I think that you guys should stop that nitpicking and instead, talk about *real* technobabble... I'm remembering Flare how it has been 1.5 years ago: Borg power theories, Voy technobabble etc... We really should be *tech* forumers, not nitpickers.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Give us a chance! We're trapped with one series (that's currently stuck in reruns, no less) and lots of backstory we simply don't know yet. As for Voyager, it was so inconsistent that picking it apart was *fun*. The current series has yet to have that. Good thing in terms of people liking it; bad in terms of us trying to explain it.
Mark
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I don't see how some of you could have any less of a life...
Posted by Nevod (Member # 738) on :
Huhh... But why not start talking about technobabble? ANY technobabble? And one series DOESN'T matter. You can start any technobabble.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Good idea, Nevod. And since you're so concerend about it, why don't you start yourself.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
First off, there's no such thing as real technobabble. Technobabble is just that.. babble. Technology (or Treknology) is that extended form of explanation that makes sense and doesnt insult the intelligence of the viewer/reader/forum member.
So to review Technobabble: stupid, fake, makes Star Trek bad. Technology: intelligent, real, makes science-fiction good.
Now when discussing technology as it relates to Star Trek,we have to talk about Star Trek. That means observing the shows and making conclusions based on what we see. If we see that theyve made a mistake or something else that shouldnt be, then we HAVE to nitpick it. For there is no separating Tech-talk and nitpicking (especially where Voyager is concerned!) and dont get me started on the canon problems created when you use 'U.S.S. DeFint rockx' websites as sources....
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
That's not true. "Technobabble" just means techincal terminology that people outside the field aren't likely to understand.
Haven't you ever heard the similar term "psychobabble"?
Posted by Michael_T (Member # 144) on :
I think this suggestion has been mentioned in many ways before. And since it is not a capital crime here, it will not be enforced that heavily... unless Charles commands it.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
TSN: You were thinking of Q weren't you? When he talked to Picard in AGT about Troi's "pedantic psychobabble".
I kind of like the notion Nevod seems to imply. Some of our threads have become rather "bickery" recently, especially with the "Enterprise War" between the Give-it-a-chance and the This-series-sucks factions. But I enjoy the nitpicking aspect! Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
*sigh* I remember the good ol' days of Flare, when we would point out "Hey! Is that a Yeager in the background?" or "What registry does that ship have?" Now it's "warp drive" this and "Enterprise shuttles" that. Anyway, that's just me, but those threads were the best.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
You want technobabble!?! What is the denorious belt!?! What exactly was Vertiform City? Was it a white dwarf that had a large supply of verteron??? particals?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Actually, TSN, the common definition of "technobabble" that I'm aware of is not just jargon, but meaningless jargon.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Veers: Back in those days, we still had DS9 to give us new ships to talk about. Once that was gone, all we had was VOY, w/ nothing but alien-of-the-week ships. And ENT isn't likely to have much more than that, either. Not on a regular basis, anyway.
And, according to the Oxford English Dictionary:
technobabblecolloq. (orig. U.S.) [after psychobabble], outlandish or pretentious (pseudo-)scientific jargon.
1981People Weekly (U.S.) 28 Dec. 134/1 To help separate technology from *technobabble, People turned to Tracy Kidder, 36, whose book The Soul of a New Machine describes the building of a new computer. 1984Consumer Electronics Apr. A6/4 Standardization is very critical to reduce the fear factor that exists with computers, the sheer amount of technobabble. 1986 E. L. SCACE in T. C. Bartee Digital Communications iii. 98 Network terminations 1 and 2 are technobabble left over from early phases of ISDN discussions. 1989Precision Marketing 6 Mar. (Suppl.) 18/1 (Advt.), Never mind the technicalities..if you look for more sophistication, you're liable to be blinded with geodemographispeak and technobabble.
As you can see, it's used for both real scientific jargon, and "pseudo-scientific" jargon.
[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Now we're all nitpicking the meaning of the word "Technobabble"
I think you may have proved Nevod's point for him.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Exactly what I mean. We tend to get away from the main subject of a thread very quickly these days and start bickering about items that are not in any way relevant or important. Sigh...
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
all you are doing is nitpicking the way we nitpick,, and i feel like picking a nit with that, let me tell you
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:And ENT isn't likely to have much more than that, either. Not on a regular basis, anyway.
Yes, especially since Enterprise's budget has been cut, and most of the rest of Season One will be bottle shows. I doubt we'll even see any other Earth Starfleet vessels, except for re-uses of the Enterprise whenever they build more NX class ships.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Was Enterprise's budget cut? Or was it more like, "listen, we spent a great deal of cash on the first few episodes then we budgeted, and now we need to recoup from later episodes. You'll get it back next season."
Bottle shows? Shit. Many of DS9's early episodes were bottle shows, and from any of TOS, TNG, and VOY, you'll find TONS of bottle shows.
Why do people make them out to be horrible ... ?
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
What is a bottle show?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
A bottle show is an episode of Star trek (or any TV series for that matter) that takes place with no 'gimmicks' entirely on the main sets with only the main characters (or only one or two guest stars or new sets anyway) its used to save money because there are no guest stars to pay, no new sets to build and no new models, art, etc. to be created. While people criticize bottle shows because they are created because of budgetary concerns, there have been some good ones, such as 'The Doomsday Machine' (which took place entirely on Enterprise sets with one guest star).
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
"Duet" as well.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
But let's not forget that "Doomsday Machine" had a real model instead of the standard blur. Even the Klingons got blurred a few times.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"The Doomsday Machine" not only had a model of the Constellation (admittedly just a model kit w/ some burns on it), it also had the planet killer itself, and the VFX that went w/ it.
Posted by G.K Nimrod (Member # 205) on :
In that case, my latest hate-ep: VOY Human Error. Everything gets totally shot-to-hell for Seven, ending the episode cry-baby style, with "well if it's that difficult then let's stop developing human-skills altogether".
It seemed like a chickenshit way for the writers to save themselves the trouble of having to write more Seven-developing eps. It was so depressing, like the writers said "Well that's as far as you'll get, seven, not that we thought you'd succeed in the first place. Hope you had fun (although the concept is foreign to you), now go back to the algorithms..."
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)