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.
Probably because most people don't go around saving copies of these examples. You notice it make a mental note and then forget until someone brings it up again.
I sure as hell don't go around documenting everything that bothers me about a tv show. In fact I usually do the opposite and try to ignore them.
Probably because most people don’t go around saving copies of these examples.
I didn't ask for copies. I asked for a single example. Not multiple, not a list, one. A single example to back up this complaint and there was nothing other than extremely vague hand waves saying "Oh I remember it happening in this super vague sphere of time. Don't remember who said it or when it was said or what was said. But I know it happened." It is not on me to decipher your nonsensical complaints. It is on you to provide evidence and examples of these complaints. Otherwise you're just screaming about something you can't prove or even point to.
So you can go around and forget all the examples but you don't then get to complain about it being guilty of something when you cannot provide the evidence. If you want to complain about something breaking lore or canon then you must provide the example. It is not on us to prove a negative and prove something doesn't exist. Moreover, what is your point here? If you openly forget stuff that bothers you then how can you be trusted at all when it comes to your complaints? It just backs up my point of needing an example even more.
Stop kicking the responsibility. Accept the fact that it is yours to back up your complaints. Not anyone elses. It is yours. So you either come with receipts or you don't start anything. I'm really tired of hearing you all run rampant with your complaints and never being able to back it up. I'd be glad to have a discussion and even admit that I'm wrong. You refuse to provide that opportunity.
So either put up or shut up. I'm tired of the bullshit.
The Star Trek community is amazing at pointing out obscure references, and letting you know exactly who said it and what episode it was from, all the way back to the 60’s. It blows my mind pretty often lol
So unless someone can point out specific examples…
That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some. Just need to see it. The burden of proof is on the people with these claims.
I agree! I have no problem being proven wrong but they won't even try. And you're right. Constant quotes of specific episodes and specific lines but the second someone doesn't like something they can't even picture where it might be?
It's fucking exhausting. Especially when the vast majority of these conversations boiled down to them being homophobic or transphobic. I'd keep pressing for examples and they'd get more frustrated until they lash out about Stamets, Adira or Grey and it's like "Ah okay, I know what your problem really is now at least." Not saying all people who don't like NuTrek are homophobic or transphobic, for the record. Just that it comes up a staggering amount.
I am going to shift the window on what I meant a little - star trek uses its technology as a plot contrivance all the fucking time, every series is guilty of it. Tech can be a hindrance to the protagonist or be stupidly overridden depending on what the plot needs. Most of the series are good at making the tech at least make sense in the world.
Take the breath sensor in s1e03 - as a security device its there to just be beaten, which is stupid - but also in star trek world with scanners and tricorders it makes no sense. The main computer could scan you at the door and know who you are without breathing on something. Its a fundamental misunderstanding of the world. To new fans its not a problem, but have you met a Star Trek fan before?
Once they brought people on that actually can beat the technology needs into shape for the world, this new era of trek has been fine IMHO. None of it is story breaking, and its frivolous because yes, this is fiction and the world can be whatever it wants for scifi reasons.
This was the first example I found quickly scrolling transcripts. There's others like the SQL line in season 2.
I had typed up a whole answer to this and then accidentally deleted it. That's fun. At any rate...
Neither the breath-print or the SQL lines are legitimate complaints or examples of what I was looking for. Originally. Before you shifted the window to an entirely different argument. I could go into detail about how it DOES work in lore (and I probably will at the end of this comment) but what you need to do is realize you're biased. You don't know anything about the security protocols of a 23rd Century Starfleet Vessel during a war. You are making wild assumptions based off of experiences that you've had with shows that take place AFTER the event in question. You have nothing in canon or lore that you can point to and say "This is why that doesn't make sense."
This is what I mean. You people constantly complain saying that it doesn't make sense but it does. There's nothing in lore saying that it doesn't make sense. It's YOU saying that it doesn't make sense based off of your own understanding that you've come to. You are making assumptions based off of the information we've been given thus far and then taking it as utter gospel. When something new comes in you refuse to give it the same benefit of the doubt that you give to the old tech. Despite the fact that the old tech breaks it's own rules constantly. You can't transport through shields except when you can. Ships can detect phaser fire on board except when they can't. 2000 lightyears can be traveled in a couple of days in TOS except when it can't in TNG or Voyager. The size of the galaxy changed. Trill changed. Klingons changed. Vulcans changed. Romulan cloaking tech was all over the place. Star Trek is a show of wild inconsistencies and I think it's pretty shitty of you guys to hyper focus on the new shows while ignoring the exact same sins the old shows have.
And I said how the breath print or SQL would make sense so here goes.
The Discovery was a ship with extremely classified materials and tech. At the time, it was the highest priority of Starfleet that the Spore Drive be completed and working. Ships might have normal sensors and security protocols, sure, but it also makes sense that those same protocols would be heightened. Or that entirely new ones would be made in an attempt to bypass Klingon interference. Enter the breath print. Can it be overrided? Yes. Can the sensors be overrided? Yes. Overriding both, however, is more difficult. This is why there are redundancies in all security. Why you seem to think that would just say "Nah" to another extra level of security is beyond me. Was it there for a narrative reason? Sure. Does it make sense in universe? Absolutely.
SQL injections. Well, there's nothing in lore saying what the operating system of the Discovery is based off of. Or any ship from the 23rd century. SQL was created 40 years ago but it's still in use today. Who's to say that it isn't in the future? How many times have you seen a sci-fi show where new tech is built on the back of old tech and then that old tech is used to undermine the new tech? How many times have there been moments in entertainment where someone is like "Oh we were protecting against the new types of threats because we didn't think anyone would use the old one"? I can think of a bunch. It's a pretty common trope. Wouldn't be even remotely surprising if that's what happened here with Discovery. Or it could just be that SQL injection has, over the years, drifted into meaning something else. The phrase could have been adopted to mean a certain type of attack but not use SQL specifically. You want to tell me that the English language doesn't drift and we don't use analogies/similes/comparisons that aren't common in day to day life anymore?
Like I said. This is fucking exhausting. You don't know everything dude and neither does Star Trek. They're kinda making it up as it goes along. The fact that you're trying to argue that fictional tech doesn't make sense to your understanding of other fictional tech is ridiculous.
Both of us can do backflips to justify our positions. I also acknowledged that it's fiction and it can be whatever it wants to be. I dont claim to know everything.
It doesn't change the fact they brought on people specifically to do a better job of these things, so that backflips are less required 🤷♂️
Precisely what I expected. A dismissive response because you do not have the capability to construct a valid argument. So you just dismiss and run. Or as you put it, backflip.
Also they hired new people. Nothing was clarified in their hiring that it was for them to do it "better". That is literally something you came up. That was not in the press release of them being hired, it was not in their contract that is what they were being hired for. It is literally something you and your lot came up with to try and justify not liking NuTrek.
Good luck. You're not worth engaging with in the future if you're going to be so flippant and childish over your own discussion/argument.
NS: So speaking of cool, you are now a science consultant for the franchise. Tell me how that came about, and what your duties involve.
EM: Yeah, this is a dream job. This is as good as it gets.
...
They’re realizing how effectively Star Trek can be used to teach science, they really want to capture that, and with Star Trek having this big resurgence, and having all of these shows now being developed, they realized that having someone who is a behind the scenes person as well as a representative for teaching science through Star Trek would be an advantage to them.
So that’s what they’ve hired me to do. I’m working this year on retainer for the Star Trek franchise. That doesn’t say that every show is using me, but I’m available to any shows that do want to use me, and to try and keep track of all the technology and all of the travel and all of the stuff that they mention. All of these series are coming out at different points in different timelines, and someone’s gotta keep track of all of that. And they are, but it helps having me who can just focus on the technology and the technobabble and the galaxy and to try to keep that all straight. So it’s really exciting and I can’t wait for the stuff that I’ve worked on to actually start airing so that I can talk about it!
There are other resources and tweets out there confirming as much.
Don't assume I'm a "nutrek" hater. I love new Trek mate, I buy the discs, I stream it, I've got the eaglemoss models! I use to defend the spore drive as a cool use of subspace domains or that Picard season one is a good remix of the themes of the episode tapestry all of which earned me many down votes on parts of reddit.
I can still be critical when parts of it could IMHO be done a little better, and as I said I'm glad that new Trek really is trying
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.
I'll be sure to take notes next time I do a rewatch
Please do. I'm getting really tired of people complaining about stuff they can never point to.
Probably because most people don't go around saving copies of these examples. You notice it make a mental note and then forget until someone brings it up again.
I sure as hell don't go around documenting everything that bothers me about a tv show. In fact I usually do the opposite and try to ignore them.
I didn't ask for copies. I asked for a single example. Not multiple, not a list, one. A single example to back up this complaint and there was nothing other than extremely vague hand waves saying "Oh I remember it happening in this super vague sphere of time. Don't remember who said it or when it was said or what was said. But I know it happened." It is not on me to decipher your nonsensical complaints. It is on you to provide evidence and examples of these complaints. Otherwise you're just screaming about something you can't prove or even point to.
So you can go around and forget all the examples but you don't then get to complain about it being guilty of something when you cannot provide the evidence. If you want to complain about something breaking lore or canon then you must provide the example. It is not on us to prove a negative and prove something doesn't exist. Moreover, what is your point here? If you openly forget stuff that bothers you then how can you be trusted at all when it comes to your complaints? It just backs up my point of needing an example even more.
Stop kicking the responsibility. Accept the fact that it is yours to back up your complaints. Not anyone elses. It is yours. So you either come with receipts or you don't start anything. I'm really tired of hearing you all run rampant with your complaints and never being able to back it up. I'd be glad to have a discussion and even admit that I'm wrong. You refuse to provide that opportunity.
So either put up or shut up. I'm tired of the bullshit.
I’m on your side on this one for sure.
The Star Trek community is amazing at pointing out obscure references, and letting you know exactly who said it and what episode it was from, all the way back to the 60’s. It blows my mind pretty often lol
So unless someone can point out specific examples…
That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some. Just need to see it. The burden of proof is on the people with these claims.
I agree! I have no problem being proven wrong but they won't even try. And you're right. Constant quotes of specific episodes and specific lines but the second someone doesn't like something they can't even picture where it might be?
It's fucking exhausting. Especially when the vast majority of these conversations boiled down to them being homophobic or transphobic. I'd keep pressing for examples and they'd get more frustrated until they lash out about Stamets, Adira or Grey and it's like "Ah okay, I know what your problem really is now at least." Not saying all people who don't like NuTrek are homophobic or transphobic, for the record. Just that it comes up a staggering amount.
I am going to shift the window on what I meant a little - star trek uses its technology as a plot contrivance all the fucking time, every series is guilty of it. Tech can be a hindrance to the protagonist or be stupidly overridden depending on what the plot needs. Most of the series are good at making the tech at least make sense in the world.
Take the breath sensor in s1e03 - as a security device its there to just be beaten, which is stupid - but also in star trek world with scanners and tricorders it makes no sense. The main computer could scan you at the door and know who you are without breathing on something. Its a fundamental misunderstanding of the world. To new fans its not a problem, but have you met a Star Trek fan before?
Once they brought people on that actually can beat the technology needs into shape for the world, this new era of trek has been fine IMHO. None of it is story breaking, and its frivolous because yes, this is fiction and the world can be whatever it wants for scifi reasons. This was the first example I found quickly scrolling transcripts. There's others like the SQL line in season 2.
I had typed up a whole answer to this and then accidentally deleted it. That's fun. At any rate...
Neither the breath-print or the SQL lines are legitimate complaints or examples of what I was looking for. Originally. Before you shifted the window to an entirely different argument. I could go into detail about how it DOES work in lore (and I probably will at the end of this comment) but what you need to do is realize you're biased. You don't know anything about the security protocols of a 23rd Century Starfleet Vessel during a war. You are making wild assumptions based off of experiences that you've had with shows that take place AFTER the event in question. You have nothing in canon or lore that you can point to and say "This is why that doesn't make sense."
This is what I mean. You people constantly complain saying that it doesn't make sense but it does. There's nothing in lore saying that it doesn't make sense. It's YOU saying that it doesn't make sense based off of your own understanding that you've come to. You are making assumptions based off of the information we've been given thus far and then taking it as utter gospel. When something new comes in you refuse to give it the same benefit of the doubt that you give to the old tech. Despite the fact that the old tech breaks it's own rules constantly. You can't transport through shields except when you can. Ships can detect phaser fire on board except when they can't. 2000 lightyears can be traveled in a couple of days in TOS except when it can't in TNG or Voyager. The size of the galaxy changed. Trill changed. Klingons changed. Vulcans changed. Romulan cloaking tech was all over the place. Star Trek is a show of wild inconsistencies and I think it's pretty shitty of you guys to hyper focus on the new shows while ignoring the exact same sins the old shows have.
And I said how the breath print or SQL would make sense so here goes.
The Discovery was a ship with extremely classified materials and tech. At the time, it was the highest priority of Starfleet that the Spore Drive be completed and working. Ships might have normal sensors and security protocols, sure, but it also makes sense that those same protocols would be heightened. Or that entirely new ones would be made in an attempt to bypass Klingon interference. Enter the breath print. Can it be overrided? Yes. Can the sensors be overrided? Yes. Overriding both, however, is more difficult. This is why there are redundancies in all security. Why you seem to think that would just say "Nah" to another extra level of security is beyond me. Was it there for a narrative reason? Sure. Does it make sense in universe? Absolutely.
SQL injections. Well, there's nothing in lore saying what the operating system of the Discovery is based off of. Or any ship from the 23rd century. SQL was created 40 years ago but it's still in use today. Who's to say that it isn't in the future? How many times have you seen a sci-fi show where new tech is built on the back of old tech and then that old tech is used to undermine the new tech? How many times have there been moments in entertainment where someone is like "Oh we were protecting against the new types of threats because we didn't think anyone would use the old one"? I can think of a bunch. It's a pretty common trope. Wouldn't be even remotely surprising if that's what happened here with Discovery. Or it could just be that SQL injection has, over the years, drifted into meaning something else. The phrase could have been adopted to mean a certain type of attack but not use SQL specifically. You want to tell me that the English language doesn't drift and we don't use analogies/similes/comparisons that aren't common in day to day life anymore?
Like I said. This is fucking exhausting. You don't know everything dude and neither does Star Trek. They're kinda making it up as it goes along. The fact that you're trying to argue that fictional tech doesn't make sense to your understanding of other fictional tech is ridiculous.
Both of us can do backflips to justify our positions. I also acknowledged that it's fiction and it can be whatever it wants to be. I dont claim to know everything.
It doesn't change the fact they brought on people specifically to do a better job of these things, so that backflips are less required 🤷♂️
Precisely what I expected. A dismissive response because you do not have the capability to construct a valid argument. So you just dismiss and run. Or as you put it, backflip.
Also they hired new people. Nothing was clarified in their hiring that it was for them to do it "better". That is literally something you came up. That was not in the press release of them being hired, it was not in their contract that is what they were being hired for. It is literally something you and your lot came up with to try and justify not liking NuTrek.
Good luck. You're not worth engaging with in the future if you're going to be so flippant and childish over your own discussion/argument.
Erin MacDonald interview
...
confirms Mack as consultant
There are other resources and tweets out there confirming as much.
Don't assume I'm a "nutrek" hater. I love new Trek mate, I buy the discs, I stream it, I've got the eaglemoss models! I use to defend the spore drive as a cool use of subspace domains or that Picard season one is a good remix of the themes of the episode tapestry all of which earned me many down votes on parts of reddit.
I can still be critical when parts of it could IMHO be done a little better, and as I said I'm glad that new Trek really is trying