Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv Path: uchinews!woodlawn!dzhines From: dzhines@woodlawn.uchicago.edu (David Hines) Subject: plausibility of SF (was Re: Asteroid 2956 Yeomans...) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Reply-To: dzhines@midway.uchicago.edu Organization: The University of Chicago References: <9504102130.0U7ZL00@jadebbs.com> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 03:20:00 GMT In article <9504102130.0U7ZL00@jadebbs.com>, wrote: >>["it's FICTION!!!" excuse for bad science in SF deleted] >This was something I was slowly putting together in my own thoughts. Science >fiction has remained in name, but science probablity/possiblity rules. Going >back to the arguements againts techno-babble, and how it was scientist types >that ripped ST the most. (This puppy isn't smart enough to recognize bad >techno-babble). The attitude has spread, however.Now almost all fiction has to >answer to the laws of physics. The above is purely theoretical, right? I mean, I can't think of a single show on TV that answers to the laws of physics. Sitcoms ignore 'em, action shows ignore 'em, drama shows rarely do anything involving physics beyond a protagonist falling down or getting shot, and every show that's considered by the networks and trade magazines to be "SF" blows plausibility out the window from time to time! The only demand for hard SF is coming from the fan base. Writers are more comfortable with "squishy" science; total lack of constraints means that they don't have to think about too many ramifications of the situations they construct. Many F/X types are more comfortable with "squishy" science because they don't have to worry about sticking to what's true, but they're free to let their respective imaginations roam into the more fanciful and amazing areas. The up side of this is that creativity is very much unlimited, which can be good - but the down side is writers turning out shoddy scripts and then turning to a tech advisor and saying "make it work by putting suitable phrases into the characters' mouths," or makeup gurus who give "aliens" thoroughly stupid features (I recall one being whose nose and chin were connected by a curved bit of flesh - it looks neat, sure, but how the hell does the guy *eat?*) You may think I'm picking on Trek here; I don't mean to single it out, but I spent a good many years watching the shows, so examples from TNG and DS9 leap to mind. The problem exists, of course, on other shows; "The X-Files" leaps to mind (again, because I've watched it quite a bit). The very nature of the paranormal stories told on "The X-Files," for means that lots of stuff will be left unexplained. That's understandable - but it tempts the writers to throw in as much weird shit as they can, saying that it doesn't have to make sense because the show's about the paranormal. (Example: the "abducted animals" episode, in which the animals turned invisible for absolutely no reason, except allowing the inspired scene in which a man was attacked by an invisible tiger.) Squishy science has the advantage of being much simpler to use. After all, it's what the folks who are doing "SF" on TeeVee are *used* to. Most of them have little background in the genre beyond the movies and TV they've seen that have been dubbed "SF." Sadly, this creates a vicious circle. The next generation of folks to make SF programs grows up watching squishy SF, so they make more of it... the wheel turns. >Ugh! > >When did television programing start being designed for thinkers? It isn't. This is Not a Good Thing. You write earlier, "This puppy isn't smart enough to recognize bad techno-babble." Has it occurred to you that this might be a problem? *Lots* of people can't recognize bad technobabble - it's not, as you seem to suggest, because they're not smart enough, but because they're ignorant. Humans have walked on the moon and visit space regularly. We're sequencing our DNA. We're using genetic engineering; we use satellites and computers in our daily lives - and the average person knows only as much about science as he's seen on TeeVee. I don't know about you, but that frightens the living shit out of me. Television can and does serve as a wonderful medium of education as well as entertainment. "Sesame Street" is a successful example - it's well-written, clever, and both kids and grown-ups can watch it without feeling talked down to. I'd *love* to see an SF show do this - it wouldn't require much, just some care and attention to what's plausible. Education doesn't have to hurt. I feel very strongly that SF on television can and should be used to educate viewers, rather than just give them pretty effects. Unfortunately, Hollywood doesn't think that way; the "Earth 2" producers hastened to say that they'd be including breath-taking effects when they plugged their show in TV Guide, and this month's "Cinefantastique" magazine has an interview with one of the fellows behind the film version of "Judge Dredd," who holds that the films will do well because it taps two core groups: the Stallone fans and the SF fans, "who will go to see the visual effects." That's a patronizing view of SF fans. I *like* nifty effects, but I like *story,* and *characters,* and, goddess help me, a strong *plot* every now and then. I don't get that when the Hollywood people don't think through their stories. And squishy science doesn't exactly encourage people thinking through their stories. I didn't mean to run my mouth so much, but this is a subject I feel very strongly about. David Hines dzhines@midway.uchicago.edu