[off topic?]
I read a story about TOS. A company was building automatic doors. Someone wrote to the production asking how they got their doors to work so flawlessly.
Two Union workers was not the answer the company was hoping for.
Amazing how much technology since the 60s has just been trying to make star trek props real
I like in old science fiction when the ‘future’ tech is behind what we have. ‘The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress’ has a sentient computer struggling to invent CGI.
Starman Jones is the most extreme example of that I know of. They have slipstick boys to do their FTL math and the MC’s special ability is that he memorized all the log tables and so he can do the math faster.
They worked smoothly but never silently, once you know to look for the breaks in dialogue for the door audio to be easily removed you never stop noticing it
Know your history!
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ME
This was when they realized she was the right person to marry Worf
I hate when people try to write technobabble like that. It has a logic and if you have watched enough star trek it starts to make sense.
Then JJ Abrams comes a long and has Butterbeer Crampleslice tell us life support system is behind the aft nacelles. Even the first few seasons of the new Trek shows did this crap until they brought on science and Canon consultants
Do you have any examples of the new Trek shows doing this?
Edit: No. The answer is no he doesn’t. The same as everyone who makes this complaint. I openly challenge you find a single example. I will admit I am wrong if you can find a piece of treknobabble in NuTrek that breaks canon or doesn’t line up with the explanations already provided in lore.
I am waiting. My skeleton will be waiting. Simply because the above complaint isn’t true.
Edit 2: Yep. I was right. It wasn’t true. Check below for the receipts.
There is nothing technochron blorbinator in the Trek lexicon - I’m saying that writing example technobabble like that shows a lack of understanding of the source.
I don’t have any specific examples, but I remember the first 2 seasons of discovery and a little in the first season of Picard getting Trek particles wrong and not knowing systems. It got better once they hired Erin MacDonald and brought on David Mack and a few other novelists to consult on prodigy and I think Picard iirc
edit: Hey look I can play the edit game too - I provided a poorly researched example and explained that technology use not well used in early discovery - I acknowledged that being critical of technology use can be hand waived because its fictitious and apparently that’s not good enough for our combative OP. I also provided sources on the franchise now using specialists to keep track of technology and technobabble, and advised that I am not a “nutrek hater” as our contentious colleague here had to go and attack me personally - check below for the receipts and tax returns!
Again, do you have any examples? I cannot find any you’re talking about. I’ve heard this complaint repeatedly and no one has ever been able to provide an example of a line that didn’t make sense. Everyone makes up quotes. No one has anything specific. It’s always these really vague complaints. You repeatedly saying nonsense isn’t an example, especially when it was never said. What did they misunderstand. What particles did they not get right? Because I just finished a rewatch of Discovery with a good friend and I didn’t see a single but of technobabble that either didn’t make sense or was ridiculous. There were also zero examples of someone saying tech was located in a specific location.
Terry Farrell is six feet tall
