Visuals vs dialogue

[Graham Kennedy]

Tough - in this case it's the dialogue that disagrees with you. Data may have claimed several times that he's unable to use contractions, but this is refuted by the fact that he has. Conclusion; he's programmed to think that he can't, but can (subconciously, obviously). Why on Earth Soong would add such convoluted programming is anyone's guess. Alternatively, Data's simply wrong, or forgot - he's not prefect.

Believe so if you like - that's certainly one conclusion. I think you're wrong; the dialogue in the episodes where he uses contraction is simply mistaken.

Like it or not, it did.

Similarly, believe so if you like. I think it didn't. I think the image you showed - and the clip it came from - is wrong.

If they ever did a reworking of TNG, the way they have for TOS, that phaser beam would almost certainly be something they will fix. In fact, though I think it's unlikely we will ever see a reworked TNG, if they did I wouldn't be surprised if they overdub Brent's contractions and even CGI his mouth to match.

[Captain Seafort]

Believe so if you like - that's certainly one conclusion. I think you're wrong; the dialogue in the episodes where he uses contraction is simply mistaken.

I agree that if we're doing OOU analysis of Trek as a TV series, then either Spiner or the scriptwriters got it wrong. If we're analysing Data's abilities, then that's what he said - evidently he can use contractions.

Similarly, believe so if you like. I think it didn't. I think the image you showed - and the clip it came from - is wrong.

Again, OOU you're right that the VFX people put the beam in the wrong place. If, however, we're analysing the abilities of the GCS, then WYSIWYG.

If they ever did a reworking of TNG, the way they have for TOS, that phaser beam would almost certainly be something they will fix. In fact, though I think it's unlikely we will ever see a reworked TNG, if they did I wouldn't be surprised if they overdub Brent's contractions and even CGI his mouth to match.

Agreed. The idiotically large BoPs in "The Defector" would be something else to fix. Until such time, however, WYSIWYG, and we still have the "D'Tai class".

[Graham Kennedy]

I agree that if we're doing OOU analysis of Trek as a TV series, then either Spiner or the scriptwriters got it wrong. If we're analysing Data's abilities, then that's what he said - evidently he can use contractions.

And I disagree. He can't.

If, however, we're analysing the abilities of the GCS, then WYSIWYG.

Again, in your world perhaps. Not in mine.

[m52nickerson]

Who said anything about "official". I'm merely talking about what's logical. Here's a more detailed explanation for you.

I've seen it and read it, and reject it. It author is more likely trying to further his own arguments rather then looking at the best way to analyze things. Please don't try to tell me that that site's authors words hold more weight when it come to analyzing Sci-Fi because he is an engineer.

No, you can't. You can use it to analyse Brent Spiner's acting, but you can't use it to analyse Data.

Who is going to stop me?

So, treating everything the same, instead of throwing stuff out depending on your preconceived notions of what should be happening "mucks up what is the Trek Universe" does it?

No, trying to analyze material with obvious flaws and not acknowledging those flaws mucks it up. It would be like writing a paper with data that you know is flawed.

[m52nickerson]

Agreed. The idiotically large BoPs in "The Defector" would be something else to fix. Until such time, however, WYSIWYG, and we still have the "D'Tai class".

....and with all due respect both are most likely wrong!

[Graham Kennedy]

Agreed. The idiotically large BoPs in "The Defector" would be something else to fix. Until such time, however, WYSIWYG, and we still have the "D'Tai class".

Just for my own curiosity... if they did a rework of DS9, do you think they would overdub and modify Lovok's comments, or change the special effects to show more damage to the planet? And why do you think they would do what you think they would do?

[Captain Seafort]

I've seen it and read it, and reject it. It author is more likely trying to further his own arguments rather then looking at the best way to analyze things. Please don't try to tell me that that site's authors words hold more weight when it come to analyzing Sci-Fi because he is an engineer.

Why not? He's got a background in science, which means he knows how to analyse stuff.

Who is going to stop me?

Who said anything about stopping you? We'll just ingore you when you ignore canon.

trying to analyze material with obvious flaws and not acknowledging those flaws mucks it up. It would be like writing a paper with data that you know is flawed.

Agreed. What's this got to do with IU analysis of the capabilites of, for example, the GCS?

[Graham Kennedy]

Who said anything about stopping you? We'll just ingore you when you ignore canon.

Who is "we"?

[Captain Seafort]

Just for my own curiosity... if they did a rework of DS9, do you think they would overdub and modify Lovok's comments, or change the special effects to show more damage to the planet?

I'd hope they'd dub Lovok, given that that would be more consistent with the rest of the show. I expect they'd redo the special effects to be something similar to the LEXX example Coalition mentioned, since that would be a damn site more spectacular.

[Graham Kennedy]

Just for my own curiosity... if they did a rework of DS9, do you think they would overdub and modify Lovok's comments, or change the special effects to show more damage to the planet?

I'd hope they'd dub Lovok, given that that would be more consistent with the rest of the show. I expect they'd redo the special effects to be something similar to the LEXX example Coalition mentioned, since that would be a damn site more spectacular.

And that's their driving aim with the effects? To be spectacular?

[Mikey]

the dialogue in the episodes where he uses contraction is simply mistaken.

Perhaps - as i said, I think each instance of inconsistency must be judged on its own. Here's the issue with letting RL common-sense rationalizations overrule onscree, IU evidence; regarding the above - you may call it mistaken, but I know I heard it.

[m52nickerson]

Why not? He's got a background in science, which means he knows how to analyse stuff.

Not all, frankly few, engineers do experimentation and analyze data. Most use mathematics and rule sets to perform there jobs. I have a back ground in science also, and have done experiments in the field.

Who said anything about stopping you? We'll just ingore you when you ignore canon.

Well at least your version of cannon were Data uses contractions and a Galaxy class can fire from its torpedo tube. In what is cannon we know they can't.

Agreed. What's this got to do with IU analysis of the capabilites of, for example, the GCS?

Easy, we know the footage is flawed, so the analysis is flawed as well.

[m52nickerson]

the dialogue in the episodes where he uses contraction is simply mistaken.

Perhaps - as i said, I think each instance of inconsistency must be judged on its own. Here's the issue with letting RL common-sense rationalizations overrule onscree, IU evidence; regarding the above - you may call it mistaken, but I know I heard it.

Each inconsistency does need to be judged on it's own. What you hear, or what you see is not always what really happened.

[Mikey]

Well at least your version of cannon were Data uses contractions and a Galaxy class can fire from its torpedo tube. In what is cannon we know they can't.

It's "canon." "Cannon" is a type of artillery.

And it's not "his" version of canon. In an ep, we heard Data use a contraction. Therefore, the fact of Data using contractions is canon. The fact that there is canon that a character believed that Data couldn't is irrelevant.

Each inconsistency does need to be judged on it's own. What you hear, or what you see is not always what really happened.

Then, if we don't accept what we see and hear as what "happened," there is no need to watch the show. Since you make up what happened, whether it was portrayed or not, why bother?

[Graham Kennedy]

the dialogue in the episodes where he uses contraction is simply mistaken.

Perhaps - as i said, I think each instance of inconsistency must be judged on its own. Here's the issue with letting RL common-sense rationalizations overrule onscree, IU evidence; regarding the above - you may call it mistaken, but I know I heard it.

Oh, I'm not debating that you heard it. I did too. But it didn't "really" happen.

The idea that Data is programmed to use contractions but not know he's doing it... well sorry, but it's just not credible. If nothing else, Data has repeatedly told people that he can't use contractions - it's been a significant plot point in at least three episodes I can think of off the top of my head (Datalore, The Offspring, Future Imperfect). If he went around using contractions, people would have noticed and commented on it by now.

This is a huge weakness in the "FX uber alles" viewpoint, IMO. Time and time again the excuse for disregarding dialogue is "Oh, X is mistaken/misinformed/stupid". The picture it paints is of a world where basically everybody continuously lies for no reason, often directly against their own interests, or is too stupid to know the basics of their own job or their own world.

Well sorry, but that doesn't make the characters look stupid. It makes the people criticising them look stupid.