There is no such thing as science fiction in movies and TV
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, December 31, 2007 16:00
VIEWED: 6518
PAGE 3 of 5
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
In responce to a post by someone in my other thread, I would say that movies like 2001, Solaris, Gattica, and Star Trek: TMP, qualify as 'real' science fiction...
If you cheer and jump, it's still just fantasy IMO.
Blue Danube Chrisisall
2001 qualifies as REAL Sci-fi?! And what doesn't....
Blade Runner
Brazil
?
I guess I'm coming to the discussion late...
was this from the Matrix thread, or something I missed?
I'm just trying to get the hang of what qualifies as SCIENCE under your definition and because it all seems fairly fantastical to me....
and too restrictive, when ultimately the physical plane of existence is an illusion and all that really exists are energy particals.....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Okay- let's analyze...example: Mission Impossible 2- I like the film, but recognize that it's pure popcorn nonsense. Imagine for a moment, Mal pulling a back-flip-kick-in-the-face on the Operative like Cruise did to that guard in MI2...tell me it wouldn't have just destroyed the drama of their physical conflict on the spot.
Originally posted by Causal:
It must be a real drag going to the movies with you!
Little things like gravity mean so much to me Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
But how else do you divide between fantasy and fiction?
Just to throw this in, I see sci-fi with the bits that don't exist in the real world being explained by "technology". Like, Firefly, Star Trek, The Matrix, those are all based on the tech avalible in the 'verse that they're set in.
Fantasy has several different characteristics. It can be fantasy because of magic, like Harry Potter. It can be fantasy because of special powers, like The Fantastic Four. It can be fantasy because of, say, vampires, faerys, demons, yada living in the real world.
Both fantasy and sci-fi can have altranate dimensions, but how you get to said dimension is how you distinguish if the story is sci-fi of fantasy.
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Y'know, I also have a problem with movies set way in the past where peeps have pearly white teeth..or movies where regular folk take punisment in stride that would KILL an Olympic athlete...colour me obsessed that way.
Originally posted by Causal:
By the by, I've never really understood the insistence on slavishness about scientific accuracy.
That makes perfect sense to me- I also get bugged about that sort of thing. I don't really ask to have an explanation of how to build a spaceship, I just want to have some right-sounding theory. Like in the Ender's Game series, how do we get these gravity machines? We stole them from the Buggers, we don't understand how they work, we just copy them.
@)~*~*~*$)~*~*~*)~(*~*~*~($*~*~*~(@
This feature of this sig will be temporarily off-line untill fixed.
#~%~~*~~~&~~~*~~%~#
My favorite quotes:
\~~~*~~^~~*~~~/
98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Em, I'm gonna get all RWED on your a*s in a second if you keep that tone up!
Originally posted by embers:
2001 qualifies as REAL Sci-fi?! And what doesn't....
Blade Runner
?
*smirks*
Just kidding Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Em, I'm gonna get all RWED on your a*s in a second if you keep that tone up!
*smirks*
Just kidding Chrisisall
I'm not trying to give you a hard time here....
oh wait, I totally am! LOL
above you said
Quote:
Little things like gravity mean so much to me Chrisisall
which is very much to the point...
because I am starting to think that that is your whole point?
So in Out of Gas is must have just driven you crazy that the gravity didn't go out on Serenity, huh?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm less a fan of scientific accuracy than I am of consistency.
Think of Mystery books/films/shows. It's an important element of the genre that any clues the detective uses to solve the case must be presented to the audience. Part of the fun is being able to follow along and solve the case along with the sleuth. Sure, you could do an episode of NCIS that focuses entirely on DiNozzo's personal life, but it wouldn't work as a mystery (for that one episode, NCIS would become a drama [or a sophomoric comedy, given DiNozzo]).
I hate shows where I'm expected to just "turn off my brain and enjoy the ride." I like being able to follow along with the characters and the plot. It makes it more engaging.
That's one of the reasons I like Star Trek. Sure, the "science" is all handwaved technobabble, but it's internally consistent. If a warp drive works a certain way in TNG, then I know it'll work the same way in Voyager. When Geordi talks about bypassing the EPS distribution system to feed more power from the M/ARC into the field coils, I know what it means (he's causing shipboard brownouts and risking blowing the warp coils, or the warp manifolds, or both [which would cause flowback to rupture the main plasma conduits, which might set off the core itself and make ship go boom]).
The general concensus in showbiz is that one can either make a scientifically accurate documentary or an emotionally-engaging story, but not both. Science must, therefore, take a back seat to storytelling. It's also a factor that entertainment is made for the lowest common denominator. The people who don't know temporal mechanics from the temp who works at the garage, think silicon-based life is Pam Anderson's boobs, and wouldn't recognize Lisi's unified field theory if it started calculating nonlinear E-8 equations on their collective backside.
The argument is that they don't care about science, so neither should the storytellers. Trouble is that when storytellers do try to pay attention to science, they usually end up saying "hey, look at me being all scientifically-accurate!" That makes stupid people feel stupid, so the producers say "don't."
My argument is that, if most of the audience doesn't care about science, then it shouldn't matter if the science is good. It certainly won't hurt them, as long as we remember that the focus should always be on the characters and the plot, not the foundations and window dressing.
I think it's more fun, both as a writer and as an audience member, to have that clearly-defined set of rules that lets me follow what the characters are doing. It doesn't necessarily need to be explained(*), just so long as it does make sense.
This might be why I'm such a fan of supplemental material (like RPGs, web-content, and tie-in novels) --they allow all that stuff to be explained without tying up screentime.
(* That's my problem with a lot of cyberpunk --let's break this pulse-pounding chase sequence to explain how cybernetic muscular enhancements work, how they've altered cultural mores and regulations involving athletics and medicine, and how our characters are tracking each other through a hyper-reality "head's up display" digitally overlayed onto their retinas. Okay, done? Back to the chase sequence three chapters later.)
I mean, dramatic, exciting events happen in real life, which most certainly does have a rigid set of scientific laws (some of which we don't quite understand, but they exist nonetheless --they have to). There's no reason why they should be thrown out in order for a story to be "dramatic."
If I have a story in New York, I won't have someone walk from the Statue of Liberty to the Empire State Building. I doesn't mean I need to explain that there's water in the way, the ferry schedule, the city layout, its history, the significance of Lady Libby and the Empire State, or the effect of 9/11 on inner-city travel. It just means that time will pass between scenes, and my character will be spotted getting ou
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Great post, cybersnark. I was right with you... until I got to this point LOL! Really, I agree that the characters and plot are the main focus of entertaining stories, and consistency is key. You covered that well.
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
Someone once asked Alfred Hitchcock why he didn't make Westerns. His answer was to admit that he had no idea what a good hat cost in the old west. Without that kind of attention to detail, a film ceases to be a work of art and becomes simple product.
But if a detail like the cost of a hat is so very important, how about science-y details? I'm just saying, a true work of sci-fi art will marry the pseudo-science and the character/plot/theme, and not just use the funky setting as an excuse for big CGI.
Taking the time to put the characters and plot into a scientifically feasible setting without the three pages of cyberpunk explanation (*yawn*) is where the art comes into it. It can be done without being heavy-handed or intellectually condescending. Just takes thought and creativity. Well... and the writer has to care. There's no rule that says the writer has to give a fig about feasibility. Put in a good space ship chase and a few explosions and the holes in the plot go away!
Seems lost of writers go for that method these days...-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I would say each of us may define science fiction as we understand it. There was a time I would go to a book store and there would be a fantasy section and a science fiction section, now when I go to buy a book I see the two combined. The book stores don't bother exploring the difference. Of course there is also the science fiction that has plausable science in it, like simple space flight, to make it a possible future and then there is science fiction that has science that is still pure theory, like time travel, and may prove impossible or never be proved.
So I leave it up to the reader.
If anyone has read Felicity Savages's works like "Humility Garden" and "Delta City" they may place them in either fantasy or science fiction.
It may be that our Universe is created to have all possibilities. There may not be any limits. I'm still scratching my head at String Theory. Have not got a grasp of that one and probably never will.
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I believe that the ships are designed with exotic matter in the lowest hull, providing the 'pull' of Earth-norm gravity without need of a power source. At least, that's my fanboy way of circumventing any annoyance with it. I love our BDH's way too much to let a little science flub stand in the way...
Originally posted by embers:
So in Out of Gas is must have just driven you crazy that the gravity didn't go out on Serenity, huh?
Flexible Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
actually I don't think of it so much as a flub, as a lack of budget...
getting rid of gravity is REALLY expensive!
so we can make up our own excuses (I asked one of the Zoic team and he said that he liked to think at Mal had some magnetic boots on or maybe the artificial gravity some how lasts for a few hours after the power goes out or or or....).
It is easy to excuse the bad Science on the shows we love,
we are ready and willing to come up with theories
(in fact we LOVE thinking up theories)
But when we don't love the show, we are ready to use as the reason for rejecting what is really just a lousy story.
Or that is my theory.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME