|
|
Post by Vilthuril on Dec 4, 2014 22:05:58 GMT
My God, Jim! Haven't these people watched Star Trek and learned that any fully autonomous ship is destined to become an insane killer? (Well, maybe it will be okay, as long as no idiotic Admiral, Ambassador, or Egotistical Scientist becomes involved.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Dec 4, 2014 22:30:43 GMT
My God, Jim! Haven't these people watched Star Trek and learned that any fully autonomous ship is destined to become an insane killer? (Well, maybe it will be okay, as long as no idiotic Admiral, Ambassador, or Egotistical Scientist becomes involved. ) What are the chances to build a fully autonomous ship without idiotic Admiral getting involved, let alone without egoistical scientist? The latter may even be there by default, and maybe a few of them. |
|
|
|
Post by todd on Dec 6, 2014 23:17:51 GMT
I remember that in "Residential", when the students became convinced that the disappearances were all a practical joke by the grown-ups and planned to turn the tables on them, I expected them to discover the hard way that it wasn't the grown-ups but something else - something really nasty that they weren't a match for (at least, at first). And then it turned out that they were correct, that it *was* all a trick by the grown-ups, whom the students successfully outwitted - suggesting that Tom's ready to disregard the conventional rules of storytelling when it suits him. Maybe the "no setbacks/one success after another" is another such case.
|
|
|
|
Post by panecillo on Dec 7, 2014 13:21:32 GMT
Yes. I'm afraid this might be an unpopular opinion, but lately I've been following updated for the graphical art (which has been glorious) and the speculation how the recent developments might affect the larger scale narrative. Straightforward execution of a plan leading to a success as planned, without complications putting everything into jeopardy, hardships, mystery to be unveiled or any credible threat of imminent danger... doesn't make very compelling storytelling. There was the excellent, very foreboding set up: Seraphs making their presence on the ship known and being eerily creepy, and Zimmingham has been earlier established as a very terrible, dangerous place. What we've got has been thus far... protagonists and supportive cast being awesome. Emotionally I'm still waiting for the first obstacle that wouldn't be trivial to overcome. Is going to be revealed that all this incident was a Dr. Disaster illusion. |
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Dec 7, 2014 13:45:50 GMT
My God, Jim! Haven't these people watched Star Trek This falls back to more generic question: how often do engineers watch Star Trek? If only to point appendages and laugh? I remember that in "Residential", when the students became convinced that the disappearances were all a practical joke by the grown-ups and planned to turn the tables on them, I expected them to discover the hard way that it wasn't the grown-ups but something else - After Mrs. Sutton acting like that and given Annie's experience with ghosts?.. suggesting that Tom's ready to disregard the conventional rules of storytelling when it suits him. We're still talking about a comic where almost every page leaves a minor cliffhanger?  |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Dec 7, 2014 23:47:57 GMT
My God, Jim! Haven't these people watched Star Trek This falls back to more generic question: how often do engineers watch Star Trek? If only to point appendages and laugh? I do know you can't blame the scriptwriters for the technobabble. I've heard people who've seen Star Trek scripts they wrote turn into actual episodes, talk about the experience. Part of the writers' guidelines was to, when appropriate, drop "[insert tech-talk here]" into the script; there was a special group that would ask the director for a length guideline and write the appropriate amount of blather, hopefully preserving a semblance of internal consistency. |
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Dec 8, 2014 14:12:06 GMT
This falls back to more generic question: how often do engineers watch Star Trek? If only to point appendages and laugh? I do know you can't blame the scriptwriters for the technobabble. What "technobabble"? You're padding straw. It's all about the visible parts - widely mocked, as they obviously can only be made by someone lacking both in very basic common sense and in literacy to make up for that. Starting with the absurd shape of ships and proceeding to things being built on safety, security and ergonomic concepts second worst to that of "Clod Equations" (not that they aren't very competitive, but there still are "you cannot fall down from the rock bottom" cases). |
|
|
|
Post by Vilthuril on Jan 22, 2015 0:35:46 GMT
This falls back to more generic question: how often do engineers watch Star Trek? If only to point appendages and laugh? I do know you can't blame the scriptwriters for the technobabble. I've heard people who've seen Star Trek scripts they wrote turn into actual episodes, talk about the experience. Part of the writers' guidelines was to, when appropriate, drop "[insert tech-talk here]" into the script; there was a special group that would ask the director for a length guideline and write the appropriate amount of blather, hopefully preserving a semblance of internal consistency. One of the reasons I eventually decided I like Kira Nerys from Deep Space 9 (after being incredibly annoyed by her originally) is that every so often, after someone spouted a bunch of techno-babble, she would say something along the lines of, "What the hell does that mean!?" |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Jan 23, 2015 8:44:46 GMT
I love technobabble as long as it's well-crafted. I also like greebling when it's done in proper style.
|
|
)
