Why TECHNOBABBLE?

[RobertScorpio]

Why technobabble

We often hear from fans, and actors/prodcuers, of later TREK series that the shows got bogged down with Technobabble. The later shows would try to explain their science with technobabble. They credit this to their JPL advisors or whatever...

But why did Technobabble flurish? Some of the fans of TREK, some on this site even, are as fluent at babble as Colm Meany! So it is clear it is liked by some of us.

I have seen posts on this site where people have actually attacked TOS for not having enough technobabble. And so, because of the lack of real science data to back the episodes up, they fall short.

So I ask you...where do you stand on Technobabble...

ROB SCORPIO

 

[StolenThunder]

Please stop capitalising the majority of your titles. I have reminded you before that it is considered poor netiquette.

 

[Forbin]

Either it was a crutch for writers who couldn't think of a good dramatic way to resolve the situation, or the producrers actually thought the fans liked it. Or both. Either is depressing.

 

[Forbin]

Please stop capitalising the majority of your titles. I have reminded you before that it is considered poor netiquette.

Is that what that other thread is about? The end of capitalism in the ST universe...?

 

[RobertScorpio]

Scooby doo

 

[Michael]

Oh boy.

 

[captcalhoun]

KTHXBYE!

 

[B'Elanna]

I never understood why people though there was too much technobabble. The show was set in the FUTURE! What did you want them to do, turn a few screws with a wrench? I can do that now, I like Trek because it's futuristic

 

[Michael]

I never understood why people though there was too much technobabble.

Uhm, because there was.

The show was set in the FUTURE!

So what? Just because a show is set in the future doesn't mean technobabble should be the solution for everything. It's just weak drama.

What did you want them to do, turn a few screws with a wrench?

Exactly.

 

[blaXXer]

Please stop capitalising the majority of your titles. I have reminded you before that it is considered poor netiquette.

Thank you! It was kinda annoying.

 

[EmoVulcan]

Technotalk usually isn't needed. You don't need to explain everything and all Star Trek does is explain.
It's like what Futurama said.

"Fry: Usually in the show, they come up with a complicated plan and explained it with a simple analogy.
Leela: Hmmm... If we could reconfigure the ship's engines to Melllvar's frequency, we could disrupt his matter.
Bender: Like blowing too much air in a balloon!
Fry: Of course! It's all so simple!"

These got ridiculously too frequent. Heck technobabble doesn't actually do anything to add to the show 98% of the time. There are tons of shows and movies out there with a futuristic setting that NEVER do it and still own.
I always viewed it as a waste of time for Trek when the time could be spent better on the characters or plots. I wouldn't complain if the science were believable half the time but usually it's either completely out there or something that's been done 10x already on Trek (like the balloon thing or souring the milk, etc).

 

[Carpe Occasio]

I never understood why people though there was too much technobabble. The show was set in the FUTURE! What did you want them to do, turn a few screws with a wrench? I can do that now, I like Trek because it's futuristic

There was so much technobabble because they had to legitimize the outrageous plot lines and actions of the crew. All the tech-speak makes it sound like it could really happen.

 

[Gotham Central]

I think the problem is that some people don't get the difference between technobable and technospeak. Technospeak is the jargon of the trade. Its real science and is used to enhance the plot. Most proceedural shows use it in some form. From CSI to Law & Order, they are the laws/rules which govern the world in some manner.

Technobable is essentially made up stuff used to legitimize to some element of the ploot no matter how outrageous.

Neither is bad when sprinkled throughout a story to give it a bit of color. However, late Trek stoped using it as simple color and turned the TB into the main plot. When technobable becomes both the main plot and the solution its no longer color, its lazy writing.

 

[RobertScorpio]

No..I over reacted...my bad..i wont do it any more..i could see how it would be annoying


Rob
scorpio

 

[Balthier the Great]

I never understood why people though there was too much technobabble. The show was set in the FUTURE! What did you want them to do, turn a few screws with a wrench? I can do that now, I like Trek because it's futuristic

Just because it's in TEH FUTURZ doesn't mean that you need to explain every single step of the way exactly what is going on. I'll point to CSI as an example of good use of technical stuff. Yes they do a lot of techno-wizardry and weird tests. But they rarely if ever discuss how the tests work -- they usually say run X-test, or run that through trace, etc. and go pretty much straight to the results. Basicly they show without telling all the time. It's a lot more dramatic that way, because it's actually MORE realistic.

Yes, Star Trek is the future -- to YOU. To the characters that populate that environment, the technology is actually modern to slightly outdated. They would no more explain why "reversing the polarity" is a good idea than you'd explain "defragging your hard drive." It's just the background noise of the world. And your automechanic doesn't necessarily explain to the other mechanics exactly what he's doing as he's doing it.

Honestly, it's padding and false drama. The drama should come from the situation. It should be dramatic because the engineer has 10 minutes to do a 20 minute job and it's a delicate opperation where a mistake could cause an explosion. Not because the engineer is randomly shouting technical words while punching buttons.

 

[Michael]

I never understood why people though there was too much technobabble. The show was set in the FUTURE! What did you want them to do, turn a few screws with a wrench? I can do that now, I like Trek because it's futuristic

Just because it's in TEH FUTURZ doesn't mean that you need to explain every single step of the way exactly what is going on. I'll point to CSI as an example of good use of technical stuff. Yes they do a lot of techno-wizardry and weird tests. But they rarely if ever discuss how the tests work -- they usually say run X-test, or run that through trace, etc. and go pretty much straight to the results. Basicly they show without telling all the time. It's a lot more dramatic that way, because it's actually MORE realistic.

Yes, Star Trek is the future -- to YOU. To the characters that populate that environment, the technology is actually modern to slightly outdated. They would no more explain why "reversing the polarity" is a good idea than you'd explain "defragging your hard drive." It's just the background noise of the world. And your automechanic doesn't necessarily explain to the other mechanics exactly what he's doing as he's doing it.

Honestly, it's padding and false drama. The drama should come from the situation. It should be dramatic because the engineer has 10 minutes to do a 20 minute job and it's a delicate opperation where a mistake could cause an explosion. Not because the engineer is randomly shouting technical words while punching buttons.

Ding, Ding, Ding! Winner.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

I never understood why people though there was too much technobabble. The show was set in the FUTURE! What did you want them to do, turn a few screws with a wrench? I can do that now, I like Trek because it's futuristic

Just because it's in TEH FUTURZ doesn't mean that you need to explain every single step of the way exactly what is going on. I'll point to CSI as an example of good use of technical stuff. Yes they do a lot of techno-wizardry and weird tests. But they rarely if ever discuss how the tests work -- they usually say run X-test, or run that through trace, etc. and go pretty much straight to the results. Basicly they show without telling all the time. It's a lot more dramatic that way, because it's actually MORE realistic.

Yes, Star Trek is the future -- to YOU. To the characters that populate that environment, the technology is actually modern to slightly outdated. They would no more explain why "reversing the polarity" is a good idea than you'd explain "defragging your hard drive." It's just the background noise of the world. And your automechanic doesn't necessarily explain to the other mechanics exactly what he's doing as he's doing it.

Honestly, it's padding and false drama. The drama should come from the situation. It should be dramatic because the engineer has 10 minutes to do a 20 minute job and it's a delicate opperation where a mistake could cause an explosion. Not because the engineer is randomly shouting technical words while punching buttons.

Yeah, but isn't CSI a bad example. Yes, the science is real but it's done in a ridiculus time frame. DNA tests take weeks not hours. Fingerprint comparisons take days not minutes. Getting and searching phone records doesn't happen with just a phone call (yes, that was meant to be funny). Star Trek technoevents happen super fast. Everything is over before a human could normally even form a plan. The need to maintain an exciting pace makes for an unrealistic time frame.

 

[EmoVulcan]

Just wait for the next CSI series.

"CSI: Realistic Time Frame"

The first season finale will leave us wondering if we'll finally get that DNA test we ordered way back in episode 1.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

Just wait for the next CSI series.

"CSI: Realistic Time Frame"

The first season finale will leave us wondering if we'll finally get that DNA test we ordered way back in episode 1.

Yeah, it's a Catch-22 situation. TV doesn't work in real time, but TV time is so unbelievable.

 

[Forbin]

When my boss tells me she needs an org chart done for a meeting in a hour, I don't reply, "I'll do my best, ma'am. I'll activate my 3GHz Dell Pentium 4 PC, launch Microsoft Powerpoint, access the standard corporate presentation template stored on the Company Intranet Graphics site and use the INSERT/ORG CHART menu item to create the basic chart! From there on, of course, it becoms more difficult... I'll need specific peoples' names and titles, and need to determine their managerial heirarchy. I"ll also need to know the department requesting this job for purposes of charging my time.

The real conversation:
HER: "HR needs an org chart. Here's a sketch."
ME: "Okay."
Boss goes about her business, 15 minutes later I turn in the finished chart and jot down the time on my time sheet with the Human Resources charge number that I know so well.