Inspired by this quote in the Kendall vs. Son of CNN thread.
Darth Servo wrote:Thats not saying much since in TNG's "Conspiracy" a fricken PAINTING wasn't effected by a kill setting phaser.
I read this and my thoughts were this has to be a simple special effects fuck up. I mean SoD is good an all but isn't this stretching it a little far?
So, where do you draw the line when it comes to SoD and Trek writer stupidity? How long do you continue trying to find in-universe explanations for what you're seeing and at what point do you just shake your head and go "no way that could be right! The writers are fucking idiots!" The idea of SoD is you view the program as kind of a documentary of things that actually happened, where do you conclude the reconstruction simply must be inaccurate?
BTW for me the suspension of disbelief broke with the ground combat episodes in DS9 and was permanently destroyed with the advent of Voyager.
I personally don't take suspension of disbelief all that far within Star Trek.
My reasoning is the shear lack of thought and quality that goes into a number of areas such as special effects and technical dialog. So for example I tend to treat any and all external space POV visuals as a poor-quality reproduction of what really happened (when I see 10 Forward pass through a Romulan Warbird and navigational shielding overlap nearby vessels on a routine basis I tend to dismiss it all as bogus and worthless) and never as an end-all be-all of what really happened.
Same thing for a phaser blast causing no damage of any kind to a painting; or for Data screwing up a simple surface area calculation. I treat these as odd mistakes that never should have happened. For my own viewing pleasure I also tend to mentally edit out most of the technobabble (you'll find that within TNG you almost never have to do more than remove choice words to leave the meaning sans the babble) so I am not so much bothered by it--as far as I am concerned it does not exist.
I expect many people ignore some of these things (or don't notice) but I think I am a little more extreme when it comes to throwing out things like that.
Generally, I can rationalize most any SoD breaking event, but in some Trek, it gets too much. At that point, I simply ignore the line, perhaps as someone would ignore a typo in a historical document rather than take it as "So it was Himmler who died in that bunker!"
To elaborate, I try to look at the majority of examples and situations before deciding how to deal with something specific. For example any time it ever comes up Data is described as nearly mistake-proof; the extremely long odds of his ever making a mistake is even part of the plot of "The Most Toys." In light of this descriptive track-record I favor ignoring the fact he apparently made an error describing the surface area of the Dyson Sphere. If he often made such mathematical mistakes and if he were cought making one by another character, even once, I would reconsider. As it stands I ignore the mistake and treat it as correct. By the way I do the same thing with mistaken usage of "power" and "energy;" every character has made that mistake it seems and none of them ever catch the others making it, yet they always know what is meant when one term or the other is used. For these reasons, as well as the fact the numbers involved about never make sense, I completely ignore what is said and substitute "bigger than we can do now." It saves headaches.
That last one is not really a majority rules, but the next one is. Concerning space combat range I look at the dialog, which consistently describes very long ranges, and I look at the visuals, which consistently describe very short ranges. Then I try to determine which source is more trust worthy--see my last post to see the reasons, but suffice it to say I consider the visuals to be worth about one teaspoon's worth of salt. Since the visuals cannot be trusted I fall back to the dialog for determining ranges.
So my picture of Trek is easier to deal with than most pictures. It has some things the "real" thing does not: common sense and internal consistency (to achieve the last I ignore Voyager completely).
As someone who looks back on the 5,000 years of recorded history and does seem some gradual improvement, I don't feel like the Federation is that much of a stretch given the various deus ex (replicators, heavy Vulcan influence ect) the tech I just tend to ignore most of the technobabble, my memory just isn't good enough to remember when various fictitious terms are used inconsistantly so tech dialogue isn't that much of an issue.
As for firecracker warp cores and holodecks with a tendency to become self aware and rebel, I need only recall a webpage a member posted not long ago which discussed in depth many of the design flaws and cost cutting measures taken with military hardware that is consistantly taking lives in Iraq where they have only now become chronic problems whereas before they were nonissues. Most of the tech on the ships doesn't act up under normal use but because of outside influence which you'd be hard pressed to predict so even that doesn't bother me, just that its just been done to death.
"We at Yahoo have a lot of experience in helping people navigate an environment full of falsehoods, random useless information, and truly horrifying pornography. I don't think the human soul will hold any real surprises for us." - The Onion
I use SOD, but I do not take it to the death as some would. There are known VFX mistakes such as the famous firing of a phaser beam from the torpedo launcher. Die hard SODs proclaim that as fact and will not shake from that. I will point out that errors can and do occur since what we see comes about due to human creation and mistakes can and will occur. I will take the authors intent when a simple fuckup occurs.
However, I do not give the writers too much credit. I will ignore authors intent on the capabilities and inteligence of the crew and instead analyze the crew and capabilities bassed on what we see. The writer of an episode might have slipped in a piece of dialogue for Worf to call Riker a tactical genius and a good combat officer, but I will use SOD and examine all other examples and call the writers intent total bullshit.
Basicaly the writers intent has to be backed up by reality and established good faith in writing. I give the writers of some series (such as Stargate) far more credit for their mistakes because they do a really good job. Trek writers only get a little leeway when it comes to their fuckups and I will only credit them so far and only on very stupid mistakes. Almost all of them blatant VFX screwups.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
If I'm leisurely watching Star Trek (I've been watching quite many TNG episodes recently), I can't say that I take SOD that far. One thing that I find quite annoying in TNG onwards (but it's not that bad in Enterprise) is the technobabble. Just as The Silence and I, I try to block it out.
If something like that happens once or twice, I can let it slide. However, when I see multiple instances of the same thing (ex. - Phasers vs. Packing crates) then I can no longer grant any leeway.
When it comes to a technique/maneuver/technology that's only featured once, I don't mind it being mentioned in VS. debates, but then there's always the trekkie who wanks said technique/maneuver/technology and nothing else. I hate those.
In ST, if the problem works better as a visual FX glitch, then even the 'documentary' approach works well with it as a visual FX glitch in the documentary.
This reminds me of a SoD debate that occurred on spaceBattles in reference to the magnitude of the forces in the Star Control universe. Some ludicrous game mechanics which obviously didn't represent reality (and were only intended to prevent unreasonable player behavior and allow the player to not have to keep track of way too many variables) trumped the dialogue in their discussion. So, they came to the conclusion that there were 10^8 ships or so in one fleet. It was fairly clear from dialogue that the square root of that figure would have been more accurate. And that's just because the game prevented undesired planetary siege and didn't want to take construction time into account.
While we're at it, it takes 0 time to fly down to a planet's surface and run around on the surface an arbitrarily large number of times? Let's include that in our SoD discussion too!
A line must be drawn.
Basically, when the evidence in question just makes you say, "That can NOT be right, I have tried to rationalize this away but it just isn't consistent", you can toss out the piece of evidence which has the biggest (causing trouble) / (reliability) ratio.
Junghalli wrote:.....So, where do you draw the line when it comes to SoD and Trek writer stupidity? .....
It depends on how much I've had to drink.
Seriously it is just a mood thing. Sometimes I can watch a show and not be bothered at all.
After all this isn't literature or even a technical manual...it's just mild entertainment. If I find myself getting too bothered buy SOB I figure I got a problem not the show and I just watch something else (if that happens too much then the show has a problem)
I figure the odds be fifty-fifty
I just might have some thing to say -F. Zappa
The biggest problem I've seen for SoD is when Riker's phaser shoots off-axis once. Even worse is when some debaters use this as evidence that phasers have "smart" auto-targeting.
Suspension of Disbelief is all well in good, but in the end when it comes to StarTrek, there are often things that simply can't be reconciled without sounding like a jackass. At a certain point, you've got to realize that it is a TV show with producers/writers/directors who don't exactly completely bust their ass to be consistant. I think the line is that if giving something an in-universe explaination can't be read aloud without embarrassment, then it's time to stop trying to explain it in-universe.
Things like the Voyager episode where Voyager escapes a Black Hole by flying through a "crack" in the event horizon.
"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet
"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert
"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
Augustus Caesar wrote:The biggest problem I've seen for SoD is when Riker's phaser shoots off-axis once. Even worse is when some debaters use this as evidence that phasers have "smart" auto-targeting.
Oh, there are much worse ones than that.
Like Scotty in "Relics" hearing that he was rescued by the Enterprise and immediately inquiring about if Kirk sent her after him. Even though he got stranded on the Dyson Sphere a year after the incident on the Enterprise-B where Kirk was "killed". And not only was Scotty was present when Kirk was "killed", but he was in fact the first person on the scene to witness the gapping hole in the ship which Kirk was sucked out and reported him gone. You could say that "Relics" was written before "Generations", of course, and you have to, just because trying to explain it seems like a pointless waste of brain sweat.
"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet
"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert
"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
The worst part is that I believe Ronald D. Moore wrote both Relics and Generations.
However, I don't think they had much choice, because they had originally planned to have Spock and McCoy there on the Ent-B, but the actors weren't willing. (God, I wish Shatner had refused, too.)
Uraniun235 wrote:The worst part is that I believe Ronald D. Moore wrote both Relics and Generations.
However, I don't think they had much choice, because they had originally planned to have Spock and McCoy there on the Ent-B, but the actors weren't willing. (God, I wish Shatner had refused, too.)
I think McCoy was ill at the time....
Hapan Battle Dragons Rule!
When you want peace prepare for war! --Confusious
That was disapointing ..Should we show this Federation how to build a ship so we may have worthy foes? Typhonis 1
The Prince of The Writer's Guild|HAB Spacewolf Tank General| God Bless America!
Uraniun235 wrote:The worst part is that I believe Ronald D. Moore wrote both Relics and Generations.
However, I don't think they had much choice, because they had originally planned to have Spock and McCoy there on the Ent-B, but the actors weren't willing. (God, I wish Shatner had refused, too.)
It's explained pretty well in that interview with him thats been floating around here - he was aware of the continuity problem (as well as a lot of other problems people complain about in Generations) however he felt that in the situation that he had it was better to slightly break continuity then cut out Scotty.
Honestly, I give the guy a lot of slack on that one, the laundry list the execs gave him for Gen. (it has been also posted here I think) was stupid and he did get a movie out of it that is not utter crap. Plus he is behind neoBSG and with the quality he's putting out over there I tend to think that his errors in trek were caused more by others then himself.
Generations, if anything, is a perfect example of a movie that is made primarly by executives and what they think will bring in moviegoers instead of the creative people.
Augustus Caesar wrote:The biggest problem I've seen for SoD is when Riker's phaser shoots off-axis once. Even worse is when some debaters use this as evidence that phasers have "smart" auto-targeting.
Oh, there are much worse ones than that.
Like Scotty in "Relics" hearing that he was rescued by the Enterprise and immediately inquiring about if Kirk sent her after him. Even though he got stranded on the Dyson Sphere a year after the incident on the Enterprise-B where Kirk was "killed". And not only was Scotty was present when Kirk was "killed", but he was in fact the first person on the scene to witness the gapping hole in the ship which Kirk was sucked out and reported him gone. You could say that "Relics" was written before "Generations", of course, and you have to, just because trying to explain it seems like a pointless waste of brain sweat.
I just write that off as Scotty being disoriented.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
In my book SOD is a tricky subject. I treat SOD bassed on how well the writers treat the series. If the writers are consistent and treat the fans with repsect by maintaining continuity and trying their best to provide a good series, I am willing to write off the ocassional screwup. Partly because these screwups can't be accepted because they are clear violations of what we already see, and partly because these screwups are actualy attempts to show something that they might be able to accurately convey do to limitations. I give shows like Battlestar Galactica, Stargate, and The 4400 this level of credit. An example would be when a Stargate ship is shown to be a 3 sided pyramid, but in a CGI fuckup you see a ship (already known to be just 3 sided) with 4 sides. Or when the series attempts to show a US military weapon system they don't have access to and use a very similar looking alternative. I will accept intent of the writers and acknowledge mistakes of the CGI because the series has made a good faith intent on their continuity.
Shows like Star Trek don't get so much from me. While I can understand the writers intent, if the writers are too fucking stupid and consistently show one thing while trying to hint at something else, I have to take SOD and say "too fucking bad". An example is Riker's tactical genius. The writers constantly have people refer to Riker as a tactical genius. Well as shown in the series he is a tactical idiot consistently. I know the writers intent, but I will take SOD and assume the people are idiots just as Riker is and then examine his known combat record.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
RedImperator, my explanation is that while Franklin's pattern is specified as having degraded 53 percent, Relics doesn't specify that Scotty was 100% himself. (Or rather, that he came through without pattern degradation.)
RedImperator wrote:I just write that off as Scotty being disoriented.
It seems odd that the could remember specific details about engineering specs on arbitrary systems and even a hotel that the rooms on the Enterprise reminded him of, but not the death of his captain and very close friend who's death he was not only was present for, but was the first to report.
"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet
"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert
"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
mmar wrote:Plus he is behind neoBSG and with the quality he's putting out over there I tend to think that his errors in trek were caused more by others then himself.
NeoBSG may be a good product but that doesn't mean he didn't fuck up earlier in his career.
mmar wrote:Plus he is behind neoBSG and with the quality he's putting out over there I tend to think that his errors in trek were caused more by others then himself.
NeoBSG may be a good product but that doesn't mean he didn't fuck up earlier in his career.
Not all of that was his fault. Moore had extensive over sight that hindered him in his earlier career.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Why is it that when people say "suspension of disbelief", they often seem to mean "visuals"?
One must suspend disbelief for dialogue just as much as he does for visuals. And in the case of Star Trek, the dialogue is so wildly inconsistent (or in many cases, downright idiotic) that it's definitely easier to suspend disbelief for visuals than for dialogue. At least the visuals are more consistent than the dialogue is.
Suspension of disbelief is not a dialogue vs visuals argument, but rather, a simple question of whether you are willing to treat Star Trek as a "real" environment, one subject to rules of self-consistency and rationality. If you can't suspend disbelief, this does not mean that you can throw away evidence that annoys you; it means that you do not believe this universe should be treated as if it were real, so you can't make any rational predictions at all.
A person who refuses to suspend disbelief is not someone who says "Wesley Crusher said this, and that overrides visual effects." A person who refuses to suspend disbelief is someone who says "What would happen? Whatever the writers want to happen. You can't make sense of Star Trek anyway; it's all just a lot of inconsistent plot devices and babble."
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
When you have incidents of people talking of Rikers inteligence and tactical skill you can tell the writiers intent. The problem is observed examples do not match the claims being made. Either I can't accept SOD and have to write off what the people said in dialogue, or I treat the people who stated the dialogue to be idiots trying to kiss Riker's ass and don't really know what they are talking about and just use the observed incidents of Riker's tactical skill.
Its not always visuals vs dialogue. Some times its mistakes in dialogue (5 examples of them saying this, but 1 example of them saying that) some times its mistakes in visuals (accurate military portrayl 90% of the time). Some times its contradictions in visuals (shows one thing, then shows another). And then as you mention some times there is a wide range of contradictory evidence. Firepower examples jumping all over the spectrum, warp speed constantly shifting, more then 150 faces seen on a ship with a crew of 130. In those cases it gets hard to rationalize and you just ignore that, pretend it didn't exist at all.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
