Trek Technology

Prozac the Robert · Post by **Prozac the Robert** » 2004-06-24 12:53pm

I'm wondering; is it possible to consistantly write good stories using, or at least without artificialy limiting, the technology possesed by post-TNG era startrek?

As in a story which works because of the transporters and the replicators, or one where they just stay in the background, or even one where they are used as a deus ex machina, but not one where the transporters can't get a lock due to *technobably thing*

Any thoughts?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-06-24 12:57pm

There's plenty of science fiction shows and movies out there that don't rely upon technobabble to create gripping and exciting entertainment. Earth: Final Conflict, Babylon 5, and Star Wars are examples of these. Unfortunately trek is not. It might be possible to do for Trek, but only if they completely dispense with the present writing staff.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-06-24 01:03pm

Prozac the Robert wrote:I'm wondering; is it possible to consistantly write good stories using, or at least without artificialy limiting, the technology possesed by post-TNG era startrek?

Of course it is.

FarScape is a show that in it's 1st and 2nd seasons seemed to get by without needing technobabble. Most of season 3 was the same thing, except whenever those bloody wormholes came around. Then it was all 'phase shift' this and 'supox varience' that.

I don't know about season 4. I haven't had a chance to sample it in it's entirety. Still waiting for the DVDs.

As in a story which works because of the transporters and the replicators, or one where they just stay in the background, or even one where they are used as a deus ex machina, but not one where the transporters can't get a lock due to *technobably thing*

1. Story works 'because' of the transporters and/or replicators.

2. Story works, and transporters and/or replicators aren't vital to it and merely become part of the background scenery.

3. Story fails, because the transporters and/or replicators are used as a deus ex machina.

4. Story fails, because of technobabble.

1 might require some careful writing. 2 is the best for obvious reasons. 3 and 4 are the worst, because the story loses any plausibility when a gimmick is used to save the day.

Prozac the Robert · Post by **Prozac the Robert** » 2004-06-24 02:03pm

The thing is, trek technology is a lot worse than farscape or starwars for this sort of thing.

If Crichton needs a thing he has to go find it, if picard wants a thing he can beam it up or replicate a new one.

If Vader wants to take over a rebel ship he sends a squad of stormies over via shuttle and they fight it out corridor by corridor, if an intellegent trek captain wants to do the same he just beams the crew into the brig or stuns them all with a wide beam stun blast from the ships phasers.

The only people with the same sheer ability to dodge plot points are the culture and really powerful wizards in fantasy settings.

I'm not saying good stories can't be done, but I'm not convinced that several serieses of good stories could be created.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-06-24 02:09pm

Trek technology isn't necessarily worse per se, it's just that the writers are as they can't seem to competently come up with good storylines because they rely on the technology itself for so much of it.

Lancer · Post by **Lancer** » 2004-06-24 04:45pm

Prozac the Robert wrote:The thing is, trek technology is a lot worse than farscape or starwars for this sort of thing.

If Crichton needs a thing he has to go find it, if picard wants a thing he can beam it up or replicate a new one.

If Vader wants to take over a rebel ship he sends a squad of stormies over via shuttle and they fight it out corridor by corridor, if an intellegent trek captain wants to do the same he just beams the crew into the brig or stuns them all with a wide beam stun blast from the ships phasers.

The only people with the same sheer ability to dodge plot points are the culture and really powerful wizards in fantasy settings.

I'm not saying good stories can't be done, but I'm not convinced that several serieses of good stories could be created.

err, wide angle stun only works when you have a clear line of fire at your targets (the crew). Hull being between you and them tends to make any stun not work.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-06-24 04:49pm

Matt Huang wrote:
err, wide angle stun only works when you have a clear line of fire at your targets (the crew). Hull being between you and them tends to make any stun not work.

Which might be why no one inside the building was stunned in TOS: "Piece of the Action".

Lancer · Post by **Lancer** » 2004-06-24 06:03pm

LadyTevar wrote:
Matt Huang wrote:
err, wide angle stun only works when you have a clear line of fire at your targets (the crew). Hull being between you and them tends to make any stun not work.
Which might be why no one inside the building was stunned in TOS: "Piece of the Action".

hmmn, I seem to be suffering a little from Kaz-itis. Was that refutation or confirmation of my statement?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-06-24 08:47pm

Of course it's possible, if your writers don't suck. TOS had all kinds of amazing technology, but it was good because the writers knew the show was about the characters and didn't resort to lazy resolutions like fiddle-fucking with the deflector dish. It's in Trek's nature to give lazy and incompetent writers an easy way to solve plot problems, but that doesn't mean the garbage we've been fed for the last 11 years was inevitable.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-06-24 08:49pm

Chris O'Farrell once explained Treknobabble as the technology not being an element of the story, but rather the technology IS the story.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-06-25 01:23am

Treknobabble is tolerable as long as it is related to the story. But when the story it self becomes about treknobabble such as the Voyger hologram or holodeck episodes it becomes hard to tolerate.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-06-25 10:19am

Stories revovling around the technology can work when done properly. An example would be Stargate SG1. They have had multiple examples where the story revolves around a specific technology. They key is to keep the technobabble to a minimum and actualy maintain a real story.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2004-06-25 11:41am

I guess it all depends on how you look at technology. I am an Electronics Engineer. I know for a fact that most people do not know how a computer works, etc. like I do. This does not stop hundreds of people from installing their own video cards and stuff. Things are designed to make it easy. You put the new card in the slot and you ar done. The fact that they have often call someone like me to make it work under windows is a software problem.

Technology in most sci-fi seems to be treated like we do cars. If its broke you pull out the toolbox and replace the broken parts. It doesn't take much training to replace a fan belt for example. Changing the engine block is another matter.

The technology in our world and many sci-fi is just there is a difference in Star Trek. There it is often treated like a problem rather than something that makes your life easier.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-06-25 01:17pm

Trek's relationship with technology has always been schizophrenic--or nuanced, if you prefer. TOS generally related to technology by treating positive technology as background elements, while negative technology was often a major plot device.

The mistake Trek made in TNG onward was to treat positive technology as plot devices. That's where we got things like the Swiss Army Deflector Dish and transporters that reverse aging. Technology as a deus ex machina isn't interesting. Now, you CAN write well about established technology being used in creative ways to solve a new problem (wasn't that McGuyver's entire hook?), and I'm reasonably sure that's what Trek's writers indended when they wrote technobabble episodes, but the problem is they weren't really applying technology in interesting ways--they were making up new capabilities for made up technologies. The drama was supposed to come from us saying, "Oh, will Geordi/O'Brien/Torres be able to make the fix in time?", but since we knew they would, there was no suspense and no interest.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-06-25 01:26pm

Matt Huang wrote:
LadyTevar wrote:
Matt Huang wrote:
err, wide angle stun only works when you have a clear line of fire at your targets (the crew). Hull being between you and them tends to make any stun not work.
Which might be why no one inside the building was stunned in TOS: "Piece of the Action".
hmmn, I seem to be suffering a little from Kaz-itis. Was that refutation or confirmation of my statement?

It was an example, to be discussed as to whether Scotty deliberately avoided the building or whether being inside the building blocked the effect.

I remember Kirk ordering Scotty to target a one block area around the building, but I can't even recall if it showed a beam hitting or just the people falling over.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-06-25 01:29pm

LadyTevar wrote:It was an example, to be discussed as to whether Scotty deliberately avoided the building or whether being inside the building blocked the effect.
I remember Kirk ordering Scotty to target a one block area around the building, but I can't even recall if it showed a beam hitting or just the people falling over.

Just a bright flash.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-06-25 01:32pm

SirNitram wrote:
LadyTevar wrote:It was an example, to be discussed as to whether Scotty deliberately avoided the building or whether being inside the building blocked the effect.
I remember Kirk ordering Scotty to target a one block area around the building, but I can't even recall if it showed a beam hitting or just the people falling over.
Just a bright flash.

A bright flash, that hit the whole block at once?

If so, then you now have evidence that being inside a building blocks the effects of a wide-angle stun from a Constitution-class Starship.