Trekkers Only! : The Best Thing About the JJverse
Re: The Best Thing About the JJverse
Oh, yeah, it's so great the way Abrams dumbed everything down, and ditch anything resembling an attempt at internal logic or rational thought....
There has certainly never been a piece of technobabble, or comparable fictional device in Star Trek that has inspired any kind of interest in science by any viewer, nor the development of real world technologies derived from elements of those concepts.
"I'm in it for the power and the free robes." - Harry Stone
There has certainly never been a piece of technobabble, or comparable fictional device in Star Trek that has inspired any kind of interest in science by any viewer, nor the development of real world technologies derived from elements of those concepts.
"I'm in it for the power and the free robes." - Harry Stone
Re: The Best Thing About the JJverse
Oh, yeah, it's so great the way Abrams dumbed everything down
funny i think that's what's wrong with these movies. The effects and acting are all good, but the storyline is so fking stupid i just can't enjoy it.
it may not have 'technobabble' solutions, but it does have 'science fartion' (sounds 'sciencey' but is *beep*
"He's dusted, busted and disgusted, but he's ok"
Re: The Best Thing About the JJverse
You got that I was being sarcastic, yeah?
"I'm in it for the power and the free robes." - Harry Stone
"I'm in it for the power and the free robes." - Harry Stone
Re: The Best Thing About the JJverse
Oh, yeah, it's so great the way Abrams dumbed everything down, and ditch anything resembling an attempt at internal logic or rational thought....
There has certainly never been a piece of technobabble, or comparable fictional device in Star Trek that has inspired any kind of interest in science by any viewer, nor the development of real world technologies derived from elements of those concepts
Nice one, stargazer.
If you see exactly what to do don't tell ME! I'm just a singer in a rock&roll band!
Re: The Best Thing About the JJverse
The best thing about Jar Jar Abrams universe is how he's managed to turn Star Trek into something like Transformers. Why bother with well thought out, intelligent sci-fi, which contextualizes and explores relevant issues by weaving them throughout the narrative. We can just stare at fast moving shinny objects and watch crap blow up, while we eat some popcorn.
The second best thing is that there's only 6 hours of it. With each movie costing more and making less, hopefully they won't make many more.
No Sitcoms! No Sports! No Reality!
The second best thing is that there's only 6 hours of it. With each movie costing more and making less, hopefully they won't make many more.
No Sitcoms! No Sports! No Reality!
Re: The Best Thing About the JJverse
In response to both the people here defending technobabble, there was nothing "intelligent" about technobabble. It was called babble because it was incoherent and was pretty much there to trick the majority of the audience that didn't know anything about science/technology into thinking something important was happening. The writers themselves even admitted that it became a crutch and they just used it as a cheap way to resolve stories. On the original teleplays they would just write *technobabble* in the midst of lines of dialogue, because what was being said had no real significance. If you get Geordi rambling on about dilithium crystals confused for real hard sci-fi you are badly mistaken.
TOS was pretty much technobabble free as well. TNG had it and gets a lot of flak for it, but it wasn't nearly as bad there as on the later shows, particularly Voyager and the early episodes of Enterprise, where entire episodes would be resolved through people talking nonsense about fake science.
Technobabble isn't the part of Star Trek that has inspired real scientists. The broader technological concepts that Star Trek introduced did, but not the made-up minutia that has no basis on anything real. A little bit of that is fine if it's necessary to tell a story, but you shouldn't be building entire episodes/movies around it, as got to be the case later in the Berman/Braga era.
Here is what Ronald D. Moore had to say about technobabble in Star Trek-
TOS was pretty much technobabble free as well. TNG had it and gets a lot of flak for it, but it wasn't nearly as bad there as on the later shows, particularly Voyager and the early episodes of Enterprise, where entire episodes would be resolved through people talking nonsense about fake science.
Technobabble isn't the part of Star Trek that has inspired real scientists. The broader technological concepts that Star Trek introduced did, but not the made-up minutia that has no basis on anything real. A little bit of that is fine if it's necessary to tell a story, but you shouldn't be building entire episodes/movies around it, as got to be the case later in the Berman/Braga era.
Here is what Ronald D. Moore had to say about technobabble in Star Trek-
"How many space anomalies of the week can you really stomach? How many time paradoxes can you do? When I was studying the show, getting ready to work on it, I was watching the episodes, and the technobabble was just enervating; it was just soul sapping. Vast chunks of scenes would go by, and I had no idea what was going on. I write this stuff; I live this stuff. I do know the difference between the shields and the deflectors, and the ODN conduits and plasma tubes. If I canât tell whatâs going on, I know the audience has no idea whatâs going on. Everyone will say the same thing. From the top down, you bring up this point, and everybody will say, âI am the biggest opponent of techno-babble. I hate technobabble. I am the one who is always saying, less technobabble.â They all say that. None of them do it. Iâve always felt that you never impress the audience. The audience doesnât sit there and go, âGod damn, they know science. That is really cool. Look how they figured that out. Hey Edna! Come here. You want to see how Chakotay is going to figure this out. Heâs onto this thing with the quantum tech particles; itâs really interesting. I donât know how he is going to do it, but he is going to reroute something. Oh my God, he found the anti-protons!â Who cares? Nobody watches STAR TREK for those scenes. The actors hate those scenes; the directors hate those scenes; and the writers hate those scenes. But itâs the easiest card to go to. Itâs a lot easier to tech your way out of a situation than to really think your way out of a situation, or make it dramatic, or make the characters go through some kind of decision or crisis. Itâs a lot easier if you can just plant one of them at a console and start banging on the thing, and flash some Okudagrams, and then come up with the magic solution that is going to make all this weekâs problems go away."
Re: The Best Thing About the JJverse
While I did not specifically defend technobabble I do think it has it's place and is a part of Star Trek. Every term for some science or device that does not exist is technobabble. I rarely felt overburdened or annoyed by the tech speak. They all had technobabble. Having been alive long enough to see each show air, I've seen the quality of that babble increase as we began to get a better grip on what and how much we did not know. Having a better grasp on technology gave a better direction on where things might end up. Each series increase the foundation on which to build that technobabble just like creating a language.
Ronald Moore is full of crap. He was one of the major players in DS9 which was full of technobabbling. Just as much as Voyager had. Then to make matters worse he filled it with spiritual and religious mumbo-jumbo. That's something I could use a whole lot less of. Not to say I didn't like DS9, I did. I liked them all and could argue why any of the series were the best of Star Trek.
In the end Mr. Moore's opinions are no more relevant than mine or a 14 year old kid watching for the first time. Having worked on the show sort of encapsulates a person and generally makes their opinions less not more important.
No Sitcoms! No Sports! No Reality!
Ronald Moore is full of crap. He was one of the major players in DS9 which was full of technobabbling. Just as much as Voyager had. Then to make matters worse he filled it with spiritual and religious mumbo-jumbo. That's something I could use a whole lot less of. Not to say I didn't like DS9, I did. I liked them all and could argue why any of the series were the best of Star Trek.
In the end Mr. Moore's opinions are no more relevant than mine or a 14 year old kid watching for the first time. Having worked on the show sort of encapsulates a person and generally makes their opinions less not more important.
No Sitcoms! No Sports! No Reality!
Re: The Best Thing About the JJverse
In the end Mr. Moore's opinions are no more relevant than mine or a 14 year old kid watching for the first time. Having worked on the show sort of encapsulates a person and generally makes their opinions less not more important.
If you see exactly what to do don't tell ME! I'm just a singer in a rock&roll band!
Re: The Best Thing About the JJverse
I don't know about Moore's quotes, but the audience use their imagination to translate what the technobabble is.
Back to the original subject, personally, I liked JJ in Star Wars, but not Star Trek. The JJ version of Star Trek is too shiny and fast. The characters are too young and immature. I don't like the idea that there is no Romulus in the cannon universe and no Vulcan in the other universe.
But at least JJ kept the home fire burning.
Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast
Back to the original subject, personally, I liked JJ in Star Wars, but not Star Trek. The JJ version of Star Trek is too shiny and fast. The characters are too young and immature. I don't like the idea that there is no Romulus in the cannon universe and no Vulcan in the other universe.
But at least JJ kept the home fire burning.
Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast
Re: The Best Thing About the JJverse
is a part of Star Trek.
I don't think that continuing movies must restrict itself to things that were "part of Star Trek". If you can put something better in its place, because you have the time and the resources that the TV did not have and therefore relied on cheating with technobabble, then you should go with that.
Younger viewers, if they are receptive to the show already, tend to try and make things that are used by the authors as an excuse into something more than they actually are.
I don't believe the movies are obligated to feed them more whimsy for the audience to provide legitimacy for. It's not as if the audience is being deprived if the writer decides to do something a bit more honest.
Having worked on the show sort of encapsulates a person and generally makes their opinions less not more important.
The author or artist is not necessarily the best or the definitive judge of their work. But to categorically state that their opinion is less important is unnecessary.
"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof
Re: The Best Thing About the JJverse
Sorry but I disagree 100%. You are obviously neither a Trekkie nor a Trekker. The idea is to continue to push the boundaries of what we see as possible while remaining true to the body of work as a whole.
As for your second statement, if I could disagree more than a 100% I would. Both art and literature are primarily defined and given meaning by the viewers and/or readers. Some people may think that because they create something that they get to decide what it means or how people will interact with it. It's just not so and it never has been. Ronald Moore was just one of many people who worked on Star Trek. Trekkies (I went to my first convention in the 70s) and fans are what has defined and kept Star Trek alive so that writers and creators would have the privileged to allowed to work or contribute to our show.
So yes his opinion matters less and it needed to be said.
No Sitcoms! No Sports! No Reality!
As for your second statement, if I could disagree more than a 100% I would. Both art and literature are primarily defined and given meaning by the viewers and/or readers. Some people may think that because they create something that they get to decide what it means or how people will interact with it. It's just not so and it never has been. Ronald Moore was just one of many people who worked on Star Trek. Trekkies (I went to my first convention in the 70s) and fans are what has defined and kept Star Trek alive so that writers and creators would have the privileged to allowed to work or contribute to our show.
So yes his opinion matters less and it needed to be said.
No Sitcoms! No Sports! No Reality!
Re: The Best Thing About the JJverse
You are obviously neither a Trekkie nor a Trekker.
In the sense that some people assume that being a trekkie or trekker means being a person who discerns and appreciates precisely the same meaning and significance of every part of the series, which is the kind thing you would must be getting at in order for your argument to have any relevance, then no. I am not. But such a thing does not exist.
...while remaining true to the body of work as a whole.
That is an entirely subjective and perhaps negotiable concept. Fan's don't all agree on what is essential, good or bad about the series.
I have spent a fair few decades of being a fan of things to learn that it does not mean that other fans feel, think or want the same things as you or in the same way as you.
So yes his opinion matters less and it needed to be said.
So what if the artist's opinion happens to be in line with the Trekkie or Trekker?
Some people may think that because they create something that they get to decide what it means or how people will interact with it.
What's that got to do with what the author considers worthy, desirable or edifying work which they can present both within the Trek idiom and in the medium it is presented? I think a television writer/producer is entitled to put out what they believe to be a superior production, with faith that the audience will discern their intention and desire to be "true". The audience doesn't have to agree and they don't have to watch.
and fans are what has defined and kept Star Trek alive
And yet, in spite of the many iterations, variances and points of contention, it is still alive. To simply define the survival of the series by its service to the fans' opinion of what it true to the body of work as a whole is absurd when fans are not even unanimous about every aspect that is supposedly true to the body of work as a whole.
And you also ignore the broad appeal outwith the show's fans which is as important for its continued success as the fans.
"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof
Re: The Best Thing About the JJverse
Let's not go too crazy with what Moore thinks. He made some fair contributions to the franchise, but he's also the one who thought it was a good idea to end DS9 by rushing an ending that has Sisko surviving the war, but inexplicably have a revelation that takes him away from his family - his pregnant wife - seemingly dies stopping Dukat, and supposedly "becomes a god," according to Moore.
If he had his druthers, he admitted he would have had the whole thing end as the work of Benny, from Far Beyond the Stars.
And let's not forget the cluster *beep* of an ending Battlestar Galactica had, thanks to Moore.
Two major and contrasting examples of Moore's work, "All Good Things...", and "Star Trek: Generations", demonstrate the necessity of rooting work in some form if internal logic.
AGT may have some flaws, and more than a few shovel fulls of bs psuedo-science, but it comes together and works on a level that has earned it a distinction of respect and acclaim among fans.
Generations on the hand tries very little to offer any consistent explanation of what's happening, why, or how that stupid energy ribbon works.
"It's like being wrapped in a hug." Really? And what you experience in it is not real, which is why Kirk felt no fear in his jump, yet it can take you to any place in time and space for real; so we're only going to jump back to a point with a very narrow window, and not like, a week, to give yourself adequate time to properly stop Soran; and save additional people who were killed in the process - maybe even Picard's brother and nephew....
Don't get me wrong, there has been bad technobable in Star Trek. Pretty much every time they gave a BS reason they couldn't just the off the ever-malfunctioning holodeck, without injuring the people inside. But at its core, it's part and parcel to internal logic, which is an integral part part of storytelling; to at least and make plot behaviors make some sort of sense, even if they have no basis in reality.
"I'm in it for the power and the free robes." - Harry Stone
If he had his druthers, he admitted he would have had the whole thing end as the work of Benny, from Far Beyond the Stars.
And let's not forget the cluster *beep* of an ending Battlestar Galactica had, thanks to Moore.
Two major and contrasting examples of Moore's work, "All Good Things...", and "Star Trek: Generations", demonstrate the necessity of rooting work in some form if internal logic.
AGT may have some flaws, and more than a few shovel fulls of bs psuedo-science, but it comes together and works on a level that has earned it a distinction of respect and acclaim among fans.
Generations on the hand tries very little to offer any consistent explanation of what's happening, why, or how that stupid energy ribbon works.
"It's like being wrapped in a hug." Really? And what you experience in it is not real, which is why Kirk felt no fear in his jump, yet it can take you to any place in time and space for real; so we're only going to jump back to a point with a very narrow window, and not like, a week, to give yourself adequate time to properly stop Soran; and save additional people who were killed in the process - maybe even Picard's brother and nephew....
Don't get me wrong, there has been bad technobable in Star Trek. Pretty much every time they gave a BS reason they couldn't just the off the ever-malfunctioning holodeck, without injuring the people inside. But at its core, it's part and parcel to internal logic, which is an integral part part of storytelling; to at least and make plot behaviors make some sort of sense, even if they have no basis in reality.
"I'm in it for the power and the free robes." - Harry Stone
Re: The Best Thing About the JJverse
by stargazer_1682
You got that I was being sarcastic, yeah?
Nope, you forgot your [sarcasm][/sarcasm] codes....😜
Ronald D. Moore wrote:
I was watching the episodes, and the technobabble was just enervating;
there's your word of the day!
enervate
verb
make (someone) feel drained of energy or vitality.
"enervating heat"
synonyms: exhaust, tire, fatigue, weary, wear out, devitalize, drain, sap, weaken, make weak, make feeble, enfeeble, debilitate, incapacitate, indispose, prostrate, immobilize, lay low, put out of action;
"He's dusted, busted and disgusted, but he's ok"
Re: The Best Thing About the JJverse
No, instead we get characters instantly teleporting to different star systems and magic blood that can bring back the dead.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap
Re: The Best Thing About the JJverse
The transport to Klingon was so bad, so against the show's own science mythology that it completely torpedoed and suspended disbelieve I may have had at that point.
No Sitcoms! No Sports! No Reality!
No Sitcoms! No Sports! No Reality!
Re: The Best Thing About the JJverse
True. What's the point of even HAVING starships? It's an example of a trope called; http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForgottenPhlebotinum
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap
The Best Thing About the JJverse