I don't care about technobabble. I don't see why everyone has such a problem with it. Starfleet officers are supposed to be professionals in their jobs; what are they supposed to say? "Do the thingy that does the thing"? No, they'll use the actual, technical terms. "Reroute power through the deflector dish to reinforce the shield harmonics".
Time To Come Out...
- Thread starter Bry_Sinclair
- Start date
Oh, technobabble is awesome. I love it, but most especially the well-crafted stuff that writers actually put a lot of thought into. Example of the well-crafted stuff, from "Obsession" [http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/47.htm]:
The problem that people have comes not actually from the existence of technobabble at a moderate level, but from its overuse, especially as a means of resolving the plot.
We can stick to "Obsession" to see how it is in fact not an example of using technobabble to resolve the story. Resolution of the story follows from Kirk's decision to delay the rendezvous with the Yorktown and risk lives on Theta Seven to follow the creature home, to where Kirk perceives it to be going.
For an example of a bad way of using technobabble, suppose that "Obsession" had gone something like this:
See the difference?
CHEKOV: Deflectors up, sir.
SPOCK: The deflectors will not stop it, Captain.
SCOTT: That's impossible.
SPOCK: I should have surmised this. For the creature to be able to use gravity as a propulsive force, it would have to have this capacity.
SPOCK: The deflectors will not stop it, Captain.
SCOTT: That's impossible.
SPOCK: I should have surmised this. For the creature to be able to use gravity as a propulsive force, it would have to have this capacity.
The problem that people have comes not actually from the existence of technobabble at a moderate level, but from its overuse, especially as a means of resolving the plot.
We can stick to "Obsession" to see how it is in fact not an example of using technobabble to resolve the story. Resolution of the story follows from Kirk's decision to delay the rendezvous with the Yorktown and risk lives on Theta Seven to follow the creature home, to where Kirk perceives it to be going.
For an example of a bad way of using technobabble, suppose that "Obsession" had gone something like this:
CHEKOV: Deflectors up, sir.
SPOCK: The deflectors will not stop it, Captain.
SCOTT: That's impossible.
SPOCK: I should have surmised this. For the creature to be able to use gravity as a propulsive force, it would have to have this capacity.
SCOTT: Well, just modulate the precession amplitude and catch the bloody thing in a force bubble.
KIRK: Do it.
SULU: Done, sir.
KIRK: Very good, Scotty. Spock, can we compress the force bubble to overcome neutron degeneracy pressure and force an implosion?
SPOCK: Dikironium is inherently unstable, but I believe we can, Captain. Mister Sulu, increase main deflector to full power.
KIRK: Impulse power, too.
(The ship shakes a little.)
SULU: We've done it!
KIRK: Very good. Uhura, drop a warning buoy. Mister Sulu, warp six to the rendezvous. Doctor McCoy, does this fill your prescription?
MCCOY: Better late than never, Jim.
(Everybody laughs.)
SPOCK: The deflectors will not stop it, Captain.
SCOTT: That's impossible.
SPOCK: I should have surmised this. For the creature to be able to use gravity as a propulsive force, it would have to have this capacity.
SCOTT: Well, just modulate the precession amplitude and catch the bloody thing in a force bubble.
KIRK: Do it.
SULU: Done, sir.
KIRK: Very good, Scotty. Spock, can we compress the force bubble to overcome neutron degeneracy pressure and force an implosion?
SPOCK: Dikironium is inherently unstable, but I believe we can, Captain. Mister Sulu, increase main deflector to full power.
KIRK: Impulse power, too.
(The ship shakes a little.)
SULU: We've done it!
KIRK: Very good. Uhura, drop a warning buoy. Mister Sulu, warp six to the rendezvous. Doctor McCoy, does this fill your prescription?
MCCOY: Better late than never, Jim.
(Everybody laughs.)
See the difference?
TNG got too preachy (seasons 5 and 6 largely stink and never understood why they are supposedly the pinnacle of the show when seasons 3 and 4 are far more entertaining )
And I agree, for all the learning curves and stumbles, season 1 is far more lively, interesting, and exploratory.
The Borg were quickly changed from their original premise, to the point that even Voyager returned to the original premise, upending TNG's movie changes, but then VOY would incorporate those changes later on anyway... (both Queen actresses were phenomenal and successful, but the Queen is the antithesis OF the Borg... the character redefines "ambivalence" to a new level.)
Neelix had a good start but didn't remain as well-used.
So when people say they hate "The Way to Eden" because the plot changes characters for the sake of the narrative, the same approach was done with "I, Borg" and a lot more casually as well. "The Way to Eden" is far more entertaining, is far more realistic, and even has a bigger possible message than "I, Borg" ever will. "I Borg" manages to escape a lot worse criticism only because of what is said to happen if a Borg is cut off from the Collective, the way Locutus was.
No worries, Picard shooting down his crew in the 1996 Borg movie only adds to what a rotten captain he is. Other captains always tried to save their crews. Picard just lets them die and says they're better off as opposed to keeping the number of people who could possibly help defeat the Borg higher, the late-21st century people there were clearly clueless. I mean, the 24th century crew never worked together to save Picard ever, no? Which is a bad excuse, the captain is responsible for the lives of the people and the ship. Given how magical the Borg implants were, it's amazing the technology couldn't have repaired the dead crewmen. Should have, Picard deserved it.
In other news, Picard could be a real a real horse's arse at times and not just in the badly written 1996 movie (Red Letter Media nails most of that movie's problems).
The Mirror Universe was way too contrived, self-gratification, and "fanservice" to manage to believe in. And would Kira really want to go bang herself the way the first one was implying? Trek hasn't any better questions to ask than that?
TNG needed more Geordi/Data scenes, the two and their observations on humanity have always been compelling and nicely done. Plus, Geordi is a geeky type. Geeks are easier to relate to.
Voyager's EMH is a second-rate McCoy clone that wants "holographic rights" - to the point that any coherent writing went out the window. Never mind how people complained and whined about Pulaski being a McCoy clone?!! She and Bashir are easily the best docs on the show and Bashir was closer to a McCoy clone than she was... but neither of them are half as cloney as EMH or Pghlem were.
Dang spellchecker, his name is Phlox. Same difference, as much as the actors involved did more with what was written on paper and made their characters their own - 90s Trek had excellent casting, but that still can't disguise their being - on paper - McCoy copycats.
Dr McCoy was often a casual speciesist, especially toward Spock. (But Spock knew the complexities and didn't take it too personally, they were clearly friends and even McCoy knew he sometimes got out of line.)
I'm surprised DS9 didn't go as far with having Bajorans questioning their beliefs as opposed to getting unbelievers like Dax to start believing. Then again, rituals and religions to those who don't believe are always going to seem weird. Trek is allegedly about the human condition as metaphor, so it should be "weird" and hope that a viewer takes an interest to try to understand why people believe the way they do. Ditto for civilizations that have no religion, the lack of religion ends up looking like a religion to them in the end anyway (never mind the complexities and contradictions).
Star Trek beyond is easily the best Kelvin timeline series.
And I agree, for all the learning curves and stumbles, season 1 is far more lively, interesting, and exploratory.
The Borg were quickly changed from their original premise, to the point that even Voyager returned to the original premise, upending TNG's movie changes, but then VOY would incorporate those changes later on anyway... (both Queen actresses were phenomenal and successful, but the Queen is the antithesis OF the Borg... the character redefines "ambivalence" to a new level.)
Neelix had a good start but didn't remain as well-used.
So when people say they hate "The Way to Eden" because the plot changes characters for the sake of the narrative, the same approach was done with "I, Borg" and a lot more casually as well. "The Way to Eden" is far more entertaining, is far more realistic, and even has a bigger possible message than "I, Borg" ever will. "I Borg" manages to escape a lot worse criticism only because of what is said to happen if a Borg is cut off from the Collective, the way Locutus was.
No worries, Picard shooting down his crew in the 1996 Borg movie only adds to what a rotten captain he is. Other captains always tried to save their crews. Picard just lets them die and says they're better off as opposed to keeping the number of people who could possibly help defeat the Borg higher, the late-21st century people there were clearly clueless. I mean, the 24th century crew never worked together to save Picard ever, no? Which is a bad excuse, the captain is responsible for the lives of the people and the ship. Given how magical the Borg implants were, it's amazing the technology couldn't have repaired the dead crewmen. Should have, Picard deserved it.
In other news, Picard could be a real a real horse's arse at times and not just in the badly written 1996 movie (Red Letter Media nails most of that movie's problems).
The Mirror Universe was way too contrived, self-gratification, and "fanservice" to manage to believe in. And would Kira really want to go bang herself the way the first one was implying? Trek hasn't any better questions to ask than that?
TNG needed more Geordi/Data scenes, the two and their observations on humanity have always been compelling and nicely done. Plus, Geordi is a geeky type. Geeks are easier to relate to.
Voyager's EMH is a second-rate McCoy clone that wants "holographic rights" - to the point that any coherent writing went out the window. Never mind how people complained and whined about Pulaski being a McCoy clone?!! She and Bashir are easily the best docs on the show and Bashir was closer to a McCoy clone than she was... but neither of them are half as cloney as EMH or Pghlem were.
Dang spellchecker, his name is Phlox. Same difference, as much as the actors involved did more with what was written on paper and made their characters their own - 90s Trek had excellent casting, but that still can't disguise their being - on paper - McCoy copycats.
Dr McCoy was often a casual speciesist, especially toward Spock. (But Spock knew the complexities and didn't take it too personally, they were clearly friends and even McCoy knew he sometimes got out of line.)
I'm surprised DS9 didn't go as far with having Bajorans questioning their beliefs as opposed to getting unbelievers like Dax to start believing. Then again, rituals and religions to those who don't believe are always going to seem weird. Trek is allegedly about the human condition as metaphor, so it should be "weird" and hope that a viewer takes an interest to try to understand why people believe the way they do. Ditto for civilizations that have no religion, the lack of religion ends up looking like a religion to them in the end anyway (never mind the complexities and contradictions).
Star Trek beyond is easily the best Kelvin timeline series.
As for technobabble, TNG did it the best. So did DS9, for a while. But over time, the technobabble became written a lot more loosely, one could tell they weren't bothering to try. Even in DS9... To the point they could have gone the Doctor Who route and scribble out "gravitic anomalizer" and would have sounded better than "The Borg hoobiedoobie we stole from them last week" (or whatever the dialogue was from the otherwise fantastic VOY epiode "Timeless", as example.)
Modern BSG eclipsed Trek as my favorite franchise during its later seasons. But with such a small fanbase, compared to Trek's huge, and all the trek to talk about still, I keep coming back to it. Its a little boring to me compared to my younger years when I was excited about it. But it's comfortable, familiar, and enormous in terms of fanbase.
I have a hard time watching TOS.
I grew up with TNG. TOS is too dated for me. I just can't get into it aside from a few great episodes here and there (Balance of Terror, Mirror Mirror, COTEOF, Galileo Seven, all come to mind). That said I love the first six Star Trek movies with the original cast.
I grew up with TNG. TOS is too dated for me. I just can't get into it aside from a few great episodes here and there (Balance of Terror, Mirror Mirror, COTEOF, Galileo Seven, all come to mind). That said I love the first six Star Trek movies with the original cast.
It's called a Quantum Slipstream® drive or just Slipstream® for short, and they stole from an angry bald alien named Arturis. I think the name is almost as cool as "Flux Capacitor"!
...much more creative than "Transwarp Drive."
Interestingly enough, BSG was set up (quite purposefully I believe) to be the exact opposite of 24th Century Trek.
Think about it:
- Gritty
- Depressing, downtrodden and sometimes hopeless feel
- No aliens whatsoever
- Focus on religion / spirituality
- Character conflicts at every turn/morally ambiguous characters
- Characters who change and evolve (for better or worse)
- Showcased the darkest sides of humanity
- De-emphasis on technology (no technobabble, Galactica ship is low-tech, etc)
I honestly believe that nuBSG was Ronald D. Moore's reaction to the limitations and frustrations of being a writer on the Berman-led Trek shows. Like he literally just broke one day and said "f-ck this...I'm going to make my own sci-fi show and it's going to be the exact opposite of everything we did on TNG!"
I'm a fan of both...so I'm not passing judgment either way...I just find it interesting.
That is a spicy hot-take.
Oh I completely agree BSG was the opposite of Trek, but I like both, with a preference towards BSG. Ron Moore did like 2 episodes of Voyager and he was definitely like, fuck this shit, I'm doing something more realistic. It's not surprising that he did a lot of DS9 episodes but couldn't stick around for Voyager when you see what he did with BSG.
That's, like.... one opinion.
Here's another. I still enjoy watching TNG, but if I had to choose between nuBSG and DS9, let's call it CC's Choice, I'd choose nuBSG in a heartbeat. In terms of actually bringing something artistically new to the table, nuBSG beats DS9 in spades.
No doubt BSG had more originality, but DS9 and BSG are still neck and neck for me, solely because of the consistency. DS9 had 7 seasons, all of which were awesome. BSG only had 4 seasons to start with, and only the first 3 are awesome. So while the concept, characters, originality and direction are in my opinion overall better in BSG, quantity and consistency counts for a lot too. If the last season had been as good as the first 3 then I'd agree 100% with you, but it wasn't.
I find DS9, and VOY boring.
I can't even get all the way through ENT because I get frustrated.
And the one that gets me the most heat...I HATE Wrath of Khan. That is not Khan to me.
Things that I love that tends to get odd looks: I like Season 1 and 2 of TNG, and I LOVE Star Trek Into Darkness. I get even weirder looks regarding the latter of these two when I explain that I love TOS.
It's rather simple for me: my favorite episode of any series is Space Seed and Star Trek Into Darkness is the best present ever to me, because it's the Space Seed episode on steroids.
Lesser fringe tastes: I find the Borg boring and I don't like war or battle plot lines in Star Trek...they just aren't the reason I'm ever thinking, "Oooo, I'm in the mood for Star Trek!"
To me:
TOS is Aristotle in the passenger seat with John Wayne.
TNG is Aristotle in the passenger seat with MacGyver.
Star Trek Into Darkness is Aristotle in the passenger seat with Steve McQueen (hold onto your butts!).
I can't even get all the way through ENT because I get frustrated.
And the one that gets me the most heat...I HATE Wrath of Khan. That is not Khan to me.
Things that I love that tends to get odd looks: I like Season 1 and 2 of TNG, and I LOVE Star Trek Into Darkness. I get even weirder looks regarding the latter of these two when I explain that I love TOS.
It's rather simple for me: my favorite episode of any series is Space Seed and Star Trek Into Darkness is the best present ever to me, because it's the Space Seed episode on steroids.
Lesser fringe tastes: I find the Borg boring and I don't like war or battle plot lines in Star Trek...they just aren't the reason I'm ever thinking, "Oooo, I'm in the mood for Star Trek!"
To me:
TOS is Aristotle in the passenger seat with John Wayne.
TNG is Aristotle in the passenger seat with MacGyver.
Star Trek Into Darkness is Aristotle in the passenger seat with Steve McQueen (hold onto your butts!).
I agree.
I don't generally like most of the movies.
I like TMP, but that's because it's from an era of things like Logan's Run, THX, and 2001 Space Odyssey, Altered States, etc... and I enjoy those slow moving psychological 'thrillers' (ponderings?) and TMP fits right in with that group.
I liked Undescovered Country when I was a kid, but for the life of me I can't get through it now.
I like the reboots pretty well, but no ST movie to me really hits the point of ST for me.
It's just the wrong format because you have to have a narrative story and character arcs and ST, at least to me, is at its best when it's about a broad philosophical topic and not about character narratives.
I think it's like the inverse problem of Star Wars, where a TV show of that would be really damn hard to get right because it's just designed from the foundation around a film setting.
-Spirit Folk is a fun episode and one of the better holodeck episodes
-The Search For Spock is fine, but it's not the best "odd" movie.
-Tapestry is good, but not a top tier episode, mostly because it has two overall themes that are sometimes at odds with eachother
-Voyager season 3 is better than 5-7 and is probably the best third season in the franchise.
-TNG season 7 and DS9 season 2 are also underrated (ironically in the same year)
Since it came up, I also think DS9 and TNG are better than BSG, and the other three series really aren't far behind it.
-The Search For Spock is fine, but it's not the best "odd" movie.
-Tapestry is good, but not a top tier episode, mostly because it has two overall themes that are sometimes at odds with eachother
-Voyager season 3 is better than 5-7 and is probably the best third season in the franchise.
-TNG season 7 and DS9 season 2 are also underrated (ironically in the same year)
Since it came up, I also think DS9 and TNG are better than BSG, and the other three series really aren't far behind it.
Similar threads
