ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Treknobabble

trekkiefan3000

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 293

Report this Mar. 13 2010, 11:12 am

http://maycontainnuts.me.uk/treknobabble/default.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGAahDeceHI

 
:question:
:question:

TheDriver

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1652

Report this Mar. 13 2010, 12:08 pm

Ha. The example from "Rascals" was perfect.

Thankfully, Behr and Moore steered clear of that kind of pseudo-scientific (i.e., lazy) writing on DS9.

trekkiefan3000

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 293

Report this Mar. 13 2010, 12:11 pm

My ten year old brother was LOLing at it. The First Contact part scared him because he hates the borg!
Code Sample
LOL

tribblenator999

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3818

Report this Mar. 13 2010, 8:04 pm

the reason why the new trek movie and TOS/TOS movies are the best. no treknobabble. Enterprise was pretty good at steering clear of the treknobabble.

Hawklord

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1432

Report this Mar. 13 2010, 8:06 pm

Quote (TheDriver @ Mar. 13 2010, 12:08 pm)
Ha. The example from "Rascals" was perfect.

Thankfully, Behr and Moore steered clear of that kind of pseudo-scientific (i.e., lazy) writing on DS9.

And, apart from a small bit in the mini-series, BSG had none, either.

trekkiefan3000

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 293

Report this Mar. 13 2010, 8:18 pm

It makes my brain hurt.

trekkiefan3000

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 293

Report this Mar. 13 2010, 9:02 pm

I love when he's like "How bout Quantum f**k farts?"

TheDriver

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1652

Report this Mar. 13 2010, 10:43 pm

Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ Mar. 13 2010, 11:48 pm)
The example in Rascals was used as an insult towards TNG to be quite honest.

Oh, I get that. :cool:

chr3335

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7914

Report this Mar. 14 2010, 9:47 am

Quote
Calling technobable lazy writing because it takes a lot of work to make up words that sound realistic.
 Except they don't sound realistic it just comes off as a string of unrelated science terms massed together.

captbates

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 12614

Report this Mar. 14 2010, 10:16 am

Quote (TheDriver @ Mar. 12 2010, 5:08 pm)
Ha. The example from "Rascals" was perfect.

Thankfully, Behr and Moore steered clear of that kind of pseudo-scientific (i.e., lazy) writing on DS9.

The Enterprise had been taken over by the Ferengi, Riker was just making that stuff up, in a sense he was using "technobabble" to confuse the ferengi so that he didn't know what was going on.



I don't have a problem with Technobabble, most of it is made to sound plausable to people who watch sci-fi and have a "basic" understanding of science.
Eg. some of the technobabble is based on theories we have about the universe and then given a fictional take.

Most of the clips shown are BS, the one with Data was just an encryption code, no different to us using a pin number. And the clip with Scotty is based on science we already understand. I don't think the guy doing the videos knows what he's talking about, best ignored.  ;)

TheDriver

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1652

Report this Mar. 14 2010, 12:42 pm

Quote (captbates @ Mar. 14 2010, 1:16 pm)
Quote (TheDriver @ Mar. 12 2010, 5:08 pm)
Ha. The example from "Rascals" was perfect.

The Enterprise had been taken over by the Ferengi, Riker was just making that stuff up, in a sense he was using "technobabble" to confuse the ferengi so that he didn't know what was going on.

Ah. Well, it's been a long time since I've seen the episode.

Regardless, that sort of thing was fairly common on TNG. And it always sounded ridiculous.

lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this Mar. 14 2010, 9:08 pm

I would have thought that the ten best examples of technobabble would've have been from VGR as it ran with what TNG did. The examples used were quite poor and very easy to follow if watched in context (actually out of context too). The example with Scotty is a joke, it's a stretch to say that the original series has technobabble. If you can call something unobtainium, dilithium crystals are by no means a stretch of the imagination.

I love technobabble. It's got rhythm. To quote MrsStarbuck, who observed quite nicely, "Technobabble is modern day Shakespeare." I think it's ironic that critics accuse Trekkies/Trekkers of focusing and becoming absorbed with the details and yet complain about technobabble. Most of my friends, who know Trek by heart,just treat the technobabble as a transitive tool to get from one point to the next. Does this make it a plot hole or a contrivance? I do not believe so. It's used largely by characters who are scientists and engineers. It enhances the perception of their experience and depth of knowledge. Even though the words may be fabricated, they mean something to the characters. It shows our heroes have their neurons firing on full and making important connections within science (as they know it).

MrsStarbuck

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4329

Report this Mar. 15 2010, 11:39 am

Quote (lostshaker @ Mar. 14 2010, 3:08 am)
To quote MrsStarbuck, who observed quite nicely, "Technobabble is modern day Shakespeare."

Nice quote ;)

Although I'd just like to clarify what I meant when I said this (not to you Lostshaker, but to the thread in general in case anyone misunderstands me).

I was not trying to compare technobabble to Shakespeare in a literary sense. But in a thread where people were commenting how offputting it was to hear an actor speak in technobabble, or how the actors themselves had said that it was difficult dialogue to work with, my point was that it's comparable to hearing an actor perform a Shakespeare piece ie. you may not understand every word that they're saying, but if they're a good actor (like Kate Mulgrew for example) then you can still get the feel for what they mean without having to comprehend every syllable.

Also, like Lostshaker said above, the technobabble brings a lot to the mood of the scene, just like how Shakespearian dialogue gives a particular 'feel' or 'tone'.

It's like when I watch medical dramas like Casualty...when they're in the ED and are throwing around loads of medical-speak, to me it sounds completely realistic, but if I watch the show with anyone who's medically trained then they usually tend to pick holes in everything that's said. But, for the average viewer I think it works to 'set the scene' as it were.

My only real complaint with technobabble would be, as chr3335 says, it tends to be made up of unrelated science terms strung together. I'm currently roleplaying as an engineer in an online Trek game, and quite often I'll have a look on Memory Alpha for some impressively-named tool I can use in my 'repairs'...but the names of the tools quite often don't match up to what they're actually used for...and I think that's the only time that I don't like the technobabble, because...as Spock would say...it's not always logical.

MrsStarbuck

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4329

Report this Mar. 15 2010, 12:31 pm

Quote (trekbuff @ Mar. 14 2010, 6:25 pm)
I really didn't want to get involved with this topic, but there seems to be some confusion with Trek and how it related to real science and how it gradually became so much made up nonsense for a given plot device.

Here's something from the S&T board I recently posted:
Quote (trekbuff @ Mar. 15 2010, 11:33 am)
Star Trek, as invisioned by Gene Roddenberry, was based on and extrapolated from real science. This is evidenced by how much of what was once science fiction in Star Trek has actually come to us in the real world.

Rick Berman had the luxury of having many of the same writers in ST:TNG after GR passed. The actors of the series had come to understand some of GR's vision for the Trek saga. But, later in TNG (Braga?), we began to see fantasy and made-up psudo-science creep into Trek. Voyager was the absolute worse Trek series with much made up Treknobabble.

Now we add STXI into the mix. STXI was full of utter scientific nonsense and Abrams didn't even try. Abrams didn't want his Trek to be a "talkie geekfest"? Fine. But he didn't even get much the real science right. Abrams even gave us a morphing NCC-1701 to suit the particular scene involved and its dimensional inconsistancies made no sense.

Enterprise was also disappointing with some things having little or no basis in real science and often ignored real science for the sake of fantasy entertainment, something Trek should never have become...

I don't think many people are confused about this TB. It seems in this thread like a lot of people have lain the blame for technobabble mostly with Voyager, and certainly not with the Roddenberry era and TOS.

From my own personal standpoint though, like I said above, it doesn't bother me too much if it's not 'real' science, as long as it makes sense within the context of the story they're trying to tell (although I'm not claiming that Trek always achieves even this). After all, if I want real science then I'll watch a documentary, or pull out one of my old textbooks ;)

MrsStarbuck

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4329

Report this Mar. 15 2010, 1:20 pm

Quote (trekbuff @ Mar. 14 2010, 7:08 pm)
My sincere impression is that many folks see real science as technobabble and many newer Trek fans don't know the difference between real science and the made up Treknobabble of later Trek. The sad thought is too many Trek fans no longer seem to know or even care that there is a difference between science fiction and science fantasy.

Kate Mulgrew is the one I particularly remember talking about it being a different language. When I first heard her say that my thoughts were that it was a different language in Voyager because so much of it was made up nonsense with little or no foundation in real science.

Technology need not be incoherent, nonsensical babble to set a mood. The Heisenberg compensators mentioned in Relm of Fear helped set the mood and is based on real science.

It is my opinion that lazy, ignorant and complacent writing and production is at least part of what led to the decline in the popularity of Trek.

Trek need not be a science class which I never even slightly suggested. I do feel it would have been much better to have continued to at least attempt to use real science and what could be possible in the future when writing for Trek. Your final comment is a weak defense for what Trek had become. I'd rather hear Heisenberg compensator and know that it has a foundation in real science than some made up explaination which would require more made up nonsense later. That is exactly part of what Ron Moore complained about.

Fair point TB :)

Although I think it's a little unfair of you to target the new fans as being the ones who "don't know the difference between real science and the made up".

I for one certainly know the difference between science-fiction and science-fantasy...although it would indeed be fair to say that I'm one of the people who don't care.

That's not to say I don't care about real science, because I do. I love science, I have a science degree, and I find it fascinating. I just don't always look for it in my entertainment. For me personally, if a story is engaging, the characters likeable, and the science at least makes sense within the fictional 'verse that the story is set in, then I'm fairly happy.

Nothing against people for whom this kind of thing DOES matter though, each to their own :)

And just a final comment on Kate Mulgrew. For what it's worth, I think she pulls off talking the technobabble beautifully, and could certainly make me believe that what she's saying is real while I'm watching the show ;)

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum