"Lazy Writing"

[number6]

"Lazy Writing"

This is a phrase thrown around that has been used to describe basically anything that a Trek fan finds objectionable in a Trek series that they seem to not like in the first place.

I see the words "lazy writing" used a lot in criticizing ENT and VOY by people who seem to think they know that it means. Well, I don't.

Rather than ask for a definition, because I know that would differ from one person to the next, please give me an example of a quintissentially "Not Lazy"
Star Trek episode.

It can be from any series or film, and describe why it isn't lazy without bashing any of the shows please.

Be seeing you.

 

[JNG]

I can't prove a negative, especially without a shared definition of "lazy." Can you give us an example of an episode at which you hear this criticism directed?

 

[Therin of Andor]

This is a phrase thrown around that has been used to describe basically anything that a Trek fan finds objectionable in a Trek series that they seem to not like in the first place.

I agree. It's a phrase that raises my hackles since professional writers creating high profile screenplays and teleplays (and even amateur writers doing low-budget and no-budget ones) tend to be incredibly passionate about their work.

Even someone writing something seemingly simple, such as cover blurbs for paperback romance novels, can't do so "lazily". Deadlines and limited word counts, and the need to make the copy vital enough to make people pick up and buy the book, ensure that the writing must be precise, not "lazy".

People have accused John Logan ("Nemesis") of "lazy" writing, since that screenplay has too many beats similar to the iconic ST II. And yet, in every interview, he's so passionate about what he was writing. There's no way he was phoning it in; more like he made it too much of a homage.

The problems with NEM are much wider than just screenplay anyway; the directing was odd for a start, and a director who knew ST better that Stuart Baird might have ordered rewrites during filming.

 

[Nardpuncher]

I can't prove a negative, especially without a shared definition of "lazy." Can you give us an example of an episode at which you hear this criticism directed?

Well said. I'm not sure number 6 accepts examples without the signature of a notary public anyway!

 

[JiNX-01]

Here's my definition of NOT.LAZY. writing: I understand the why of every character's choices and those choices are consistent with what we have come to know about the characters. Any resolution of a technical/science issue has roots in the episode or springs from "common knowledge": technobabble isn't just pulled from somebody's colon in the last 90 seconds.

A sampling of NOT.LAZY. writing (IMHO)

TOS
Balance of Terror: Basic story -- a battle of wits between two cunning captains. Toss in unprovoked attacks, xenophobic bigotry, constraints on the crew's choices (stay out of the RNZ) and keep everybody consistent. Writer pulled it off, which is why BoT lands on so many fans' "favorites" lists.

TNG
The Inner Light: Basic story -- the "abduction" of Capt. Picard. The writer (and film editor) had 50 minutes to build empathy for a race we've never heard of whose world is dying. The scenes that were used to convey what good people these aliens were worked beautifully (casting helped). And when we get to the final scene as Picard begins to play the flute, the heart breaks for his loss. Brilliant.

ENT
Proving Ground: Basic story -- Shran has a mission in The Expanse, and it's not to help Archer. The story is a good one with plenty of conflict yet Shran is in character in spite of his orders, and he helps Trip by giving him equipment he needs. Even at the end, after Archer damages the Kumari, Shran remains loyal and supplements Archer's intel on the weapon.

 

[Myasishchev]

Lazy writing:

Travel times that require a starship to be doing in excess of 100,000 times the speed of light. (Broken Bow, Where No Man Has Gone Before, Star Trek V).

The Enterprise being the only ship in the quadrant (Star Trek V at least, tons of others but they don't necessarily come to mind).

"Iso" anything, or rather technological terms that can't possibly mean what they say, as the chosen words are those which the writer doesn't understand (pick your Voyager episode, Star Trek Nemesis' thalaron radiation device destroying organic matter only at the subatomic level).

Fake/magical technology that solves a story conflict (pick your Voyager episode; Threshold's a pretty atrocious example; I'm pretty sure antiprotons kill you by turning you into energy).

Lazy writing can usually be fixed by thinking about something a little more, or looking up what a term means.

 

[Cyke101]

I cited this in another thread, but for all the problems of Endgame, the one that stands out to me the most was the return to Earth. Admiral and Tom Paris were so damned indifferent towards each other when they finally got to see each other again after 7 years.

For that matter, after seeing her first non-Voyager Starfleet personnel in 7 years, after getting her crew home after so many deaths and tragedies, all she did was smile and say something quaint, which is what she does every time the ship misses a chance to easily make it home anyway. There's a complete lack of sorrow or jubilation where it's most needed. That's what I consider lazy writing.

By contrast, this is the show that gave us "Tuvix," "Year of Hell," and "Latent Images," all of which are superbly complex and multilayered. They don't work simply as sci-fi stories, because sci-fi can encompass anything as long as it reflects the human spirit. In those three episodes, the topic of civil rights (specifically, the right to exist) takes the forefront, with all the technobabble and Trek doo-dads simply staying in the background and doesn't interfere. Year of Hell itself is jam packed with action, which normally would be a bad thing to do, but the action is so well paced and only used when needed, such as using one skirmish to show just how often Voyager had been attacked for a year. That's a very, very clever use of action as a whole.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Lazy writing can usually be fixed by thinking about something a little more, or looking up what a term means.

In fact, ST has almost always had science advisors who do adjust the scripts. Writers were regularly asked to put "[tech]" in their scripts in places where the science advisors would be developing the technobabble to go into the dialogue. It's not laziness that a scriptwriter is asked not to pretend to be a scientist when there are science advisors already on the show, whose job it is to adjust the scripts.

Certainly, if you've read any interviews with TNG's Naren Shankar, you'll have learned about how the advisors come up with quasi-plausible tech terms for future science that must also help resolve a plot point.

Maybe VOY didn't have as many advisors?

Or maybe you just disagree with the scientists?

 

[Cyke101]

Lazy writing can usually be fixed by thinking about something a little more, or looking up what a term means.

In fact, ST has almost always had science advisors who do adjust the scripts. Writers were regularly asked to put "[tech]" in their scripts in places where the science advisors would be developing the technobabble to go into the dialogue. It's not laziness that a scriptwriter is asked not to pretend to be a scientist when there are science advisors already on the show, whose job it is to adjust the scripts.

Certainly, if you've read any interviews with TNG's Nareen Shankar, you'll have learned about how the advisors come up with quasi-plausible tech terms for future science that must also help resolve a plot point.

Maybe VOY didn't have as many advisors?

Or maybe you just disagree with the scientists?

I was under the impression that Trek as a whole stopped hiring scientific advisers sometime in the mid-90s. Can someone clarify?

 

[Broccoli]

The Enterprise being the only ship in the quadrant (Star Trek V at least, tons of others but they don't necessarily come to mind).

This happens a lot in the movies: TMP, TWoK, NEM

 

[Therin of Andor]

I was under the impression that Trek as a whole stopped hiring scientific advisers sometime in the mid-90s. Can someone clarify?

Naren Shankar's last contribution was "All Good Things...", but he'd already moved from science advising to script editing.

André Bormanis worked on TNG, DS9, VOY, and even appeared in the last ENT episode, so he was still around. He's on the DVD bonus features of numerous STs and wrote the book, "Star Trek: Science Logs":

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Bormanis

 

[trekkerguy]

The Enterprise being the only ship in the quadrant (Star Trek V at least, tons of others but they don't necessarily come to mind).

This happens a lot in the movies: TMP, TWoK, NEM

Sometimes I think they mix up quadrant and sector.
Though it seems well enough defined, in Trek even
since TOS the terms have seemed to be swapped
episode to episode.

If they mean sector this makes alot of sense to me.
There may be alot of ships but let's face it, space
is huge and in peace times the fleets seem to be
spread over alot of space and many times ships
aren't even in Federation territory.

"Only ship in the quadrant" could even just mean they
are the only one close enough to do the job when
they want them to, as the Enterprise was going to be
meeting their fleet at the end of Nemesis so there
must have been ships somewhere in the quadrant.

This is a phrase thrown around that has been used to describe basically anything that a Trek fan finds objectionable in a Trek series that they seem to not like in the first place.

I agree. It's a phrase that raises my hackles since professional writers creating high profile screenplays and teleplays (and even amateur writers doing low-budget and no-budget ones) tend to be incredibly passionate about their work.

Even someone writing something seemingly simple, such as cover blurbs for paperback romance novels, can't do so "lazily". Deadlines and limited word counts, and the need to make the copy vital enough to make people pick up and buy the book, ensure that the writing must be precise, not "lazy".

People have accused John Logan ("Nemesis") of "lazy" writing, since that screenplay has too many beats similar to the iconic ST II. And yet, in every interview, he's so passionate about what he was writing. There's no way he was phoning it in; more like he made it too much of a homage.

The problems with NEM are much wider than just screenplay anyway; the directing was odd for a start, and a director who knew ST better that Stuart Baird might have ordered rewrites during filming.

Well said, "lazy writing" is just a lazy way of saying
one does not like something. Doesn't always attribute
anything to the quality because of course with
entertainment quality is all in the eyes if the beholder.

 

[Cyke101]

I was under the impression that Trek as a whole stopped hiring scientific advisers sometime in the mid-90s. Can someone clarify?

Naren Shankar's last contribution was "All Good Things...", but he'd already moved from science advising to script editing.

André Bormanis worked on TNG, DS9, VOY, and even appeared in the last ENT episode, so he was still around. He's on the DVD bonus features of numerous STs and wrote the book, "Star Trek: Science Logs":

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/André_Bormanis

Cool bits. Thanks!

 

[Jeri]

Dr. Bormanis used to visit Brad Smith at the U of Arizona Lunar and Planetary Lab time to time. Brad headed the project Voyager imaging team; his Irish secretary was a big fan of André and thought he was a great gentleman. I just had a student job there working for another scientist while I was in school; this would have been in the '80's before TNG, else I would have taken more notice of him.

 

[Myasishchev]

Lazy writing can usually be fixed by thinking about something a little more, or looking up what a term means.

In fact, ST has almost always had science advisors who do adjust the scripts. Writers were regularly asked to put "[tech]" in their scripts in places where the science advisors would be developing the technobabble to go into the dialogue. It's not laziness that a scriptwriter is asked not to pretend to be a scientist when there are science advisors already on the show, whose job it is to adjust the scripts.

I don't know, that seems the very definition of lazy to me. Is it too much to ask from a science fiction writer to research their own pseudo-science and to present it in such a way that it is semi-plausible? And not to use it as a substitute for drama?

I don't expect real science, but a reasonable fascimile free from glaring problems, like "quantum" thrown where it doesn't belong, or the prefix "iso" preceding things for no reason. (An isoton: it's has the same essential parts as a ton, but is qualitatively different?)

Well said, "lazy writing" is just a lazy way of saying
one does not like something.

That is an attractive definition.

 

[Lashmore]

I've never said "lazy writing" myself.

I just dislike voyager and enterprise more than other series, and I dislike a lot from them too, so I'm not biased.

I find voyager and enterprise quite...repeatitive of things done before. Never surprised me, never felt like I was watching soemthing new. Just felt like something old and repeatitive with new faces.

New faces and new ships don't do it for me alone. Needs to be new everything, not stories so similiar to so many I've seen before not just in trek.

Never saw anything new and unique. But that is just me, I'm sure others enjoyed what they saw, good for them I'm glad for ya, I didn't.

I can accept people enjoying it, as long as they accept me for not enjoying it.

 

[Jeri]

When I watched TOS in the 1960's, people thought it was an egghead show and contained technobabble -- not that the word was used.

(Remember the line where Deela emphasizes to Rael that their gadget has a "malfunction," like the word "malfunction" itself was strange, egghead talk? Well, that's because "malfunction" was technobabble to the general audience.)

It's not thought of that way now, because TOS made certain concepts and jargon a part of the culture; but they would be guilty under a lot of current fan reasoning.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I don't know, that seems the very definition of lazy to me. Is it too much to ask from a science fiction writer to research their own pseudo-science and to present it in such a way that it is semi-plausible? And not to use it as a substitute for drama?.

Many, many Star Trek scripts are written by writers experienced in writing drama, comedy, farce, character pieces - and all of these stories can be placed into a science fiction setting. But not every writer has studied enough science at university to convince other people (who have made real science facts a hobby or career) watching the episodes.

If you think TV SF scripts should only ever be written by writers with science degrees, or the time to spend weeks researching, then the pool of available writers diminishes greatly. "Wanna write for ST, go to uni for four years first, otherwise the savvy viewers know you're only pretending to know about future science."

Using science as a substitute for drama is something else entirely. Have you checked? Maybe these are the episodes where the science writers have written the actual scripts? In any case, all modern ST scripts were "broken" and vastly rebuilt by the team of writers, no matter whose name appeared onscreen. The pseudo science terms were only one aspect of each script.

 

[Atariboy]

I've used the term 'lazy writing' on occasion.

To me, it's:
a.) re-hashed stories
b.) stories wrapped up nicely in the last three minutes by incomprehensible technobabble
c.) out-of-character moments to keep the story going

In regards to the technobabble, I know some will say "but it's all consistent within the Star Trek universe and yadda yadda"... but I don't care. If a writer is going to stage a mystery within an episode, the viewer better have a sporting chance at solving it before the conclusion. Did Agathie Christie ever fail to introduce the murderer(s) before the last page? NO! So don't wrap up the episode by reversing the tachyon particles or some other nonsense! It's MEANINGLESS.

 

[Myasishchev]

I don't know, that seems the very definition of lazy to me. Is it too much to ask from a science fiction writer to research their own pseudo-science and to present it in such a way that it is semi-plausible? And not to use it as a substitute for drama?.

Many, many Star Trek scripts are written by writers experienced in writing drama, comedy, farce, character pieces - and all of these stories can be placed into a science fiction setting. But not every writer has studied enough science at university to convince other people (who have made real science facts a hobby or career) watching the episodes.

If you think TV SF scripts should only ever be written by writers with science degrees, or the time to spend weeks researching, then the pool of available writers diminishes greatly. "Wanna write for ST, go to uni for four years first, otherwise the savvy viewers know you're only pretending to know about future science."

Using science as a substitute for drama is something else entirely. Have you checked? Maybe these are the episodes where the science writers have written the actual scripts? In any case, all modern ST scripts were "broken" and vastly rebuilt by the team of writers, no matter whose name appeared onscreen. The pseudo science terms were only one aspect of each script.

Surely, more often than not the bad science doesn't break an episode. Heck, tons of episodes and movies have ludicrously poor scientific backing (i.e., TVH--"high-energy photons" and time warp in either temporal direction depending on turning clockwise or counterclockwise ). Many installments with bad science manage to be awesome.

The problem really comes into play when the bad science comes out of nowhere to solve a problem.

I'll take two episodes with horrible science as examples.

The Enemy Within posits that a transporter beam can create a duplicate of a man, obtaining the extra matter from God knows where. One duplicate is nice (and weak) and the other brutal (and strong). Of course this is ridiculous, but the mechanism of solution is obvious from the premise: the transporter device.

Now this is far, far from my favorite TOS episode. In fact it's kind of silly. A similar premise was used to far greater effect in TNG's Second Chances. However, although the drama might be inferior, it works on its own terms.

Now let's go to Threshold. Similarly bad science gets to where the writer wants to go--a man turning into a lizard-thing. Let's forget, as earlier, that where the writer wants to go isn't really a good place to be. The heart of the bad science is the Warp 10 barrier, i.e. infinite velocity. The solution to the problem, if it is to be solved, seems to lie in whatever craziness occurred to Tom Paris' body at infinite velocity. But in the actual show, the solution lies in... antiproton treatments. And that doesn't work, even on its own terms.