Whatever happened to Starship Exeter?

[Shaw]

Make a list of five other sf tv shows - or movies - that you like and see how much (that is, how little) technobabble is required to make them work.

I don't watch any SciFi other than Trek, but if we remove that arbitrary restriction to SciFi, I can think if a few shows that use a fair amount of technobabble...

Bones
CSI
CSI: Miami
CSI: NY
Numb3rs
NCIS
NCIS: Los Angeles
House​

While I don't think technobabble was needed to play a part in every Trek episode, I think it is quite clear why it wasn't a hindrance either. There is an audience for shows that revolve around a lot of technical jargon... an audience that isn't schooled in that jargon.

I think technobabble has it's place... and as long as it doesn't undercut a good story (or is used as a replacement for an actual story), there shouldn't be any problem with it.

 

[Barbreader]

There is also a lot of technobabble in the (possibly defunct) Sci Fi show, "Lie to Me." Although real scientists are looking at microexpressions and trying to figure out what they mean, the show is based on a guess of what they might be used for. The technobabbel on it is well written.

Similarly, on the medical drama, ER, they used real technobabble.

 

[DestinyCaptain]

It is a process where by molecular structure are reformed using life generating matter of equal mass.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Some early technobabble...

MITCHELL: So, er, so, how go the repairs?

KELSO: Well, the main engines are gone, unless we can find some way to re-energize them.

MITCHELL: You'd better check the starboard impulse packs. Those points have about decayed to lead.

KELSO: Oh, yeah, sure, Mitch.

MITCHELL: I'm not joking, Lee! You activate those packs, and you'll blow the whole impulse deck.

 

[Expo67]

It's a nice thing. I was nominated for a Nebula back in the mists of prehistory, and my prize is that I get to drop that in conversation for the rest of my life every time I feel like attracting undue attention to myself for no good reason - as a deep-dyed narcissist, I find that very satisfying. .

While you won't get any argument from me concerning that admission, I should point out that such egotism can also lead to one's downfall. Look at what has happened to both Mel Gibson and Charlie Sheen as of late. Two artists who had a lot going for them, only to let their successes cloud their judgements. Or as Abraham Lincoln would say 'The better angels of their nature.'

As the Vulcans would say, such illogic and extreme mentalities are distateful and unproductive.

Surely, as an author, you realize that narcissism has its share of dangerous pitfalls.

 

[Expo67]

On the subject of technobabble, it's a blessing that Star Trek(the original series)did not overuse such scientific accuracy and realism.

Unfortunately, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise did. And most of that technobabble did not make any sense, or help the episodes of the aforementioned useless spin-offs under Rick Berman's reign. If anything, all it did was just hinder the episode and made the story boring as hell.

While it is great to use realism in a story, especially science fiction, overusing it(i.e. the technobabble)can just run the story into the ground. That was one of the other reasons why Star Trek entered that period of franchise fatigue after the ratings and box office failures of both DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and Star Trek:Nemesis.

Rick Berman, and to some extent Ronald Moore, obviously did not take their artistic cues from the old school of cinema and television arts. Something that the late Steve McQueen and Paul Newman often used in the perfection of their respective crafts.

That something being 'less is more'.

 

[USS Intrepid]

On the subject of technobabble, it's a blessing that Star Trek(the original series)did not overuse such scientific accuracy and realism.

Unfortunately, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise did. And most of that technobabble did not make any sense, or help the episodes of the aforementioned useless spin-offs under Rick Berman's reign. If anything, all it did was just hinder the episode and made the story boring as hell.

While it is great to use realism in a story, especially science fiction, overusing it(i.e. the technobabble)can just run the story into the ground. That was one of the other reasons why Star Trek entered that period of franchise fatigue after the ratings and box office failures of both DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and Star Trek:Nemesis.

Rick Berman, and to some extent Ronald Moore, obviously did not take their artistic cues from the old school of cinema and television arts. Something that the late Steve McQueen and Paul Newman often used in the perfection of their respective crafts.

That something being 'less is more'.

Neither DS9 or Voyager were the ratings failures you suggest. If they were, they certainly wouldn't have lasted 7 years each. Furthermore, DS9 wasn't a major offender on the technobabble stakes, thought it certainly had its moments. Nor was Enterprise for that matter.

Moore's no fan of technobabble, and if you actually watched his work rather than declaring it worthless based on a narrow cross-section, you'd know that.

 

[Expo67]

Maybe so. However, I have seen Moore's work, and frankly I was not impressed by it. I'll cut him some slack as far as Star Trek:First Contact is concerned, but as for the rest, the less said the better.

As far as DS9 and Voyager's ratings are concerned, perhaps I should have phrased it like this. The ratings were getting lower and lower with each season. Especially after the producers of DS9 tried to steal ideas from their rival Babylon 5(a show that was more fun to watch).

As with Voyager, they were just recycling the same old storyline over and over again. Artistically speaking, nobody wants to view the same thing over and over. That gets as old and dull as stale bread, itself.

The way I look at it, when a show is suffering from ratings that are low(if not poor), and attempts to steal ideas from a rival or recycles storylines that have already been used(just to boost ratings), then you know that the show is in desperate trouble and is destined to become a ratings failure.

And because of that type of mismanagement, it is one of the many reasons why Star Trek went through that dry period before 2009. Rick Berman and the staff at Paramount should have known better and should have taken a different direction. If they had to add something to the franchise, then it should have been a Star Trek series about Captain Sulu and the crew of the Excelsior.

That would have been the better choice, let alone much easier viewing for the fans.

 

[USS Intrepid]

A Captain Sulu show would have been no more successful than any other random crew on a random ship. The core fans are not the people that need to be watching week in, week out. It's Joe and Jane Public, who are unlikely to be any more interested interested in a show about Sulu than they are about anything else.

Could a show about Sulu have worked? Sure, but it's no more or less likely to be successful than any other concept.

The new movie was successful because it catered to non fans and casual viewers. It's no more complex than that.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Especially after the producers of DS9 tried to steal ideas from their rival Babylon 5(a show that was more fun to watch).

Even if the theft was true, and that's a mighty big if, there's no evidence whatsoever that there is any correlation between the timing of any such alleged theft and the decline in ratings of DS9. Its decline in ratings has been discussed elsewhere in TrekBBS, for example in the thread of this post. The decline appears indicative and entirely typical of a trend that encompasses DS9, VOY, and ENT together.

 

[USS Intrepid]

Especially after the producers of DS9 tried to steal ideas from their rival Babylon 5(a show that was more fun to watch).

Even if the theft was true, and that's a mighty big if, there's no evidence whatsoever that there is any correlation between the timing of any such alleged theft and the decline in ratings of DS9. Its decline in ratings has been discussed elsewhere in TrekBBS, for example in the thread of this post. The decline appears indicative and entirely typical of a trend that encompasses DS9, VOY, and ENT together.

It's also little more than speculation. Indeed, a number of the supposed 'thefts' appeared on DS9 long before Babylon 5.

Besides, enjoyment is a purely subjective thing. I can't stand anything B5 after the first 2 seasons. Then again, I also don't expend pointless energy complaining about it. I simply choose not to watch and leave those who do enjoy it to do so.

 

[Potemkin_Prod]

The decline appears indicative and entirely typical of a trend that encompasses DS9, VOY, and ENT together.

And to an extent true of B5, yes? Did its ratings not decline over its run as well? I think that's true of most modern TV series.

A Captain Sulu show would have been no more successful than any other random crew on a random ship. The core fans are not the people that need to be watching week in, week out. It's Joe and Jane Public, who are unlikely to be any more interested interested in a show about Sulu than they are about anything else.

I suspect it would've been a "what other Classic Trek actor will be the guess star this week?" sort of thing with Shatner and Nimoy making appearances during sweeps.

Could a show about Sulu have worked? Sure, but it's no more or less likely to be successful than any other concept.

Honestly, I'm not sure George could have carried the series. His acting at times is just not very good.

The new movie was successful because it catered to non fans and casual viewers. It's no more complex than that.

It was successful simply because it was entertaining, something that ENT and VOY rarely were.

 

[Captain Robert April]

The new movie was successful because it catered to non fans and casual viewers. It's no more complex than that.

In other words, they played to the general public's preconceptions of what Star Trek was all about, so not a lot of foreknowledge was necessary.

If anything, actually knowing something about Star Trek was likely to be more of a detriment than a help.

 

[Barbreader]

The new movie was successful because it catered to non fans and casual viewers. It's no more complex than that.

In other words, they played to the general public's preconceptions of what Star Trek was all about, so not a lot of foreknowledge was necessary.

If anything, actually knowing something about Star Trek was likely to be more of a detriment than a help.

I disagree with this analysis. Star Wars was more financially successful and has more followers. This remade Star Trek as Star Wars.

 

[scifib5st]

Joseph Cambell said that Star Wars was about the "Journey of the Hero"

Roddenberry said Star Trek was about the commom man and woman.

Looking back at the Greek Fables, Aesop's Fables, and Thurber's Fables I see the value of story telling.

The last Star Trek film had to tell a lot of stories to tell to get the ball rolling again. So many they did not finish a few, (like why Cadet Kirk changed the programimg on the "Kobayashi Maru Test" the no win scenario and defending not giving up).

Less lens flair, more story.

Check out the play or movie, 12 Angry Men. Conflict, Cammer angles, counting raised hands. Special effects, one thunder storm.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

In other words, they played to the general public's preconceptions of what Star Trek was all about, so not a lot of foreknowledge was necessary.

If anything, actually knowing something about Star Trek was likely to be more of a detriment than a help.

Abrams and his team focused mainly on the aspects of Star Trek (the original) that were always there — i.e. fun, adventurous and colorful — and focused less on the pretentious sophistry.

In other words, Abrams chose to focus his interpretation of Trek on NBC's demand for "action, adventure or else."

While Abrams may have been a Trek novice, he certainly surrounded himself with people who loved the series, particularly his two screenwriters.

The movie also made the characters once again into people like they were in the first season and not the heroic types they became in the later seasons and into the majority of the TOS movies.

Joseph Cambell said that Star Wars was about the "Journey of the Hero"

Roddenberry said Star Trek was about the commom man and woman.

Perhaps in the early first season of TOS, but that quickly faded in the latter seasons when the characters became heroic tropes. By TNG, the characters were far less the common man and "more evolved" humans with no interpersonal conflicts what so ever.

The common man seemed to be shoved out the airlock in favor of Roddenberry's notion of perfected humanism, which bled away any sense of conflict and internal character struggle in Trek.

The last Star Trek film had to tell a lot of stories to tell to get the ball rolling again. So many they did not finish a few, (like why Cadet Kirk changed the programimg on the "Kobayashi Maru Test" the no win scenario and defending not giving up).

Kirk disagreed with the test fundamentally and sought to prove his point by cheating. That was made clear by Kirk's flippant attitude during the test and in the wonderfully scripted Academy board hearing on his "changing the conditions of the test so it was possible to rescue the ship.'

 

[lennier1]

Perhaps in the early first season of TOS, but that quickly faded in the latter seasons when the characters became heroic tropes. By TNG, the characters were far less the common man and "more evolved" humans with no interpersonal conflicts what so ever.

The common man seemed to be shoved out the airlock in favor of Roddenberry's notion of perfected humanism, which bled away any sense of conflict and internal character struggle in Trek.

And by the late 90's they sacrificed pretty much the last of that, upping the ratings with the "space battle of the week" instead, sprinkled with some stuff from the soap opera rejects box.

 

[USS Intrepid]

It was successful simply because it was entertaining, something that ENT and VOY rarely were.

That's a completely subjective opinion though. Personally I found enjoyment in all three. Of course, I don't consider my personal tastes to be the final word on what is or isn't entertaining. Neither are ratings for that matter. Or box office. They may be an indication of financial success, but neither can be held up as an accurate marker of entertainment. Plenty of bad movies and TV shows have done well. Plenty of good ones have sunk without a trace.

For whatever reasons, people like what they like. Some movies and shows are successful. Some aren't.

The original point I was making, however, was that the movie was successful because it didn't tie itself down in wave after wave of fan service. And yes, it was entertaining, which certainly didn't hurt.

I'll still take First Contact over it any day. But again, that's a completely personal preference.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Voyager's published ratings were comparable to those available for DS9, and since the syndication GAA ratings were calculated differently than those for UPN and the WB it's reasonable to assume that Voyager did as well as DS9 throughout the portions of their runs which overlapped. Personally I found Enterprise a good deal more entertaining and a bit less creatively inbred than most of the rest of what followed TNG.

If anything, actually knowing something about Star Trek was likely to be more of a detriment than a help.

Only if one is really anal and narrowminded about what "knowing something" means. I liked the film and I know as about Star Trek and TOS in particular as any of the people I've read complaining about the Abrams film and more than most of them.

 

[Captain Robert April]

The movie also made the characters once again into people like they were in the first season and not the heroic types they became in the later seasons and into the majority of the TOS movies.

Y'see, it's statements like this that make me wonder just what in the hell you've been watching to come to this conclusion. Pine's Kirk bears no resemblance whatsoever to Shatner's Kirk, regardless of which season or movie, but especially in the first season. The same applies to every other character in varying degrees.