needs something to happen with it.

I suggested that we merge the tag into after editing out all the unrelated non-props stuff based on an initial glance through . Props are things used in movies. Stuff like cars, and cell phones, and computers. It's tagged on random unrelated things, ID questions, it's not even a good tag, anything relating to explaining how technology works can go in analysis, anything about technological items in movies can go in props, whatever.

Out of the questions tagged with , this is the breakdown:

Should probably be deleted

Should probably have the tag removed with no replacement

Should probably be merged into props

Probably needs another tag (maybe analysis)

Let's make something happen with it. Edit it, delete the tag, merge it into something, just... something.

What do you think?

  • Why not make technology a synonym of props? – Napoleon Wilson Mar 24 '15 at 16:43
  • Well you can synonym it if you want, I have a feeling that having the tag at all is a bit confusing since it's not obviously not about technology used for the creation of films without actually paying attention – user5603 Mar 24 '15 at 16:44
  • Hmm, also true indeed. – Napoleon Wilson Mar 24 '15 at 16:45
  • 1
    I will answer later but no! Matter transmission (Star Trek) is a technology it is not a prop at all. The tag may be misused but is still a valid tag. – Catija Mar 24 '15 at 17:15
  • Disagree......will wait what Catija want to say. I think both tag are useful and sometime relatable but not always. – Ankit Sharma Mar 24 '15 at 17:57
  • Well, technology in its current use seems as inappropriate as vampires to me. Maybe we can't merge all of them into props (which is unfortunately what this question primarily asks, though), but it should probably disappear nevertheless. But maybe someone has something reasonable to say to defend it, looking forward to any possible answers. – Napoleon Wilson Mar 24 '15 at 18:21
  • @Catija The enterprise is a prop! Phasers are props! Teleporters are plot devices! etc – user5603 Mar 24 '15 at 19:08
  • @Flyk No. The Enterprise is not a prop because it doesn't actually exist. – Catija Mar 24 '15 at 19:15
  • You know, before CGI, it was a physical model that they used for filming sequences outside of the ship, just like in Red Dwarf. – user5603 Mar 24 '15 at 19:16
  • Then it's a set not a prop. – Catija Mar 24 '15 at 19:16
  • erm, no... Take a look at the Red Dwarf example... that is not a set. – user5603 Mar 24 '15 at 19:29
  • That is a miniature. It's neither a set nor a prop. – Catija Mar 24 '15 at 19:38
  • 1
    Yeah, I got to agree with @Catija - a prop is a physical device (both real and a model of an imaginary thing) used in a play or a movie in scenes with actors. Its not technology, its not special effects. Doesn't answer the questions about whether the technology tag in particular is actually useful. – iandotkelly Mar 25 '15 at 0:58
  • possible duplicate of Do you think it's time for a change in the way we use tags? – user5603 Apr 29 '15 at 15:10

I will admit that the tag may be used incorrectly but you seem to have an extremely broad (and wrong) concept of what a prop is.

A prop (short for property) is anything that an actor interacts with/touches. It is generally considered to have to be something that is not fixed into place, so has to be movable:

In practical terms, a prop is considered to be anything movable or portable on a stage or a set, distinct from the actors, scenery, costumes and electrical equipment. Consumable food items appearing in the production are also considered properties.

In filmic terms, props are part of the Art Department. There is a prop master (and associated crew) who makes sure that all of these items are in their proper place when needed and keeps track of what's used in different scenes for the purpose of continuity.

Because we started with Star Trek, I'll continue:

So, a phaser that is actually used by an actor is a prop.

Phaser as Prop

If it's attached to a wall and never (or rarely) used (like the various Klingon weapons in Worf's room), it's technically part of the set (it may even be glued into place) and, while still under the Art Department, it's actually the job of the set dresser/decorator to keep track of it.

Worf's Room

The transporter bay, too... is a set... even the panel that is used by the transporter room technician is part of the set. It's not a prop because it's fixed in place.

Transporter panel

Technology is very different. Yes, a physical computer may be a touchable item but the science/computer science/technobabble makes the computer actually work within the world of the film or TV show is technology and, in the case of sci-fi, it's not always actually possible!

Now, regardless of whether it's a prop or set... or vehicle or anything else... they're all physical things. A tri-corder is a prop... what makes it work is technology.

You can hardly call the non-sentient computer, voiced by Majel Barrett in almost every Star Trek ever, a prop if someone's asking you to explain the science of how it works... that's absurd, particularly as the physical computer isn't a prop in the first place.

So, some actual examples:

Prison cell doors in Gothika - Since they're actually asking about whether this type of prison cell door actually exists, I'd recommend re-tagging this one as . They're not asking about the technology of how it works.

How do Kryten's spare heads work? - This is actually perfectly tagged as "technology". The question is asking how, within the canon of Red Dwarf, the heads work and what would happen should Kryten use one of them. These heads are not props because they're actual people. Tagging them as a prop would be completely wrong.

Equivalent of 555 for IP adresses - This is more of a movie trope than anything about the technology inside a film.

How could the Vengeance fire phasers at warp? & Why doesn't time dilation take place when travelling at warp? - These are clearly about the science of how this is possible within the world of the film. This tag is fine though it may be more appropriately tagged something like or .

How far advanced are today's robots with respect to those shown in Real Steel? - This is about how the film's technology compares to real life technology and it's asking about the real-life technology that went into making the robots work. I think this tag is fair but there may be an alternative.

I would generally say that any ID question should not be because the question is clearly about figuring out what the movie is, and not about the technology it contains. Example:

Movie that uses USB-Holo Table interface?

  • ID questions shouldn't really be tagged with anything but identify-this-thing IMO – user5603 Mar 24 '15 at 20:18
  • Your example of "explaining how things work" fits into analysis - there is no reason to have a subtag for explaining how the underlying concepts work in a particular piece of technology because we already have a tag for explaining the underlying concepts – user5603 Mar 24 '15 at 20:19
  • 3
    @Flyk I'm not saying that the tag is good... I'm just saying it is not "props". Period. If you want to make a recommendation to merge with analysis, that's a different issue and not what you asked in this question. – Catija Mar 24 '15 at 20:21

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .