I get what you're saying, but personally i like the thechnobabble. Makes me feel more like it's in the future with advances technology
Little things in Trek that just bug you...
- Thread starter Captain Killy
- Start date
It's a whole different experience as an audience. It's always way more interesting when the characters find a clever solution to a problem that we can relate to and understand, rather than one that's completely made up. For example Kirk improvising a cannon to defeat the Gorn is way more entertaining than Geordie modifying the deflector dish to emit an inverse tachyon neutrino raktajino conduit antiphoton pulse beam, even though the latter would be a lot more clever in-universe.
My technical skills are somewhat lacking, I tend to get a guy in to do it.
GOD, I hate technobabble. It's largely turned me off of the Berman-era Trek shows.
And that's what I hate about technobabble in a nutshell. It's totally arbitrary. Oh, wow, he reversed the polarity of the tachyon flow on the main deflector dish... That's a good thing he did that, I guess. Here's an idea: Since you're always having to reverse the polarity on that thing to solve every crisis, why not just leave it that way? That way you'll save yourself the trouble for next time.
I’m too busy figuring out how to reroute auxiliary power so that the secondary backup differential mangnetomer connected to the primary impulse drive doesn’t malfunction every time someone flushes the toilet in the restroom just outside the transporter room.
Did you try jiggling the handle?
The handle was taken offline to prepare for radioactive urine cleanup.
Did you try repolarizing the primary EPS conduits through the main graviton flux chamber above the can?
Sigh. Give me "She's lit up like a Christmas tree, but she'll hold together!" any day. That tells us all we need to know. Save talking about rerouting the main power couplings for Scotty's technical journals.
Probably he also knew how to install automated biofilters to the ship's entry points and how to add them to the transporter all along'
Not sure what the issue is here. Sure, a quadrant is a huge chunk, but they are significantly farther away than the size of that chunk so at their position it doesn't really matter too much how precise they are - and besides everyone (both in- and out of universe) knows what is meant when they refer to the 'alpha quadrant'.
Suppose we have a movie about a group of time travelers, stranded in, oh, Sri Lanka, 100.000 BC. Bereft of any technology, they only can return to their own time when they reach the spot where the the temporal portal will be built in the future, let's say in Newark. So essentially they have to traverse half the globe using prehistoric technology, which will take them years, if they survive at all. Would it bother you then, if they sometimes colloquially referred to '(north)-America' as their target, rather than 'Newark'?
At least, that would be my response when we're talking about Voyager. For DS9 I agree it is silly to refer to the "alpha quadrant", since even the entire coalition of their forces at the end of the war (Klingons Romulans, Federation) would only make up a tiny fraction of the Alpha Quadrant.
What was the state of glaciation in your arbitrary date of 100,000 BC? The sea level in 100,000 BC could be the same as now, but if it was more or less glaciated than today the sea level could be a lot lower or higher than it is now. Since they would be using prehistoric technology, they wouldn't have modern navigation aids, and if the sea level was much higher or lower they might not recognize Newark from the positions of Staten Island or Manhattan. In fact, it 100,000 BC was at the height of glacial period, Newark might be covered with an ice sheet. Apparently the last glacial period extended from about 110,000 to 11,700 years ago. I guess that Newark would probably have been ice free only 10,000 years after the beginning of the last glacial period.
No opportunity. A crewman was using the facilities,
I hate it when they use these convenient radiations that are deadly beyond a point but harmless until you reach that point when we know that radiations don't work that way, they are cumulative. That means that if a certain dose is lethal then a notable fraction of that dose of that radiation is definitely harmful.
The assumption is that the harm done by a little amount of exposure can be fixed with their medical technology.
"She should be hauled away as garbage."
"You don't have eight weeks so I'll do it for ya in two."
I don't see how you could fix a damage done to your body at a cellular level. It means that there isn't a single cluster of a dozen of cells that doesn't comport at least one damaged cell. What happens is that people that don't die immediately of radiation poisoning, sometimes take years, even decades to die and there's nothing that the doctors can do to avoid it.
