posted
I've recently been 'investigating' the quality of science and physics used in films and books.
And, of course, I'm constantly working on improving my wriiting.
As I learn more and study these areas more, I'm discovering it's harder and harder for me to enjoy literature or movies.
Anyone else have this problem? Suddenly I find myself going to movies like Van Helsing or Day After Tomorrow and just completely despising them. I know that even four or five years ago I would have loved these films for their effects alone. But now, the writing is so bad (especially Van Helsing) and the science is so off base that I just can't let the special effects and action take over.
So have I become TOO skeptical? Or are those movies just THAT bad?
But it's not just movies...I found myself tossing Hammerfall by C.J. Cheryth in the circular file after forcing my way through 100 pages. And even though I find Lion of Senet to be a good book, I can't help but wonder if I would have enjoyed it more back in my "I just read it for entertainment" days....
posted
Well, there's a combination of things going on here. First of all, the movies you mentioned were exceptionally bad in terms of science. I'm not sure, therefore, that they are good examples of what you are talking about.
I do understand, however. As a child, I could enjoy stories that had faulty science and logic. I'm not sure what I enjoyed about them, maybe character. I usually enjoyed stories that had a strong female character with whom I could identify.
Then I began to learn things. A few things here, a few things there, and before I knew it I could not enjoy all of the things I used to enjoy.
I think part of it is growing up. But it can go too far.
Let's take a good example from my past: Star Trek. I loved the next generation episodes when i as growing up. (Oh, I must have been 10-15 as I watched those.) I had a crush on Wesley Crusher. (Yeah, yeah...) But at some point I began to realize how silly it all was. I mean, it's just plain silly. And now, if I happen to catch an episode on Spike TV because nothing else is on, I have to work hard not to laugh. I just outgrew it. In part, its a shame, but then, I've left much of the naivety of my childhood behind.
On the other hand, it can go too far, this obsession with getting the science right. You haven't mentioned anything that concerns me, to be honest, but if all of a sudden you started thinking Clarke's work was full of holes, I'd have to be worried. (and never let you critique anything of mine!)
So skepticism is good, a little growing up is good, just be careful not to let it go too over the top.
posted
Clarke's work is full of holes...but that's why it's called fiction.
Really, I just wanted to register my laughter over your little admission about Wes
Anyway, fiction is an art. All fiction, not just science fiction. It is an exercise in portraying truths that transcend the facts. The facts in fiction are always wrong, the deeper question is whether there is any truth to be found.
posted
Don't you think it's facinating though when an author or a movie makes you actually believe it is possible? I haven't seen either of the movies you mentioned, but I agree sometimes movies are just bad. It is fun to watch things like Star Treck, Battlestar Galatica or The Prisioner, and laugh. I do wish someone would make a space movie and not have sound when things explode in space, this bothers me.
The great thing about science is, it's changing all the time. The best example I can think of is the resurgence of this idea that part of the water on Earth today may actually have been sucked off of Mars when it passed close to us sometime long, long ago. The scientific community scoffed at this idea, along with everyone else, and now it's getting some serious press and thought again. Who would have thought? Now, I'm not saying there isn't such a thing as "bad science", but, who knows, the crackpot ideas of today could be reality tomorrow.
posted
I thihk Christine nailed it, though. I used to love, and I mean LOVE to read Robert Asprin and Douglas Adams.
Okay...I STILL love to read Adams, but still...
I read the latest M.Y.T.H novels now and just can't stomach them. And to think that at one point in time Piers Anthony was my reference point for good literature...eek.
Thank you OSC and Ender's Game for getting me on-track for good stories.
I still can't believe I waited until I was almost THIRTY to read Tolkein.
As for the Star Trek references--I guess I still am able to forgive some thing! I am a Trekker through and through (though somebody, please, spare me that first season of DS9--there's only so much nodoze one person can take). From what I hear about Trek, though, the original series initially attempted to right the "sounds of explosions in space" thing, but apparently viewers complained that it didn't 'feel' right not to hear things blow-up.
So I guess in some cases we the viewer/reader are to blame for some of the flaws in science we see/hear (er...don't hear?) in film.
But as far as quality of writing goes...well...no. On second thought, we seem to keep buying up poor samples of writing by the truckoad, too.
And in the case of flicks like "Day after tomorrow" I guess that watching global climate shift occur over the course of several decades just doesn't exactly hold the audience too well.
Still, it would be nice to read a book and not stop every other paragraph and think to myself "I can't believe they got away with writing that..."
Of course...I've never felt that way reading Tolkien or Card or Brooks....well...maybe on occasion.
(And what is it with me and all these stupid ellipses??? I honestly don't do that in my fiction. I promise...really....)
posted
You had a crush on Wesley Crusher? Man. Wow. Not that I can talk, given that I had a crush on Alan Rickman because of his performance as the Sherrif of Nottingham in Robin Hood (hey, at least it was original at the time, although the current influx of Snape fans has weakened the obsession points)... but wow.
Mmm. I actually find myself enjoying bad science movies a great deal. There's something innately wonderful about going to the movies with friends and saying "*snerk* Stupid movies. That kind of quartz deposition could never occur at those depths, even if the pressure would allow the formation to occur. *snerk snerk*" (And something even more wonderful and perhaps disturbing if those friends understand you, and vice versa.)
Bad writing is another story, although I rather hope growing out of some writing means you're growing into other writing at the same time. It's when you grow out of, say, Finnegans Wake that you start getting worried.... *jk*
posted
I'm not sure if it's the writer in you that affects how you enjoy things, but it is your inner editor. Sometimes I read things that I would never allow in a final draft. I think when you go to the movies you should leave your inner writer and editor at home. Personally I find a way to enjoy anything, if a movie is just horribly bad I ignore it compleatly and write my own version. (also I do that if in a class if my teacher sucks the purple tomato. Write my own lesson.)
Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted
This argument just won't end: science fiction vs. science fiction. I daresay there'll always be an audience for both types of SF, and even within each audience a lot of moving back and forth as likes and dislikes change, mature, and/or rekindle the inner children in many of us. Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted
I've gotten so I can't forgive bad science OR bad writing, so I don't waste my money in the theater. I wait until the perp shows up on cable TV, then let the *snerking begin.
I've also noticed that I've gotten better at rating movies based solely on previews. I saw the first preview for Day After Tomorrow many months ago, and my response was "cool effects, but it'll be totally schlocky." Bingo.
And while I'm on the subject of previews, my favorites are the ones where you get to see the whole movie in three minutes. Then it comes out and I think, "haven't I seen that one already?"
And Gen, the best way to "de-Snape" Alan Rickman is to rewatch Sense and Sensibility. Works like a charm.
Lisa
[This message has been edited by birdcastle (edited June 15, 2004).]
posted
...except I like him as Snape. *hangs head in shame* It's more the new Rickman fans his Snape performance is pulling in...
Posts: 253 | Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted
I liked him in Galaxy Quest...but I think that Hans Gruber will always be the quintessential role
I actually like Robert Asprin better than Douglas Adams...Asprin knows how to tell a joke with a straight face. The Myth books are great fun. So are all the Adams books...but Asprin is pure fun.
I always thought that Piers Anthony was juvenille, but I read his books anyway (because I wasn't always so old, you know). So I can authoritatively state that they are for only teenagers if anyone happens to mention them.
posted
You guys left out the quintessential Alan Rickman, in Dogma.
Oh, I can hear the groans from here.
No. It was a good movie. It was, as Kevin Smith meant it to be, a hilarious movie and just a bit sacrilegious, but that, and Alan Rickman, is what made it great.
That, and Ben Affleck's head exploding. I could never get tired of that.
Though I could do without seeing Alanis Morrisette portraying God. Seriously. It's wrong.
posted
No, that wasn't what I meant. I mean, it did seem kind of appropriate to portray the Almighty as a tree-swinging, almost child-like deity, but it was the Alanis part that threw me.