Raise The Encapsilating Field!.....
- Thread starter K'riq Sa
- Start date
There will be technobabble. Let's face it. It wouldn't be Star Trek, or even modern sci-fi, without a few random made-up words thrown in to explain away a thing or two.
Low.
TOS had a lot of odd names in the lexicon (phasers, dilithium, lithium, warp drive, tricorder) but didnt really overload the viewer with too much explanation the way that TNG did. TOS didnt really care too much how things worked, only that they worked. There's a good paragraph in Stephen Whitfields book (I think it may have come out of the series bible) from Gene Roddenberry that says something along the lines of a "a policeman in a cop show doesn't explain how his Colt 45 works. He just shoots it".
TNG went too far in trying to explain things and Voyager was just ridiculous.
I dont really care how the transporter works. I just know that it makes people disappear in one place and reappear in another.
TOS had a lot of odd names in the lexicon (phasers, dilithium, lithium, warp drive, tricorder) but didnt really overload the viewer with too much explanation the way that TNG did. TOS didnt really care too much how things worked, only that they worked. There's a good paragraph in Stephen Whitfields book (I think it may have come out of the series bible) from Gene Roddenberry that says something along the lines of a "a policeman in a cop show doesn't explain how his Colt 45 works. He just shoots it".
TNG went too far in trying to explain things and Voyager was just ridiculous.
I dont really care how the transporter works. I just know that it makes people disappear in one place and reappear in another.
In order to answer this question, it's important that we all be on the "same page" as to the definition of "technobabble."
Technobabble is NOT the same as using meaningful scientific/technical dialog, where appropriate. For instance, stating that a shuttle has reached "escape velocity" during its ascent to orbit is not "technobabble." Referring to a star as being made, primarily, of hydrogen in a plasma state, even of referring to the temperature of the plasma isn't technobabble (though it might still be unnecessary and thus not a help to the script).
"Technobabble" is the random stringing together of words which the writer has no real understanding of... ie, "babel"... in an attempt to make something sound "cool" and "technical."
Technobabble is, by definition, NONSENSE, in other words. Stuff written by technological illiterates in order to sound "oh so cool" to other technological illiterates.
There was a lot of scientific jargon used in TMP. But very little of it was "technobabble."
I don't mind the use of technical jargon, when it actually is meaningful and helps the plot along (though this should be kept to a bare minimum). But I HATE the nonsensical stringing together of terminology in the way that latter-era Trek series came to be so soundly (and rightfully) mocked over.
NO TECHNOBABBLE. If we don't have a clear, modern understanding of a point of "Treknology" and there's not a compelling plot-driven reason to have that (and TNG used this in plots in many many ways that were not COMPELLING... ie, they were cheats in the plot, not really examples of good storytelling!), then they should not be used.
I'd be thrilled to have NO technobabble. We don't need to know that Kirk used his transphasic intermolobulator to invert the tetrahedral holomorphic memory core subtransponders when he reprogrammed the Kobayashi Maru. We only need to know that he reprogrammed the simulation.
Make sense?
There was practically no technobabble in TOS, so there will be none in Star Trek (2008). Like Cary L. Brown said, referencing the technical workings of the ship does not constitute technobabble.
Ugh... that article was DEFINITELY "technobabble." It was particularly obnoxious because it wasn't even consistent with ITSELF. In one area, it's defined as an element. In another it's given an atomic weight. Yet, later, it's given a chemical (molecular) structure.
So, is it an element or a molecule? Can't be both...
That's what happens when sci-fi kiddies take joking bits creating by staffers, who never intended their jokes to be taken seriously, as though they were REAL SCIENCE.
There will be technobabble.
Quantity and nature thereof will be impossible to determine at this time, though it may be feasible to extrapolate and project, based on the results of a low-level tachyon pulse scan, filtered with a dual-neutron phase-inverted hot fudge sundae (with chopped nuts and sprinkles) and routed through the deflector dish.
But not until Tuesday.
Quantity and nature thereof will be impossible to determine at this time, though it may be feasible to extrapolate and project, based on the results of a low-level tachyon pulse scan, filtered with a dual-neutron phase-inverted hot fudge sundae (with chopped nuts and sprinkles) and routed through the deflector dish.
But not until Tuesday.
I do agree with what you're saying, Cary, but I don't agree with your definition of 'techobabble'. Even items that are NOT written by "technological illiterates" -- stuff written by people who may know a thing or two about physics -- even these things can be considered 'technobabble' in my opinion.
Take the "Heisenberg Compensators" for example. This particular bit of technobabble was used in TNG and DS9. Werner Heisenberg was a real-life quantum physicist who formulated the idea of the "Uncertainty Principle", which is in fact often referred to as the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle". Heisenberg theorized that it is impossible to know EVERYTHING about a subatomic particle: you can deterimne its location, but its direction of movement becomes uncertain. Conversely, if you ascertain its direction of movement, then you can't be certain of its location. Thus, for a transporter to work properly, it must "compensate" for this uncertainty (i.e. the transporter probably needs to know everything about your particles if it's going to move them from one place to another -- to be uncertain would be a bad thing). Therefore, if transporters ever will exist in the future, they WILL probably need something like a Heisenberg Compensator to get around those uncertainties.
HOWEVER, there is absolutely no need for Star Trek to explain all of this to us. The fact that the transporter uses a Heisenberg Compensator adds nothing to the story being told, and is in fact just a big pile of "Technobabble", however theoretically sound the idea may be. It's enough to say the transpoters work. Period.
Although to be fair to some TNG creative people, not all were eager to spout the babble. Michael Okuda was once asked in an interview how the Heisenberg Compensators worked, to which he responded "They work just fine, thank you."
Good answer, Michael!
I think (but I could be wrong) that the Heisenberg Compensator was borne from the TNG Technical Manual. Not until after that did they start using it in the show. I think that's true with a lot (or at least some) of the technobabble we were "treated" to through the last few years of TNG.
Again, I could be wrong. It's happened before!
^
^^I wouldn't be surprised if it was in the TNG Manual, but it still was a direct reference to the real-life Werner Heisenberg and his principle.
But as I said, just because it has a basis in scientific fact doesn't mean that they need to use this science to explain the technology. Mr. Kyle's TOS transporters worked just fine without him explaining exactly how they worked to anyone who cared to listen.
As Dr. McCoy might have said, "It's a TV show, not a Physics lecture."
^^I wouldn't be surprised if it was in the TNG Manual, but it still was a direct reference to the real-life Werner Heisenberg and his principle.
But as I said, just because it has a basis in scientific fact doesn't mean that they need to use this science to explain the technology. Mr. Kyle's TOS transporters worked just fine without him explaining exactly how they worked to anyone who cared to listen.
As Dr. McCoy might have said, "It's a TV show, not a Physics lecture."
I'd argue that technobabble has its place in throw-away lines used by techs doing their job. It's okay to lament that the heisenberg compensators have burned out ... but don't bore the general audience or annoy the technically literate audience with a prolonged discussion of the subject. It's also important for the technobabble, when used, to be consistent between episodes. Don't tell me the heisenberg compensators have something to do with transporters one week, and then use them in sickbay the next.
I can accept small amounts of carefully considered technobabble ... it contributes to the verisimilitude of the setting. An ordinary conversation in an office today might talk about RAM, CPUs, operating systems, TCP/IP, and lots of other stuff that would have boggled someone reading our reality as science fiction fifty years ago. Similarly, I expect people in Trek to casually discuss technology they use every day.
I can accept small amounts of carefully considered technobabble ... it contributes to the verisimilitude of the setting. An ordinary conversation in an office today might talk about RAM, CPUs, operating systems, TCP/IP, and lots of other stuff that would have boggled someone reading our reality as science fiction fifty years ago. Similarly, I expect people in Trek to casually discuss technology they use every day.
I'd say phrases like 'shields up', 'fire phasers', 'beaming', etc, are iconic Star Trek sayings that more than likely will not be left out of Star Trek XI.
I'm not crazy about technobabble. BSG has shown we don't need to know how advanced tech works...just *that* it works. And does not work, when the dramatic need arises.
I'm not crazy about technobabble. BSG has shown we don't need to know how advanced tech works...just *that* it works. And does not work, when the dramatic need arises.
I agree. Medical and legal dramas are full of all kinds of jargon. These are people working on a starship 300 years from now, one would expect them to use some technical terms. I just don't like it when terms become a plot point.
A lot of people are using TNG as an example, but at least most of the terminology was internally consistent and a lot of things were just take offs of modern scientific thought. If they say they can "reverse the polarity of the tractor beam" to push something away, it's not hard to understand how something like that might work. Or that episode with the space baby sucking the Big-E's teet, their solution made intuitive sense from a viewer's POV. Geordi mentioning the "So and so in the warp core broke so we can't go" is realistic, the device itself isn't integral to the plot, just the fact that they can't go. But it would be STUPID for Geordi to call up to the Captain and say "The warp core is broken, it will be 3 hours until I fix whats broken".
In the final few seasons it got worse, but not much trips my BS meter to the same degree as Voyager did on an almost casual basis. And there didn't seem to be too much for viewers, TNG had high ratings throughout it's run. Voyager was disgusting at times. I'll be the first to admit I like that show a bit more than most people might, I like many of the characters. However, too many episodes featured an entirely made-up technical plot device and/or resolution instead of a character taking a tangible risk, deduction, or choice we could all relate to.
If an episode of Trek consisted of a starship being stuck in a box, Kirk would find out who put them there and bluff them into releasing them. Picard would find out why they were there and attempt to negotiate their way out. Sisko might simply get pissed and blast his way out
. All of these things we can understand.Janeway would get Seven to use her nano-bots to reverse the interpolastic phase variance of the box's particle array in order to open the lid. THAT is the kind of shit I hate.
TOS ? Technobabble ?
- Version One - No Technobabble -
Kirk : Scotty.... I need more power....
Scotty : I've given 'errr all I can she can't take much morrre....
Kirk : I don't care how you do it just do it mister.....
Scotty : Ach, i'll see what I can do....
- Version Two - Tecnobabble -
Kirk : Scotty.... I need more power....
Scotty : Well, if I bypass the phase indution coils with the anti-matter inducer useing the antidisastablismentmentarisum generators along with the nuralultramicroscopicsillovolcanoconoious spanner I just might be able to squeez a bit more power out of the warp core.
Kirk : Huh ? What ?
- W -
* smirks *
- Version One - No Technobabble -
Kirk : Scotty.... I need more power....
Scotty : I've given 'errr all I can she can't take much morrre....
Kirk : I don't care how you do it just do it mister.....
Scotty : Ach, i'll see what I can do....
- Version Two - Tecnobabble -
Kirk : Scotty.... I need more power....
Scotty : Well, if I bypass the phase indution coils with the anti-matter inducer useing the antidisastablismentmentarisum generators along with the nuralultramicroscopicsillovolcanoconoious spanner I just might be able to squeez a bit more power out of the warp core.
Kirk : Huh ? What ?
- W -
* smirks *
^
^^Woulfe -- that's close...
...Version One is spot-on. Version Two is from VOY and would go like this:
Janeway: B'Elanna, we need power power.
B'Elanna: I can only get you 97% right now Captain, by if I re-route the antimatter injectors through the plasma conduit, I just might be able to get you 99.5% power output.
Janeway: Maybe you should try to flood the plasma stream with tachyon particles.
B'Elanna: Ya' Know what? -- That just may work! That should give us the 99.8% output we're looking for.
Janeway: Good work B'Elanna.
B'Elanna: Actually Captain, the credit should go to you. I would have never thought of using tachyon particles to flood the plasma stream.
Janeway: All in a day's work, Lt. Torres.
^^Woulfe -- that's close...
...Version One is spot-on. Version Two is from VOY and would go like this:
Janeway: B'Elanna, we need power power.
B'Elanna: I can only get you 97% right now Captain, by if I re-route the antimatter injectors through the plasma conduit, I just might be able to get you 99.5% power output.
Janeway: Maybe you should try to flood the plasma stream with tachyon particles.
B'Elanna: Ya' Know what? -- That just may work! That should give us the 99.8% output we're looking for.
Janeway: Good work B'Elanna.
B'Elanna: Actually Captain, the credit should go to you. I would have never thought of using tachyon particles to flood the plasma stream.
Janeway: All in a day's work, Lt. Torres.
In the novelization of ST III, Vonda McIntyre christen's Uhura's young "Mr Adventure" in the Transporter Station as Lieutenant Heisenberg, and I later noticed that TNG had picked up the term - in relation to transporters. Both uses are referring to the same famous real-life person, I guess. Or coincidence perhaps.
In TOS, they also used "feinberger" as a sobriquet applied to any weird, supposedly-23rd century prop, but the term did eventually did get used onscreen, IIRC. It referred to TOS's beloved property master, Irving Feinberg.
