• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

How would you re-imagine the TOS Communicators?

Except, of course, that I'd already made that point... though not with the great example Jack gave us.
Sorry. I missed that part. But since USS Jack Riley did, too, I'm going to go ahead and agree that his example was better. :p

BTW - my screenname is not to indicate that I am triumphant or anything like that, it is the class ship for the Enterprise in my fanfic. You don't need to stick quotes around it. If you'd rather, call me Tri - since I seem to be Tri-ing your patience. :D
We now return you to our regularly scheduled thread.
Quick side question: what class of ship are you?
I'd much rather call you by your real name.

I just find it... weird... calling people by their "internet-handles." So, let's say your name is Joe... I'd normally call you Joe, not "Triumphant." Just like I don't call other folks who I do know by their screen-names, as often as not. A few, I only know by their screen names... and since they're names that I can at least pretend to be saying without feeling goofy in the process, can deal with it.

But I can't call you a ship... I suspect your body doesn't contain nearly enough duranium alloy to make that possible. ;)

Call it an idiosyncrasy of mine... and try not to take it personally. I use quotes around every dorky screen name (including the ones I used to use before it finally just drove me too far crazy!) And, be honest... 99.999% of all "internet handles" are at least a bit dorky, aren't they?

Oh, and ask PTrope about our first conversation... "Paul?" ;)
 
I'd much rather call you by your real name.
It's Richard, and I don't mind if you call me that, but other people may not know who you're talking to. Then again, that could be mildly amusing. :devil:

Can he call you "Dick"? :devil:

I remember one day way back in high school when my grumpy bastard German teacher walked by the driver's ed teacher and said, "Hiya, Dick" with what sounded like special emphasis on the second part. My mouth must have dropped open, because the driver's ed teacher looked at me and said, "That's my name ... Richard." I still suspect the German teacher put a bit more into it than that, but I'm biased.

Cary's position is interesting. While I understand his point of view, I've been "Psion" online since the waning days of 300 baud modems. As a youngster, I loathed my first and last names and latched onto a RPG character I'd created as an appropriate handle ... in my mind, it suited me better than any of the other appellations others had given me, such as "Poindexter", "Four-eyes" (four lenses would have been more accurate, but I learned quickly to make that correction only once), "hey you", "pussy", "wuss", "fag", or, quaintly, "dookie". I use it or a close variation (psion01) online everywhere and even use it offline in some situations. One year my wife even tried to get me a birthday cake with the handle -- although that didn't quite work out ("Happy Birthday Pisson" -- I think the guy who called me "dookie" wound up decorating cakes for a living). With the exception of a handful of stories published in my real name decades ago (sweet Guardians of Fortran, I'm old!), anything I've done publicly has been associated with my handle instead of my given name.

It's a sad, trivial detail that has nothing to do with TOS communicators, but I felt compelled to share. And reschedule therapy sessions.
 
Can he call you "Dick"? :devil:

<snip>

Cary's position is interesting. While I understand his point of view, I've been "Psion" online since the waning days of 300 baud modems.
I don't think calling me "Dick" would work well - since the names I usually choose for people who do that would probably get me kicked off the board. ;)

I tend to call people by whatever name they present themselves with, and I've known a few people for years - both their screen and real names - from another board, and I still usually call them by their screenname, even in person. Admittedly, none of them have quite the mouthful that USS Triumphant or USS Jack Riley is - I'd probably prefer their real name if it were, for speaking anyway.
 
Quick side question: what class of ship are you?

I'm not (although at 6'4" I can see why people might think that). The name actually refers to my kids' names - Jack and Riley.

If I had to choose a class for a ship of this name, I would have to go with what my wife and I refer to our 3 year old as: the "Tornado" Class, 'cause Riley is the human tornado. :)

Just read your last post. You can call me "Jack" (as in "you don't know...."). If you must, although I don't recommend it simply because I am so used to answering to Jack on this board, you can call me by my given name - Doug. Just don't tell anyone. :)
 
Last edited:
Just to get back on topic, I think that we have to look at the function of the communicators at the time. Basically, they were 23rd century walkie talkies. In this case, there were capable of reaching spacecraft in orbit (I can't recall an episode where the range exceeded a planetary orbit, but there may have been a case where it did). It also served as a link to upload data from the tricorder to the ship.

Could the tricorder connect with the ship independantly of a tricorder? Again, I don't recall it happening, but anything is possible.

Having said that, you figure that you have a speaker/microphone, frequency alternator, volume adjust and an function to allow the moire pattern to also act as a video screen. This function was never used on screen, but it is certainly within the real of possibilities, since it was already a video screen that showed a moire pattern. It couldn't be difficult to use the screen for other functions.

The other thing is to allow the buttons to change functions (similar to organic LED, OLED, technology).

My $0.02.
 
Just to get back on topic, I think that we have to look at the function of the communicators at the time. Basically, they were 23rd century walkie talkies. In this case, there were capable of reaching spacecraft in orbit (I can't recall an episode where the range exceeded a planetary orbit, but there may have been a case where it did). It also served as a link to upload data from the tricorder to the ship.

Could the tricorder connect with the ship independantly of a tricorder? Again, I don't recall it happening, but anything is possible.

Having said that, you figure that you have a speaker/microphone, frequency alternator, volume adjust and an function to allow the moire pattern to also act as a video screen. This function was never used on screen, but it is certainly within the real of possibilities, since it was already a video screen that showed a moire pattern. It couldn't be difficult to use the screen for other functions.

The other thing is to allow the buttons to change functions (similar to organic LED, OLED, technology).

My $0.02.
That's pretty much what I was talking about, too.

The only major tweak I'd made would be to alter all five "little round do-dads" to be multi-functional elements. Each would have a multi-color light element in the center (to serve as an indicator). Each would be "clickable" (think like a mouse-button). Each would be a "jog-dial" type device (rather than a simple rotary knob... meaning that you control the "panning speed" of its associated function by deflecting it more and more... fine-adjustment is a small turn either way, quick adjustment is a larger turn either way.

You'd start turning one of these and information about whatever you were doing would show up on the little round screen (adjusting to a different frequency-set, adjusting security settings, adjusting speaker volume, adjusting microphone sensitivity, adjusting operational mode... that's five, by the way, and are the five I'd use!) Once you get the setting you want, you "click" the button and that accepts your change.

The bottom two would be "frequency-set" and "speaker volume," the most commonly-used.

Why "frequency-set" rather than "frequency?" Because I still imagine this collecting your speech (or the audio-visual composite data if you were in that mode) and then, periodically, burst-transmitting it (along with a "key" to tell the next frequency in the series, in some encoded form). This would make the device far harder to trace. Every burst transmission would be milliseconds long (or less) and would be on a different frequency. But you'd need a "starting protocol" to use in order to be able to initiate communications... you'd have a list of those protocols, and you'd select that by this dial.

Note that this "jog-dial/selection" mechanism requires visual feedback. That would be shown on-screen.. probably as a rotary selection diagram (think "pie chart" if you need to visualize something), in some cases, and as a simple text line in others (say.. "FREQ1" or "FREQ2" or so forth). But however it's done, you need visual feedback in order for this to work... thus you need the round thing to be a screen.

"Security settings" might be combined with the "mode" function in some fashion. However... I like this as the center jog-dial in the upper row of three, because that's the one that we saw, when depressed by a hot Yang babe, broadcasting an emergency signal. ;) So... in that case, if you clicked and held it for several seconds, it would send the beacon signal and flash red. But you'd normally only "click" those buttons... and dialing it left or right (as described above) and clicking would allow you to go to more secure or less secure preprogrammed settings.

Input sensitivity would also be a series of preprogrammed steps... probably a different set depending on whether the device was serving audio-only or audio-with-video modes. If video was there, you'd have more choices, because you'd need to compensate not only for ambient noise but also for lighting conditions. (You might also have a programmed mode that would allow it to see in the non-visible portions of the spectrum.) I'd probably make this the upper right-most jog-dial.

The upper left, then, would be a "mode control" which would allow you to select the operating mode. Modes I can imagine being present would include:
1) Audio-only mode (less power consumption, more secure, longer battery life than A/V mode)

2) Audio-visual mode (useful for diplomatic situations or "friendly" situations, mainly)

3) Recording mode (useful to, for instance, record "Captain's Logs" while off the ship).

4) Paired-operation mode (with a tricorder, for instance)

5) Programming mode (which would significantly alter the function of all of the other dials to make for a semi-practical field-configuration tool. Normally, configuration would be performed on the ship, by an external device).

6) Standby mode (minimal power consumption but still monitoring for any specific transmissions to the device)

7) Stowed mode (for charging and external programming/control by a base-station)
That's how I envision it working. Feel free to toss your own thoughts into the mix, of course.
 
Last edited:
I would add a compartment to stow ear buds (wired or Bluetooth) so you could have private conversations. Also a vibration or silent mode like modern cell phones would be useful. In fact, I'd probably try to mimic modern cell phones as much as possible. With the exception of increased range, they seem to have most of the same roles. A camera may seem superfluous, but it could be a good backup in case a tricorder fails or when you need to have less equipment around. You could send the visual information to the ship i.e. for surveillance of primitive cultures.
 
Everything I've seen of these supposedly advance-promotion images from the new movie make it look like a caricature (or a parody) of either TOS, TMP or TNG.
 
Well, some could argue that Transformers was a caricature of the old toys/tv show.
If they REALLY wanted it to be just an updated graphics remake, they would have made Optimus look like this: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EdARFaNLM7E

But they wanted to make it look different as well as realistic.
I know a lot of us are put off that it breaks canon and looks different, but try and think like I do. New Trek is better than NO Trek.
 
New Trek is better than NO Trek.

And this quote, right here, is why we got several years of absolute garbage for "Star Trek"... because Paramount and powers that be know that no matter what level of shit they fling out, some fanboi is going to be thankful for it.
 
New Trek is better than NO Trek.

And this quote, right here, is why we got several years of absolute garbage for "Star Trek"... because Paramount and powers that be know that no matter what level of shit they fling out, some fanboi is going to be thankful for it.

Perzactly!!

If there's one thing that the fan films have shown us, just like the fanzines back in the 70's, it's that we don't have to settle for the highly polished turds Paramount has generally been handing out, we can make our own Star Trek, as good, and often times better, than what they can crank out.
 
New Trek is better than NO Trek.

And this quote, right here, is why we got several years of absolute garbage for "Star Trek"... because Paramount and powers that be know that no matter what level of shit they fling out, some fanboi is going to be thankful for it.

Perzactly!!

If there's one thing that the fan films have shown us, just like the fanzines back in the 70's, it's that we don't have to settle for the highly polished turds Paramount has generally been handing out, we can make our own Star Trek, as good, and often times better, than what they can crank out.

I very much agree with this. Although I'm not sure they are quite better yet, productions such as Exeter and New Voyages do show that amateurs can get close to the mark. This also gives people an opportunity to explore variations on a theme more readily, too; the exciting, new Polaris comes to mind here.

I think entertainment as a whole is moving this direction anyway; while most of the YouTube submissions currently lack any serious entertainment value, there are a few gems. If this continues, and trade organizations such as the MPAA continue to hamper technology and customers with DRM problems (broadcast flags, for example), customers will soon seek out other sources of entertainment. Well-polished and bundled, amateur productions could easily displace the existing media empires ... or at the very least cause them to seriously rethink their business strategies.
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top