up? That's my problem with this statement by Abrams and therein lies my concern with Trek XI. Technology is not what makes a franchise believable to an audience it's the characters and the storytelling and if Abrams statements are indications that he's screwed with an integral part of the Trek storyline (which just happens to be a piece of technology) than we should all be concerned about what he may have done to the other important parts of the storyline.

-Shawn

 

[JoeZhang]

Paragraphs are your friends.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

Comparing anything in ST to real life is daft.

Paragraphs are your friends.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

Paragraphs are your friends.

I'm sure that you must have noticed that my other post was put together a lot better. The irony of these later posts is that they were done on my Blackberry and for some reason on the TrekBBS when I post, everything gets smashed together and my paragraphs don't separate. This only happens on this site so please bear with me until I can get home and edit my posts. And, yes, there is one thing that I can conclusively say that the IPhone is more advanced than: The Blackberry Curve.

 

[SFRabid]

...
Indeed, trust me, a tricorder and communciator will always remain apart in Starfleet or any other military or space fleet, and the communicator will be used only to communicate.

Forgive me if I don't trust you on that one. Unless you are a time traveler I have to assume you know no more about the future than the rest of us.

 

[CoveTom]

Why would someone carry an array of devices (communicator, tricorder, medical scanner, whatever), when they can carry it all in one tiny package?

Who says they can? Talking about two-way communications devices is one thing, as we (arguably!) have devices similar to that in real life today. But tricorders, medical scanners, etc.? Do we really have anything today that is even remotely similar to the capabilities of those devices? Not that I have ever seen.

Perhaps even in the 23rd century, the technology that makes a tricorder work all of its magic is still so complex and so sophisticated that it just can't be crammed into a convenient little device like a communicator. Or even if it could, perhaps the people running Starfleet simply decided that it was better to keep the communicator as simple and streamlined as possible, just as modern militaries keep their communications devices separate from other technology for a whole host of reasons.

The point is that I don't think audience members are going to see Kirk using a communicator and laugh at it simply because he can't run a medical scan or even take a photo with it. They'll probably recognize it for what it is -- a communications device in a futuristic world with a specific purpose whose capabilities should not reasonably be compared to an iPhone, Blackberry, or any other piece of current technology.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

Why would someone carry an array of devices (communicator, tricorder, medical scanner, whatever), when they can carry it all in one tiny package?

Who says they can? Talking about two-way communications devices is one thing, as we (arguably!) have devices similar to that in real life today. But tricorders, medical scanners, etc.? Do we really have anything today that is even remotely similar to the capabilities of those devices? Not that I have ever seen.

Perhaps even in the 23rd century, the technology that makes a tricorder work all of its magic is still so complex and so sophisticated that it just can't be crammed into a convenient little device like a communicator. Or even if it could, perhaps the people running Starfleet simply decided that it was better to keep the communicator as simple and streamlined as possible, just as modern militaries keep their communications devices separate from other technology for a whole host of reasons.

The point is that I don't think audience members are going to see Kirk using a communicator and laugh at it simply because he can't run a medical scan or even take a photo with it. They'll probably recognize it for what it is -- a communications device in a futuristic world with a specific purpose whose capabilities should not reasonably be compared to an iPhone, Blackberry, or any other piece of current technology.

I'm not sure who you got that quote from, but it wasn't me. I'm on the exact opposite side of that argument (and I'm on yours).

-Shawn

 

[CoveTom]

Whoops! I was quoting a message that already had a quote of yours in it, and somehow my wires got crossed. I've edited my post to attribute the correct poster and message I was quoting.

 

[JuanBolio]

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.

That's what really matters. Starfleet crew on away missions don't need to be texting and surfing the web. What they need is the ability to call for help from a mile underground and get through to the ship without any cell towers or satellites. Also works as a beacon for transporters, and can be used as a sonic weapon as well.

Let's see you cause a landslide with an iPhone.

 

[Rhaenys]

Well, the communicator must have the universal translator as well, doesn't it?
Because when they go to some inhabitant planets they could always talk with the inhabitants, and they only had that communicator there... So it must be because of the communicator, right?

 

[JuanBolio]

Well, the communicator must have the universal translator as well, doesn't it?
Because when they go to some inhabitant planets they could always talk with the inhabitants, and they only had that communicator there... So it must be because of the communicator, right?

Good point. Do that, iPhone!

Of course, there was a different prop for a standalone UT in one episode... and occasionally they can understand alien languages after their communicators have been stripped from them.

 

[Deks]

Well, the communicator must have the universal translator as well, doesn't it?
Because when they go to some inhabitant planets they could always talk with the inhabitants, and they only had that communicator there... So it must be because of the communicator, right?

Good point. Do that, iPhone!

Of course, there was a different prop for a standalone UT in one episode... and occasionally they can understand alien languages after their communicators have been stripped from them.

Indeed, but UT's are the comm-badges primarily speaking in the late 24th century.
Always were ... in Kirk's era though, they might have been different set of devices.

But seriously now, why would SF personnel use a communicator for playing games, text each other when they have a job to do on away missions as it is?

The iPhone is nothing more than a communications device which happens to offer a variety of other options in it for people who will actually use all of those functions.
A good portion of the population on the other hand would find plenty of those options worthless.

Also, who is to say that they don't have an equivalent small hand held device in Trek future for civilians that can do things 50 000x better/faster than the iPhone and still retain the communications range of standard comm-badges?

When you look at how large the iPhone actually is ... well, you would be able to cram in a comm-badge (UT included), video capability, playing games would be simple given the futuristic technology capabilities, not to mention large space for storing various data, and let's not forget that including some limited capabilities of a standard and medical tricorder would be possible.
Perhaps something to give you basic capabilities in terms of orientation, maps and other things (like scanning the environment for better orientation), plus basic capabilities for scanning people with injuries and reporting them to medical officers if such situations arise.
Those capabilities would easily be put into an iPhone sized object using 24th century tech (and it's capabilities would definitely be superior to anything we invent over the next 100 years) and ready for civilian use.
SF on the other hand would have specialized devices which can be used more extensively not including surpufluss things like games and the likes.

I mean seriously now.
People are comparing the iPhone to the comm-badge which is used in an organization for exploration of the Galaxy and defense of the Federation, not everyday things a civilian would do.
SF personnel have access to star-ship technology and everything they ever need for everyday tasks.

 

[Cyke101]

Well, the communicator must have the universal translator as well, doesn't it?
Because when they go to some inhabitant planets they could always talk with the inhabitants, and they only had that communicator there... So it must be because of the communicator, right?

Good point. Do that, iPhone!

Simple. Use a voice interface, go onto www.translator.com, and voila!

Sure, THAT process is a bit clunky, but TOS is in the future! Of course it would be easier then!

Really, I don't see the real problem here. This isn't a Trek thing, this is an all sci-fi thing, where devices of today seem to do more than the imaginations of the past. That's a good thing. That's also why Mike Okuda refuses to define terms like what a "terra-cochrane" is or how much processing power the E-D's computer has. They might get outdated lickety-split! That's why Trek continues to, and always will, evolve.

Hypothetically speaking, what if in a hundred years we develop a form of FTL travel that gets us to transwarp speeds? Surely it would be more advanced than anything in TOS. Would we curse out the scientists who made that possible?

It probably works both ways, too. We hear about NASA scientists and military engineers inspired by TOS when they were kids. I imagine it would be the same with many of today's heads of media/communication.

 

[3D Master]

Hypothetically speaking, what if in a hundred years we develop a form of FTL travel that gets us to transwarp speeds? Surely it would be more advanced than anything in TOS. Would we curse out the scientists who made that possible?

The two are nothing alike, and even then, we're not cursing out creators of the iPhone. We're cursing out the idiotic concept that Abrams seems to be advocating, that just because civilians today play games on their phones, 23rd century military personnel should be doing so on their duty-assigned communicators as well.

 

[Cyke101]

Hypothetically speaking, what if in a hundred years we develop a form of FTL travel that gets us to transwarp speeds? Surely it would be more advanced than anything in TOS. Would we curse out the scientists who made that possible?

The two are nothing alike, and even then, we're not cursing out creators of the iPhone. We're cursing out the idiotic concept that Abrams seems to be advocating, that just because civilians today play games on their phones, 23rd century military personnel should be doing so on their duty-assigned communicators as well.

And does Abrams' comment take anything away from Trek as a whole? I sincerely doubt it. Unless we're going back to the whole "OMG, they're using BLOWTORCHES" in the trailer!" debacle.

And show me a modern-day military person who doesn't enjoy a video game. Especially if he/she was born after 1982. They're human beings, too. It's okay for a 21st century soldier to do it, but not a soldier of the future? Why is there a Holodeck, then? The point is, what didn't exist back when the original around, shouldn't be barred if the story is expected to reach a modern audience.

Heck, in some regards the real world 1984 was more advanced than some aspects of the novel of the same name. Yet we're still citing Orwell as a visionary in everyday language. Can't it be the same with Roddenberry? Trek adapts. It always does and it always will. Shows like TNG/DS9/VOY tackled problems/issues/tech advances that were never addressed in the 60s, despite TOS being set in "our" future. This is a big fuss over nothing.

 

[3D Master]

Hypothetically speaking, what if in a hundred years we develop a form of FTL travel that gets us to transwarp speeds? Surely it would be more advanced than anything in TOS. Would we curse out the scientists who made that possible?

The two are nothing alike, and even then, we're not cursing out creators of the iPhone. We're cursing out the idiotic concept that Abrams seems to be advocating, that just because civilians today play games on their phones, 23rd century military personnel should be doing so on their duty-assigned communicators as well.

And does Abrams' comment take anything away from Trek as a whole? I sincerely doubt it. Unless we're going back to the whole "OMG, they're using BLOWTORCHES" in the trailer!" debacle.

And show me a modern-day military person who doesn't enjoy a video game. Especially if he/she was born after 1982. They're human beings, too. It's okay for a 21st century soldier to do it, but not a soldier of the future? Why is there a Holodeck, then? The point is, what didn't exist back when the original around, shouldn't be barred if the story is expected to reach a modern audience.

While he's in the middle of war/landing party/on duty using the communicator issued by the military? I can see the commanding officer's speech now: "Private! Here is your communicator! It comes pre-installed with Sonic the Hedgehog and Lara Croft, you can install your own stuff at central military Internet gaming uplink! When bullets and missiles start flying around you, ignore them, finish your level first, save, and only then fire back!"

Heck, in some regards the real world 1984 was more advanced than some aspects of the novel of the same name. Yet we're still citing Orwell as a visionary in everyday language. Can't it be the same with Roddenberry? Trek adapts. It always does and it always will. Shows like TNG/DS9/VOY tackled problems/issues/tech advances that were never addressed in the 60s, despite TOS being set in "our" future. This is a big fuss over nothing.

Maybe you're not noticing it, but you're demanding Roddenberry isn't much of a visionary - what he envisioned needs to be changed. We're the opposite - he's a visionary, we need no change, at least nothing that impacts the fundamental concept of what TOS was and has. Depict computers more realistic and functional - sure, partially this not because of Roddenberry's vision but the limited technology and budget. But turning a communicator into something it was not meant to be, and doing it in such a way that it becomes ridiculous for equally ridiculous reasons, is bad indeed.

We're not dealing with a new show, we're dealing with TOS. You set a movie or show during that era, you have some things to adhere to. And making a communicator used during dangerous landing party missions into a multifunctional death trap, is not something you can do.

 

[Brian]

How did this thread get sidetracked into soldiers playing video games? Or that Abrams is EVER suggested such a thing?

All he said was that contemporary phones "do more" than the TOS communicators. They do. They have calculators, calendars, cameras, spreadsheets, word processors, GPS, etc. And oh, by the way, games. But that's NOT what he was suggesting.

He was saying that a device that just provides two-way talk capability would seem primitive to modern audiences, who would ask why the talk capability wasn't just integrated into that OTHER thing they've got strapped over their shoulder, the tricorder, and why in the future they have to juggle multiple devices when today you don't have to.

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill!

 

[3D Master]

How did this thread get sidetracked into soldiers playing video games? Or that Abrams is EVER suggested such a thing?

All he said was that contemporary phones "do more" than the TOS communicators. They do. They have calculators, calendars, cameras, spreadsheets, word processors, GPS, etc. And oh, by the way, games. But that's NOT what he was suggesting.

All USELESS to a landing party member. In fact, all those capabilities to a landing party member in their communicator, ENDANGERS the landing party. A landing party should not be writing reports, spreadsheets, updating his/her datebook, or be using calculator with his communicator, because using the communicator instantly at the right time can be the difference between life and death. You do not want them fiddling with tasks using the same device that can mean life or death.

The Tricorder is for recording things. It's not called the triCORDER for nothing.

He was saying that a device that just provides two-way talk capability would seem primitive to modern audiences, who would ask why the talk capability wasn't just integrated into that OTHER thing they've got strapped over their shoulder, the tricorder, and why in the future they have to juggle multiple devices when today you don't have to.

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill!

Again, only to morons would it seem primitive. Only a moron would not be able to realize that what is handy to a civilian will mean the death of a person going into potentially hostile territory.

And if Abrams starts pandering to morons, we can quit now. Star Trek was always intelligent stuff, not something that was made to entertain morons.

 

[Brian]

All USELESS to a landing party member. In fact, all those capabilities to a landing party member in their communicator, ENDANGERS the landing party. A landing party should not be writing reports, spreadsheets, updating his/her datebook, or be using calculator with his communicator, because using the communicator instantly at the right time can be the difference between life and death. You do not want them fiddling with tasks using the same device that can mean life or death.

Of course, landing parties will be doing everything their devices allow them to do when they're doing a job, just as you do everything your phone allows you to do while driving, right? Did you know your life is ENDANGERED because there's a calculator in your phone? Better throw it away!

The Tricorder is for recording things. It's not called the triCORDER for nothing.

Tell that to Spock every time he whips it out to scan for lifeforms.

Again, only to morons would it seem primitive. Only a moron would not be able to realize that what is handy to a civilian will mean the death of a person going into potentially hostile territory.

And if Abrams starts pandering to morons, we can quit now. Star Trek was always intelligent stuff, not something that was made to entertain morons.

Yeah, the mini-skirts and go-go boots were for intellectual enlightenment.

Star Trek was many things for many people, not just what you (or I) got out of it.