Voyager's main problems
- Thread starter DS9 Gal AZ
- Start date
You've never even attempted to explain my supposed mistake. My supposed mistake nothing more than the refusal to blindly accept your equivocal use of "technobabble" as a valid argument. You can't refute my supposed misrepresentations by clarifying terms, by simply using just one meaning for technobabble, because your "argument" is nothing but an equivocation.
Voyager is a television series. A purely arbitrary distinction between "writing" and "production" may be convenient for your polemic purposes but it is not a valid distinction in this context. For, as you well know, the script probably had a stage direction like "ODO morphs into a small table." Also, plot device is a key part of narrative and thus is never filler, no matter what you say. You may define your terms for purposes of discussion but you cannot honestly give contradictory definitions for the same terms. And insisting on this power is both arrogant and foolish.
After I've repeatedly objected that switching between contradictory meanings of technobabble invalidates the argument, I rather expected an honest discussant to at least try to answer that objection. So I read this post in context as a response to discussion. My mistake, as it is shamefully obvious you have no intention nor ability to respond.
Technobabble that sets up a dilemma for the characters is story progressive dialogue! To say its in place of story progressive dialogue is just stupid. In any event, self contradiction is not an argument nor a theme of an argument. It has been very generous of me to bother to try to explain, when you plainly are not interested in understanding. If you're worried about me misunderstanding you, pick just one meaning for technobabble and use that meaning in your explanation of how that particular technobabble is a main problem for the Voyager series.
Your problem is really very simple. If you pick "substitute for a proper dramatic resolution," it simply is not true that this was a major problem in Voyager. If you pick "nonsense," first, how can you separate this problem from the other scientific nonsense, and worse, how can you attack
Voyager for this but praise other Trek series. If you pick "stilted exposition," some of the worst stilted exposition doesn't involve technobabble! Finally, if you pick "big words," you sound like an ignorant ass. The only way you can seem to win is to arbitrarily switch from one meaning to another as convenient to your purpose, which is most certainly not understanding. Getting indignant because you can't make phony arguments doesn't reflect well on you.
But you haven't said anything. You've contradicted yourself, so what you say adds up to nothing. I've said things, so you could try to respond. So far as feeling hurt because you've been ignored goes, try making original criticisms, like I did. I could live with the pain, such as it was.
Last edited:
A
Amaris
Guest
You're wrong. TV Tropes.com recognizes that there are various forms of technobabble. According to TVTropes.org:
VOY is guilty of this. Just one example is Parallax. It happens very early in the show's debut (episode 3), and it's just chock full of technobabble, particularly in the first couple of minutes. The plot is Scotch Tape, and the solution is Polarity Reversal. I mean, we're three episodes in, and already the technobabble is thick into the plot. It was the first impression I had when I watched it last week.
Sorry, you're wrong about that, too. I'm not being polemic, I'm giving you my first impressions on watching a show I haven't seen in a decade. I have watched TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9 and ENT. As I'm watching VOY, the technobabble just really stands out. TNG engaged in technobabble, sure, but even only 3 seasons in, VOY takes the cake. It's like massive parts of each script was filled with [TECH] and left for people to fill in. You seem to have made up your own definitions to these well established terms.
You say "plot device is a key part of narrative and thus is never filler, no matter what you say." Well, TV Tropes disagrees with you:
Filler
Deus Ex Machina
Filler can be used as a plot device, and has been used as one enough that it registers on TV Tropes' website. There's also a surfeit of examples spread throughout television in general, so there's no fathomable reason why you would think plot devices can't be filler. Really, you should read Jammer's reviews on VOY. They're very well done: Jammer's Reviews VOY.
What are you talking about? I'm talking about a television show. You seem to have picked up a grander cause of which I was unaware. It's just a TV show. Relax.
See the examples I listed above regarding "Scotch Tape", "Deus ex Machina", and "Polarity Reversal".
Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not getting indignant. Remember, it's just a TV show. Relax.
What are you talking about? If your goal is to make one giant non-sequitur post, you have succeeded. If your goal was to clarify your position, you have failed.But you haven't said anything. You've contradicted yourself, so what you say adds up to nothing. I've said things, so you could try to respond. So far as feeling hurt because you've been ignored goes, try making original criticisms, like I did. I could live with the pain, such as it was.
A
Amaris
Guest
The name is Benny, sir..................and you're stepping on my sketch.
Look, the truth is that technobabble can be used to create great stories.
DS9's "The Visitor"? The explanation for what happened to Sisko and why he kept appearing to Jake was pure technobabble, and no one cared.
So if the story is good enough folks won't care.
Its' just that in VOY's case folks just didn't care, no matter how good the writing was or how much technobabble was in said episode.
DS9's "The Visitor"? The explanation for what happened to Sisko and why he kept appearing to Jake was pure technobabble, and no one cared.
So if the story is good enough folks won't care.
Its' just that in VOY's case folks just didn't care, no matter how good the writing was or how much technobabble was in said episode.
That's clearly not the point that's being made.
Its when lines and lines of dialogue are filled with technobabble that does nothing to expand the story that's already been outlined for us that's the problem.
Its when lines and lines of dialogue are filled with technobabble that does nothing to expand the story that's already been outlined for us that's the problem.
A
Amaris
Guest
No. A line of technobabble explained what happened. The story is popular because of the heart involved between the characters of Jake and Benjamin Sisko. Technobabble is used to supplement the story. There is a huge difference between technobabble being used to tweak a story, and using technobabble as the cause, plot device, and resolution of the story.
Or, to put it another way:
DS9's "The Visitor":
Melanie: [on Ben Sisko's accident] "I'm not sure I could ever get over losing somebody like that; right in front of my eyes."
Adult Jake Sisko: "People do. Time passes, and they realize that the person they lost is really gone. And they heal."
Melanie: "Is that what happened to you?"
Adult Jake Sisko: "No - I suppose not."
VOY's "Parallax":
Janeway: [TECH]
Belana: [TECH]
Do you see why the first is so popular? It's because the heart of the story is about the characters. In the example for "Parallax" (which I use because I have mentioned it before in this thread), it's not about the characters, it's about filling dialogue with nonsensical quasi-scientific terminology to push the story. It's lazy writing.
Yep.
VOY had a great episode in "Living Witness" that told a great tale about revisionist history and was driven by the EMH's character.
Did anyone care or enjoy it? No, they did nothing but complain about the technobabble used to justify the EMH's existence in that future world (the backup copy).
Did anyone care or enjoy it? No, they did nothing but complain about the technobabble used to justify the EMH's existence in that future world (the backup copy).
People love that episode o.O
In my experience, most people are more than happy to accept that small contrivance for the great episode that we got.
Did Harry ever delete the one he was trying to make in "Message....."
Did the EMH in "LW" mention or display any medical knowledge?
Grasping at straws son.
If his personality was incomplete, then he couldn't be tried for the warcrimes of his duplicate, because he wasn't the same person.
If his personality was incomplete, then he couldn't be tried for the warcrimes of his duplicate, because he wasn't the same person.
Because it directly contradicts a major story point in a previous episode? Having said that, "Living Witness" is one of the most-positively cited episodes of Star Trek: Voyager that I've seen here, and that plot contrivance doesn't come up as often as you suggest.
Everything changed after futures End.
The back up module was probably a mobile emitter as best as 24th century could build it using 29th century software.
Of course that's still cut and past, and not copy and paste.
The back up module was probably a mobile emitter as best as 24th century could build it using 29th century software.
Of course that's still cut and past, and not copy and paste.
If people really enjoyed that episode at all, then that complaint wouldn't be mentioned by anyone.
That folks complain about it proves that they care more about petty, meaningless things like "No EMH backups" than a well-acted meaningful story.
Which makes all the love for "The Visitor" nothing but unfair double standard. It uses technobabble to justify its' story and folks are a-okay with that. "Living Witness" uses next to no technobabble to justify its story and folks just won't shut up.
You can't win.
Similar threads
