Hatrack River Writers Workshop: For those who write SciFi

This is topic For those who write SciFi in forum Open Discussions About Writing at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=006104

Posted by Teraen (Member # 8612) on :

An article about bad science in movies:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8530405.stm

While it is about movies, I think it spreads to writing as well. I definately like his new rule: only one major suspension of disbelief per movie. I recently watched a HORRIBLE scifi movie, which I would rank even worse than this author's worst movie pick, and after reading this article I finally realized why it is so bad. There was simply too many stretches the movie made.

Now that I know the disease, hopefully I can avoid it...

[This message has been edited by Teraen (edited March 09, 2010).]

Posted by billawaboy (Member # 8182) on :

I agree with the article, this was about blatantly bad science - and I agree with their examples. But I also have to say they shouldn't include movies that are blatantly science fantasy - or better, science-like fantasy - like star trek or star wars. Those seem to deliberately violate some of science's basic rule as part of their universe - but it's a fantasy that mimics science! So they disappear into thin air via a transporter beam - just call it science fantasy.

But I understand where their coming from - I like to imagine what would go wrong if a Martian made a movie with Terran characters - what basic stuff would it get wrong that would bother me? I'd get squirmy if someone who grew up in the American South was speaking in a British accent. Or outran an explosion. Or walked on Mars without a spacesuit. Or if a woman suddenly spoken with a man's voice. It's details like that which are impossible to ignore. And if you're a Human - you'll be sensitive to errors like that. Likewise for the scientist who are familiar thus sensitive to scientific details - like sparking shark brain neurons seen under the microscope - sigh, that was pretty bad...even for nonscientists. Like a human with three arms or something...

Posted by sholar (Member # 3280) on :

I think this is why I generally don't read or write scifi. Errors in science (mostly genetics) drive me crazy. And I spend the whole time thinking about that instead of the actual story.

Posted by JSchuler (Member # 8970) on :

quote:
I recently watched a HORRIBLE scifi movie, which I would rank even worse than this author's worst movie pick, and after reading this article I finally realized why it is so bad.

Which one? Don't leave us hanging!

I would keep in mind that the author's list generally consists of stuff that takes place in the very near future. Stuff that takes place further off gets to use Arthur C. Clarke's maxim that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. So, FTL, transporters, etc, are fine, as long as you are consistent in following your own pseudo-scientific rules and the characters are aware of the implications of that magical technology. That's where Star Trek gets in trouble.

Now, Star Wars, that is straight up science-fantasy, but it's not due to bad science as it is to "The Force." In fact, just about every Star Wars fan was infuriated by Lucas's attempt to give the Force a scientific basis in Episode I.

Posted by aspirit (Member # 7974) on :

Professor Perkowitz might not have considered that everyone has a different set of beliefs. One reader may need to suspend disbelief for one aspect while another reader sees half a dozen scientific flaws. Not all physicists agree about what's believable in their field (remember that science is a compromise), so it's foolish to say there are clear-cut lines between potentially real and purely fiction.

What's important is whether or not a story (a) identifies how its reality differs from our reality, if at all, and (b) remains consistent within its reality.

I'll argue that any story that establishes an impossible reality--one we cannot get to and could not have reached had our history twisted in a different direction--isn't sci-fi; instead, it's fantasy.

*Edited to insert a word.

[This message has been edited by aspirit (edited March 06, 2010).]

Posted by rich (Member # 8140) on :

quote:
...remember that science is a compromise...

Science is not a compromise so much as a constant reevaluation of what's going on.

As far as the article, I'm kinda in agreement with the comments section in that article, but if there are too many goofy moments or flaws, I'm not so willing to suspend my disbelief.

Posted by MAP (Member # 8631) on :

Any scifi movie or novel is going to have to tweak science a little. Overwise, the story can be based in our reality.

I like the X-men and Heroes(at least in the first season), but that is not how evolution works. If the story and the characters are interesting enough, all science flaws can be over looked.

That is not the case in the Deep Blue Sea where not only is science ravished but all logic as well. I want my two hours back.

I do think it would be cool to see a movie where Hollywood actually respects science and scientists and makes a sincere attempt to make it believable.

Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :

Seems to me that they are more interested in making the special effects "believable."

Posted by Pyre Dynasty (Member # 1947) on :

Sholar, I blame genetic errors for my being crazy too so you're not alone.

I once had a physics teacher who walked out of Star Wars two minutes in because of some flaw he saw in it. (I can't remember what it was now.)

About the only dealbreaker for me is when people assume black holes = worm holes.

Posted by billawaboy (Member # 8182) on :

I bet it was the star-destroyers making the 'wooosh' sound in space lol

Also I'm reading up on Harlan Ellison - apparently he wrote a review where he described Star Wars as "shallow" and "a film without soul, without a core."

Cold.

[This message has been edited by billawaboy (edited March 07, 2010).]

Posted by Teraen (Member # 8612) on :

"Which one? Don't leave us hanging!"

Red Planet with Val Kilmer and that girl from the Matrix. Had the potential to be good, but frankly, it wasn't.

Posted by JSchuler (Member # 8970) on :

Ah! Talk about mistakes in genetics!

"I believe in code. A, G, T, P"

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

quote:
...Also I'm reading up on Harlan Ellison...

Beware! Beware! Beware! Read him, and he'll be there haunting you when you close your eyes and try to sleep...he'll haunt your dreams, too. You'll carry him with you for the rest of your life. (I've never gotten over a story of his called "Croatoan.")

Posted by philocinemas (Member # 8108) on :

quote:
I once had a physics teacher who walked out of Star Wars two minutes in because of some flaw he saw in it. (I can't remember what it was now.)

I love the original series (except for the Ewoks), but I imagine it was a number of things, most prominently the ability of the ships to make instantaneous maneuvers in space without suffering the effects of momentum or having them completely covered with thrusters.

Posted by posulliv (Member # 8147) on :

Why pick on science fiction? When the cop is struck full-force in the face with a baseball bat and gets up to even the score, or the cowboy, on galloping horseback, picks off her pursuers one-by-one with a pistol, or the knight recovers in hours from a near-mortal sword-wound (after the medieval bone-setter administers an emergency blood-letting) it's just as ridiculous. Bad science is bad science, and implausibility abounds in all genres.