Not focusing too much on details helps?

So far I have paid too much attention to details and how certain tech solutions work in Trek.
Recently I watched 'Redemption' episodes of TNG and instead of worrying how the tachyon detection grid could work I just tried to enjoy the episodes. And it was fun. Apparently the grid worked, I didn't need to know how it worked. Instead of constant headcanon explanations I could just watch the episodes and enjoy them.

I think this way of watching episodes works on some other episodes too. Life just got much easier. =)

 

It is. Trek is not a tech treatise so expecting the techobabble solution to always line up will frustrate. The characters should come first.

 

Especially where time travel is concerned.

 

If the story can get over the hurdle of minutiae and Treknobabble, then it's not difficult. The more it feels like a crutch or a workaround is when the issues seem to start. Add in a proper vision and some good writing to allow one to roll with the premise -- "Little Green Men" did the remarkable in using time travel as a plot device, yet again, and manages to overcome it. I can rewatch that a dozen times. Unlike a certain 1996 film that falls all over the place and not just because time travel was thrown in as a hype-worthy event.

Redemption II bugged me more given how perfect Data was at emulating a captain style (and not a PIcard one at that despite Picard being the mentor to teach him about humanity), which was promptly disused forevermore. Especially when "In Theory" did a similar routine, also loosely, also quickly dismissed. "Weekly reset button" tv trope or whatever it was since sci-fi that kept to such continuity so sternly, and serialized, had yet to really develop... The Robson subplot felt contrived as well.

Technology wasn't even a direct issue with Redemption II; with warp speed and calculating distances, they could get around the teeny tiny net with ease. They acknowledged the number of ships as I recall, not a contrived "they're short on fuel so they have to go this way" routine. They were making a mountain out of a pimple, which is smaller than a molehill... Never mind Data could take 2 & 1/2 seconds to tell the communications officer to send a coded message to Picard or whoever WHILE reminding Hobson to obey orders and he'll explain - didn't he already say the magical radiation signature wouldn't last long so they'd have to act fast? A handful of seconds wouldn't make a huge difference - adding some difficulty if Data was wrong, sure... but it wouldn't be all that decisive, given the importance the story also placed on "we only have 12 ships, the fleet is dispersed cuz borg boomboomed the fleet last year, etc". Data was wanting everyone to obey him while he was disobeying everyone above him. In a way, the story acknowledging various issues was pretty cool. If anything, it overreached and had to contrive too much to make up for it?

 

Yes, it helps a lot.

 

Apart from few exceptions I usually avoid all the time travel episodes because of all the weirdness. Those few exceptions include 'Yesterday's Enterprise' and 'All Good Things...' the latter can be easily explained with Q. =) Perhaps Q had something to do with YE too? =)

 

I liked YE because it sort of inverted the time travel trope. Rather than the regulars doing the the traveling to the past and changing something, the guests are the travelers and their traveling changes the regulars and their time.

 

Exactly. It is science fiction - with emphasis on the fiction. The cast and crew are trying to tell a story - hopefully a coherent story - and as long as there is no internal inconsistency or obvious science flubs (like breathing in space without air) it is most enjoyed when you don't try to figure out HOW it would work, especially putting more thought in to it than they did when they made it.

 

The few things I know about time is that time slows down when you go near massive gravity. So, basically Enterprise-C could move into the future in that way but there's no way to go back with that theory. If moving back in time is possible at all.

 

You know, I sometimes wonder if it's an age thing. I've been a fan since I was born (1970), and these days when I watch my DVD's, I find that I don't care about the details as much as I used to. I just enjoy the episodes and movies despite having seen them a couple zillion times each. And its not just Star Trek. I've noticed I take this approach in other areas of my life too.

 

This is good news for younger viewers who might like some episode but are annoyed by some particular detail. =)

 

I think, for me, it is both age as well as adjusting my overall attitude depending on the circumstance. If I'm sitting down to watch and episode then that's what I am doing. I'm not looking for little details, or trying to force to all make sense within the larger world. I'm just watching an episode. If I want to discuss details then I will do so with friends who are Trek fans or online on forums.

To me, details are fun to quibble about but if they take away from any sense of enjoyment then it isn't worth it.

 

I think that's the larger point is enjoyment. I don't care if it is impossible if the story makes it sound possible.

 

That's why we have holodecks. =)

Or they have in the 24th century....

 

Stephen Hawking last stance on time travel, namely traveling back in time, is that it is not necessarily impossible.

 

Just a really bad idea, given the high probability of grandfather paradox.

 

Not necessarily a paradox, if you posit that your grandfather and the one you killed belong to two different timelines (aka time iterations).

 

As opposed to simply annihilating the entire universe.