Aliens goof? (Decompression?)
Jim Showalter
A. It would be such a short play otherwise.
Get the idea? Moviemakers do the stuff they do to make entertaining movies.
There is very little, actually, that can't be picked apart if you set your
mind to it. For example, why the fuck would people fly gazillions of lightyears
into space to try to trap a Great Big Monster to take back with them when
it would be so much cheaper and easier to just DESIGN a Great Big Monster
using genetic engineering? After all, WE are on the brink of being able to
do that, and we aren't even CLOSE to anti-grav.
Space is a vacuum. But moviemakers add deep bass rumble because they find
audiences like it. It's a dramatic device, like most things in movies.
So apply this reasoning to the question that originally fired up this thread:
why does the ship drop away from the mother ship? Answer?--it looks cool.
Tom
>
>So apply this reasoning to the question that originally fired up this thread:
>why does the ship drop away from the mother ship? Answer?--it looks cool.
This is what I said in the first place. Essentially, who cares why it happened?
Vic Rattlehead revolution
"If there's a new way, =
I'll be the first in line..." power
"Heather, my love, there's a new sheriff in town..."
--Veronica Sawyer
"Heathers"
Louis Blair
>I don't think your examples make your point.
>I discussed TIME AFTER TIME in the original article.
>I did not mention any physics errors in it, because I know
>of none (time travel, strictly speaking, is fantasy, but like
>FTL, has become SF by convention).
Your parenthetical remark here is very interesting. The
assumption seems to be that movies fall into categories with
set rules for each category. I'll come back to this. It's important.
>Its errors are in the logic of its plot. It does illustrate the pitfalls
>of SF for writers unfamiliar with the genre, but does not qualify
>for "scientific stupidity".
You wrote, "Another, far worse example: TIME AFTER TIME ...",
thus giving me the impression that you regarded the logic errors
in that movie as being at least as serious as the science errors in other
movies. You went on to deduce from those logic errors that, "Nicholas
Meyer is a fine writer, but he's not an SF writer, and he was brought
low by failing to think through ...". And you also said, "These kinds
of errors, whether based in physics, in geography, or just in common
sense - these errors that destroy the logic of the events of the story are
abominable." It seems clear to me that you were grouping these kinds
of errors together. Your concluding sentence was, "I submit that if you
look at any SF film with SERIOUS ERRORS OF THIS SORT, you will
find that they're failures in many other ways, as well." (emphasis added)
This is the proposition that I wished to attack by giving TIME AFTER
TIME as an example. It has failures of the sort that you were writing
about, but NOT "failures in many other ways, as well." If you want to
NOW say that scientific errors imply that there will be other failures
while logic errors do not imply this, then I suppose TIME AFTER TIME
is not a good counterexample, but this does seem like a peculiar stand
for you to take after grouping all these kinds of errors together in your
previous writing. By the way, does the time machine appearing in the
midst of an H. G. Wells exhibit count as a science error? It certainly
seems wildly improbable to me. Does statistics count as science?
>If you know of any definite physics errors in the Star Wars films
>I'd like to hear about them
Oh come on, they have the noisiest vacuum that I've ever heard.
>I remain perpetually baffled that any intelligent person could
>consider [Silent Running] a good film;
Again we have the inclination to believe that someone who does not
hold to your standards is lacking in some way. This time its
intelligence that is probably missing.
I guess you missed the Silent Running discussion a few weeks ago.
More than one person mentioned seeing the film several times.
I was once part of a science fiction club that showed it regularly
and we always got good crowds. Many seemed profoundly moved
by the film. A few months ago on rec.arts.movies people were
listing movies that made them cry. Silent Running was mentioned
several times. I'm not trying to convince you that you should
like this film. It may simply be about something that doesn't interest
you, but it is clearly meaningful to many. Harlan Ellison, while
noting some of the flaws that you probably had in mind also wrote,
"the film succeeds. Somehow despite all the idiot errors ... the film
makes it. ... It is affecting. It ... should fall under its own weight.
But it doesn't. It is compelling, inevitably gripping, touching and
somehow very true and dead to the heart of the Human Condition.
... To comment further on the film would be to confuse myself and
you, gentle readers, more than I have already. ... Taken, in totality,
it is a memorable and convincing film. I don't know why." One person
in rec.arts.movies wrote, "I still get choked up about it whenever I
happen to catch it on the tube. I'm not exactly certain why I do, and I
don't really want to find out, for fear of losing the magic of it all."
I don't want to re-run the whole SR discussion over again, but I'll
just mention that I think the key to understanding its appeal is
to (1) put out of your head the notion that the film is intended as
ecological propaganda, and (2) think about the isolation of the
main character both BEFORE and after he starts running. Isolation
(what causes it and what results from it) is what that film is about.
You probably think I'm crazy. I don't want to list all the evidence.
I'll just mention one indication. The very first thing in the movie
that the main character says directly to another human being is,
"Do I have to put signs up to keep you guys off MY grass." (emphasis
added) The last thing he says directly to another living human
being is, "Your are not using those things in MY forest." (emphasis
added) There is much much more, but I don't want to get into it
unless you are really interested. The main point is that for
some people this is a powerful film. It may have flaws of the kind
that you talk about, but they do not indicate there are "failures
in many other ways, as well."
>its weaknesses are too numerous to mention.
There are flaws of the kind that you have talked about, but none
of them have anything to do with the main subject of the film.
>It actually makes no physics errors I recall, though.
Just for starters, there is that old familiar noisy vacuum, again.
>Like TIME AFTER TIME, its problem is a plot that doesn't hang
>together, due (apparently) to a writer who knows nothing of science
>or SF
It's a little bit hard to follow you sometimes. You say the film doesn't
make any physics errors, but you nevertheless conclude that the
writer "knows nothing of science". It seems to me that you are
much too quick to make assumptions about the writer. As for
not knowing anything about SF, this is again a matter of you
assuming that YOUR rules for SF are absolute and that anyone
who violates them is automatically in the wrong. I don't know
what elements of the SR plot don't hang together for you, but
the film does what it is trying to do very well.
>what of the filmmaker? Especially now, when the films we're
>discussing have 8-figure budgets? Is there *any* excuse for them
>not hiring a technical consultant to smoothe out these stupidities?
Simply that to the vast majority of people, these errors are not
important. Also, the technical consultant is not always all
that helpful. A lot of mistakes got past Arthur C. Clarke in
2001.
>There is not. The reason they happen is arrogance. No studio
>would let my hypothetical Paris blunder out the door, because
>this is an error even English Lit majors will spot. But the
>"Two Cultures" arrogance of some artists makes them feel
>that science is beneath their notice
Its not arrogance at all. The simple fact is that people do not
react to scientific errors as they would to your Paris blunder.
There is no reason for the artist to pretend that they do. If the
science error has no real bearing on the main story, if nearly
everyone will ignore it anyway, why is it the duty of the
artist to obey your rules? It simply isn't. No arrogance is
involved. The arrogance lies with those who feel that they
can set the rules for everyone. You evidently have a lot of
enthusiasm for science. Perhaps it is at the center of your
interests. However, it doesn't have to be at the center of
everyone's interest. There ARE other interesting things
in the world. Artists can want to talk about some of those
other things, and they can, on occasion want to use an SF
setting. When they do, it does not necessarily mean that
technology is their subject. Nor is there any obligation for
technology to be the subject. If the artist reaches his intended
audience, that is all that matters. It's only YOU that
reads into the artists actions a belief that science is "beneath"
him. To him its just a different territory, not the one
he is working on at the moment.
>Many pure humanities types are *proud* of their scientific
>illiteracy.
Look at how ready you are to read into a film all sorts of
things that simply aren't there. They don't think that
art has to obey your rules. That's all. Anything else that
you believe about the author of a film is just an unfair
assumption on your part.
>Such people have no business attempting SF films.
I don't know about people who are "proud of their scientific
illiteracy" making SF films, but if you are talking about
people who don't obey your rules for SF, then (I'm sorry
to have to say something so harsh) this is incredibly arrogant
on your part. The lives of many people have been enriched
by films that did not obey your rules. Who do you think you
are to declare that we should not have had the chance to
enjoy them?
>At best they will spoil the film for a significant fraction of
>the audience with their technical illiteracy;
Considering the success of Star Wars, this "significant
fraction" is pretty insignificant. Face it. The number of
people who make a big deal about science errors is pretty
small. If it made a big difference to movie attendance,
then movies WOULD conform more to your rules. The
profit motive is pretty compelling in the movie industry.
Anyway, suppose it IS spoiled for "a significant fraction of
the audience". Does that mean the films shouldn't be made?
What about everybody else? Why don't their tastes count?
What's wrong with making films for them? Films don't
have to be for everyone.
>at worst, and in most cases, they will make a film that
>fails on every level,
Again we have this unfair assumption that someone who
doesn't believe in your rules probably can't do anything
right.
>because their failure to understand or
>appreciate science means they equally fail to understand
>or appreciate SF.
And again we have the belief that the only valid SF is
that which obeys your rules.
>You can't love SF and hate science,
It's only you who reads hatred into the makers of SF
that don't obey your rules. People can have their
attention on something other than science without
hating science.
>and if you don't love SF, how can you make a good SF
>film?
You equate loving SF with wanting to obey your rules.
There are many who love it without feeling that it has
to conform to your rules.
>My point is that the two sorts of failure are connected.
>My thesis is that the people who make westerns in space,
>an OUTLAND, are the same people who have too much
>contempt for science to bother worrying about scientific
>stupidity. The same mindset, the same Luddite arrogance,
>leads to both problems. That's why they go hand in hand.
Over and over you make the same assumptions about people
you have never met. Is it at all possible that people who
don't obey your rules do not have your view of art? Why
does it have to be "Luddite arrogance"? Would you assume
that an impressionist painter has arrogant contempt for
photography? When film-makers ignore science it is not
because they have contempt for it. It is because it has nothing
to do with what they are trying to achieve.
>I don't know if I'm a HCSFF or not; you didn't define it.
As with any group of people, it's difficult to define with
perfect precision. (It's hard enough to define SF precisely.)
I thought I gave enough details to give you an idea of what
I was talking about. For our purposes, the main characteristic
of the Hard Core Science Fiction Fan is that he feels like he
is an expert. He thinks he knows what good SF has to be
and anyone who disagrees just doesn't understand SF
properly. The HCSFF often has names for those he thinks
of as outsiders: mundanes, trekkies, Luddites, etc.
>the "rules" I'm talking about are just common sense. They
>apply to every sort of film, not just SF. It's just that SF is the
>only kind of film where physics is likely to be relevant. But
>the essential idea is the same one that says you don't have
>cowboys in the Old West wearing digital wristwatches, or
>horses hitched to the hitching posts outside the Transamerica
>Tower. It's called "verisimilitude". It's a means of drawing
>the audience into your story by not insulting their intelligence.
Like it or not, for the vast majority of people verisimilitude
can be achieved without obeying your rules. People simply
do NOT react to science errors in the same way that they
would to cowboys with digital watches. NOT EVEN YOU.
I trust you would agree with me that you would not forget
it if a cowboy had a digital watch. But what about the
Star Wars films? Hours of shrieking vacuum - the grand-
daddy of all science errors - the most obvious error - the
error that everyone knows about - AND YOU DID NOT
EVEN REMEMBER IT! People (even you) can be drawn
into a story without it obeying your rules.
>Doing it right offends no one; doing it wrong offends some.
>Why not do it right?
I can just imagine you standing in front of the painting and
saying, "Hey, bushes don't REALLY look like that. Why didn't
he do it right? He must have contempt for optics! What a
Luddite! He must hate light since he doesn't depict it realistically.
He shouldn't do painting if he doesn't love the human eye."
(and on and on.) Quite simply there ARE artistic considerations
too. Take Star Wars for example. Remember that scene at
the very beginning of Star Wars where the BIG, BIG spaceship
rumbles onto the screen from overhead? Imagine that scene
without any sound. Would it be anywhere near as effective?
I sure don't think so. With the scene as it is, a few, a very few
(not even you, apparently) will react with immediate outrage.
For the rest it is an unforgettable experience. Perhaps hours
later they will realize that the film-maker cheated a little bit
to produce the effect that he wanted. Even then, the most
common reaction is to shrug one's shoulders and dismiss it
as artistic license. The scene worked. That's all that matters.
And it doesn't reflect a contempt for science to think that
that is all that matters. It just reflects that one doesn't have
to think about science ALL THE TIME.
>Why do you keep bringing up STAR WARS? It's a "space
>fantasy" - Lucas' description, not mine.
Bingo! Now we really get to the heart of things. You think it
makes a difference that Lucas has called it a "space fantasy".
For you, there are categories. This film belongs in this pigeon-
hole and has to follow these rules, that film belongs in that
pigeon-hole, etc. Clearly you think there is a category which
you call "space fantasy" where the rules are different, where
verisimilitude can be achieved without rigidly following
scientific principles. You don't want to admit that a science
fiction film can break the rules and be good, so you create
a new category where the rules can be waved and stick
Star Wars into it. But even if you insist on this sort of
artificial maneuver, you have to concede in the process
that a film can be effective without following the rules.
Science can be violated without the writer having contempt,
arrogance, hatred, etc. Your rules are only necessary for
YOU and only when YOU put the film in a category where
YOU feel the rules must apply. Those who disobey your
rules don't do so because they have contempt for science.
They do it because their categories are different from yours.
For MOST people SF is a MUCH broader category - big
enough to include hard SF, space fantasy, and much more -
big enough to include works like The Martian Chronicles,
Repent Harlequin Said the Ticktock Man - big enough to
include time travel, faster than light stuff, etc. - big enough
to include things that bend science for artistic effect.
I suggest that the next time you see a film with a science
error, instead of assuming that the writer hates science
just pretend that you heard the writer call it a "space
fantasy" or whatever other category makes you happy
and maybe then you'll be able to enjoy the film just like
the rest of us.
>Think for a moment of some egregious example of your own
>- SPACE 1999 (marked down from $24.95 :-), perhaps. Ask
>yourself if it would in any way have been hurt by being
>more careful about the science.
It wouldn't have been hurt, but it wouldn't have helped particularly
either. That is why I think your attitude is so misguided. You
make it sound as though science errors were the big problem
- as though all they needed was a science advisor and everything
would have been fine. This is that lazy thinking that I was
talking about awhile ago. I saw one reviewer after another
cranking out idiotic reviews listing the science mistakes while
completely missing what the real problem was with that show -
THE STORIES WERE STUPID. Here's an example: in one
episode Moon Base Alpha (God, I still remember the name. Now
THAT is frightening.) was drifting towards a black hole. The
characters wring their hands a lot, eventually prepare a force
field of some sort to prevent themselves from getting squashed,
get sucked in, experience assorted mystical visions, float out
somewhere else, smile at each other, and then its on to the next
adventure. Now THAT is a dumb story and they could have
cleaned up every single science error in it, and it would still
have been stupid. If the stories had been good, perhaps you
would have re-categorized the show as space fantasy and
enjoyed it. Who knows?
>I've got nothing against fantasy; I like it as much as I like
>SF. But when the fantasy is unintended and totally out of
>place,
But YOU have no way of knowing whether its intended
or not, and you only decide that it is "totally out of place"
based on YOUR categorization of what you are viewing
and YOUR rules for what you feel is appropriate in that
category.
>that's carelessness,
or an artistic difference about categories and the rules for
those categories.
I am not trying to say that there is nothing wrong with
a science goof in a movie. There are two cases where a
science goof (or any goof) is a serious matter:
(1) The goof is so glaringly obvious that it distracts people
from the film's story. Obviously, this is subjective and
a certain amount of honesty is required. In most cases,
you don't think of the goof until well after the movie is
over, and then it just isn't a big deal. It also is not a big
deal if the goof is so obscure that only a handful of people
(relatively speaking) would notice it. Those that do
notice would do well to shrug their shoulders and forget
it instead of getting worked up. In Flashdance there
is a scene where a woman runs out of a building that
is supposed to be a dance studio, but which any Pittsburgher
can recognize as Carnegie Library. When Pittsburghers
see Flashdance, they do not say, "This film-maker has
contempt for Pittsburgh. Why didn't he hire a Pittsburgh
expert? He must hate Pittsburgh." They just smile and
know that the film-maker chose the building because
of the way it looked and because he knew that even
Pittsburghers would be understanding and not get all
bent out of shape about it.
(2) The goof is a central part of whatever method is used
to solve the main problem in the movie. If a movie cheats
to solve its central problem, THAT is serious.
Even in these cases, other factors can redeem a movie.
Goofs that don't fit into these categories are still flaws,
but only MINOR flaws. They don't prove that the film-
maker has contempt for science, they don't prove that
the film-maker doesn't care, they are just mistakes -
like the bouncing boulder in Raiders. A film can have
an awful lot of mistakes (like 2001) without anyone
ever noticing. Going into a movie intent on finding the
errors is a good way to ruin a movie for yourself. It's
like going to a movie and watching the top of the screen
to see if the microphone appears and then saying, "Ahah,
there's the microphone. Obviously this film-maker
doesn't care." Goofs are just one small part of what is
going on. What about the acting, the interactions of
the characters, the story? It is simply lazy thinking,
blowing one small aspect of a film out of all proportion,
to focus on the goofs and say, if there are goofs everything
else must be bad, too.
Don't read into the film attitudes that aren't there.
Don't get hung up on one tiny aspect, to the exclusion
of all else. Reclassify the film if it helps. EXPERIENCE
THE FILM.
You'll enjoy things more. Honest.
Kenn Barry
Thanks for the long and interesting response, Louis. If I have
one overall criticism it's that, in your enthusiasm for your theme,
you've cast me as the person whose views you'd *rather* argue with, and
read more into my remarks than they contain. I even agree with some of
your comments, though I disagree with others.
In article <wbjCiDa00...@andrew.cmu.edu> lb...@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair) writes:
>Kenn Barry writes:
>>I don't think your examples make your point.
>>I discussed TIME AFTER TIME in the original article.
>>I did not mention any physics errors in it, because I know
>>of none (time travel, strictly speaking, is fantasy, but like
>>FTL, has become SF by convention).
>
>You wrote, "Another, far worse example: TIME AFTER TIME ...", thus
>giving me the impression that you regarded the logic errors in that
>movie as being at least as serious as the science errors in other
>movies.
I concede the point. I was unclear. Essentially, I agree with
you: I do identify the plot problems of that film with a lack of
familiarity with time travel stories by the writer, and I'd agree it's
in fact an exception to my rule of thumb about this kind of sloppiness
always characterizing bad movies. Hey, it's only a rule of thumb.
>>If you know of any definite physics errors in the Star Wars films
>>I'd like to hear about them
>
>Oh come on, they have the noisiest vacuum that I've ever heard.
There's a facet of my position that plainly hasn't gotten
through; I'll try to make it clearer, below, but the short version is
this: it's usually possible for the average filmgoer to see when a
thing is intended, and when it's an oversight. My complaint is about
what is essentially a technical matter: science oversights (and other
oversights, like the plot problems of TIME AFTER TIME), not intentional
rule-breaking.
>>I remain perpetually baffled that any intelligent person could
>>consider [Silent Running] a good film;
>
>Again we have the inclination to believe that someone who does not
>hold to your standards is lacking in some way. This time its
>intelligence that is probably missing.
That was not what I meant, and I thought I made that pretty
clear in the following paragraph, which you did not quote. I am aware
that people I would consider intelligent do like the film; that's what
baffles me. I appreciated your comments on why you liked it. It made
the popularity of this film with many people more understandable to me.
>>Like TIME AFTER TIME, its problem is a plot that doesn't hang
>>together, due (apparently) to a writer who knows nothing of science
>>or SF
>
>It's a little bit hard to follow you sometimes. You say the film
>doesn't make any physics errors, but you nevertheless conclude that the
>writer "knows nothing of science". It seems to me that you are much
>too quick to make assumptions about the writer.
Yep, my thesis is about writers. You know the main problem I'm
talking about. The whole plot of the film hinges on the "surprise" that
the trees are dying for lack of sunshine. A writer that fails to
realize that perhaps 1/3 of the *audience* will be wondering how the
trees get enough sun, long before our hero thinks of it, has goofed,
seriously. I don't buy the idea that it was some sort of conscious
artistic decision, the way the noisy space ships in STAR WARS seem to
be. When I see a film like SILENT RUNNING, I see a film shooting for
realism. It's addressing the ecological crisis, a real and current
concern. It's a film set far closer to the here-and-now than STAR
WARS. It's a film that makes a general effort at scientific
verisimilitude. When, in that context, I also see a presupposition in
the plot that billions were spent planning, building, and implementing
this tree shelter, but no one thought about the lack of sunshine out by
Saturn, I see a blunder, not an artistic decision. It was unnecessary.
Would it have hurt the film, artistically, if they'd been out around
Mars, where the sunlight problem would be less evident? Or used a
different problem altogether?
In any case, SILENT RUNNING is beside the point. I consider it
an example of the rule of thumb I invoked, you don't; fine. One may
disagree about individual films, while still seeing the validity of the
notion that sloppiness in one area portends sloppiness in many. I have a
lot of problems with SILENT RUNNING beyond the one described, but let it
be. Think of films in general, rather than looking for isolated
exceptions.
>>what of the filmmaker? Especially now, when the films we're
>>discussing have 8-figure budgets? Is there *any* excuse for them
>>not hiring a technical consultant to smoothe out these stupidities?
>
>Simply that to the vast majority of people, these errors are not
>important.
I think it is arrogant to fail to hire a competent technical
adviser when a film is planning a realistic depiction of the technology
of the foreseeable future, and the writer and director are not
themselves competent to do it. I think it's arrogant to assume the
audience won't notice or won't care. They hire people to do nothing but
watch for continuity errors, and people whose main job is to keep
microphones and random bystanders out of the shot. They know such
errors are distracting to the audience, and simply sloppy. What does
*not* having the same respect for science or logic say?
>Also, the technical consultant is not always all
>that helpful. A lot of mistakes got past Arthur C. Clarke in
>2001.
2001 is not "full of errors". It isn't perfect, nits can be
picked, but there is simply nothing in it like the problems in SILENT
RUNNING.
>The simple fact is that people do not react
>to scientific errors as they would to your Paris blunder.
How do you know this? Who are these "people"? More people will
notice the Paris thing, but an awful lot of people notice, and are
annoyed by, gross and gratuitous errors in plot logic or the laws of
nature. You're sounding like a complete artistic relativist, and I
doubt that's your real position. Do you not agree that one movie can be
better than another in an objective sense? Doesn't 2001, and even (I
admit) SILENT RUNNING stand above SPACE 1999 or ROBOT MONSTER?
I admit to being a movie critic here. But I maintain the errors
I complain about are as clearly *errors* as a mike drifting into the
scene, and are as soluble by attention to detail. No one is saying they
should have made a completely different film. We may disagree on the
importance of the errors; we may even disagree in isolated cases about
whether or not there *is* an error; but surely you can't mean that a
goof, an oversight, acquires some magic aura of "art" because it ended
up in the final product!
>If the science error
>has no real bearing on the main story, if nearly everyone will ignore
>it anyway, why is it the duty of the artist to obey your rules?
Obeying "my" rules is not his duty. But works of art have
internal consistency. A film sets its own rules with its themes, its
plot, its setting, its manner, its sets, and much more. People can
tell, given these clues, the difference between an artistic decision
and an oversight.
>It's only YOU that reads
>into the artists actions a belief that science is "beneath" him. To
>him its just a different territory, not the one he is working on at the
>moment.
Sorry, no. If a writer chooses to, say, tell a realistic story
about the near future which is set in space, he takes on the same
obligation of verisimilitude that he takes if he writes a story set in
Paris. He doesn't have to get every intersection right, but he should
feel obligated to make his picture accurate in a general way. The word
for today is "plausible". Otherwise he shows the same disrespect for
the audience that you suggest when you insist that nearly no one
notices these things. Carelessness *interferes* with his artistic
intentions for a significant fraction of the audience.
>>Many pure humanities types are *proud* of their scientific
>>illiteracy.
>
>Look at how ready you are to read into a film all sorts of
>things that simply aren't there. They don't think that
>art has to obey your rules. That's all. Anything else that
>you believe about the author of a film is just an unfair
>assumption on your part.
It is an assertion, but the evidence is there. Granting the
occasional exception, I believe even you would admit a strong
correlation between films that are scientifically illiterate, and films
that fail generally. Compare, for instance, the run-of-the-mill horrors
of SF in the 1950s with the occasional standout SF film from that era,
and see if both the science and the plotting are more honest and careful
in the latter than the former.
>>At best they will spoil the film for a significant fraction of
>>the audience with their technical illiteracy;
>
>Considering the success of Star Wars, this "significant
>fraction" is pretty insignificant.
If you think so, you've missed my point. STAR WARS is obviously
not intending to play by tight rules. You're not listening to me. First
you claim I straitjacket movies in a strict set of rules of my own
devising, then you criticize me for *not* having such a strict set of
rules. I don't judge all films by some arbitrary standard, I judge
films, as well as I am able, by what the *film* tells me it is setting
out to do. If a story features time travel, then those cowboys may,
indeed, have digital watches, and that's fine. But if a film sets
itself but a few years in the future, when it confines, for example,
space travel to sublight, rocket-powered vehicles, when it goes for
realism in characters, settings and situations, and *then* shows
ships making aerodynamic-style turns in space, that's not art, that's
carelessness.
>Anyway, suppose it IS spoiled for "a significant fraction of
>the audience". Does that mean the films shouldn't be made?
I never suggested that. Even SPACE 1999 is quite suitable for
young children :-). As I've said all along, science errors are almost
without exception avoidable, and easily fixed, once spotted. The films
should have been made *better*.
>Over and over you make the same assumptions about people you have never
>met. Is it at all possible that people who don't obey your rules do
>not have your view of art? Why does it have to be "Luddite arrogance"?
How do you tell a typo from a word someone truly doesn't know
how to spell? Context. There can be ambiguous cases, but in general
each looks different. There is nothing special about being able to see
the difference between artistic decisions and mistakes. I don't see how
you'd confuse the two, except that you have somehow read my criticism
as applying to both.
>Would you assume that an impressionist painter has arrogant contempt
>for photography?
Yes, if he engaged in photography without ever talking to
photographers or reading books on photography, all the while producing
bad photos, and blithely maintaining that he was a master of
photography because he was already an "artist". Much SF does involve
science. It may not be at center stage, but in order not to be a
Western in drag, the plot must depend in some way on speculative
assumptions, and those assumptions are often from the realms of physics
and engineering, or the other hard sciences. SILENT RUNNING is one
obvious example. The plot hinges on a point of science. How can the
film not suffer from the scientific naivete shown by the writer?
When such is the case, a writer ignorant of basic physics
*does* show arrogant contempt for science when he fails to concern
himself with matters that are important parts of his story. Any
Spock-eared teenage trekkie could've pointed out that goof; why didn't a
multimillion dollar team of professionals see it? Because they were too
narrow-minded to realize it mattered.
>When film-makers ignore science it is not because
>they have contempt for it. It is because it has nothing to do with
>what they are trying to achieve.
Verisimilitude and the "willing suspension of disbelief" by the
audience are definitely part of what he wishes to achieve.
>>I don't know if I'm a HCSFF or not; you didn't define it.
>
>For our purposes, the main characteristic
>of the Hard Core Science Fiction Fan is that he feels like he
>is an expert. He thinks he knows what good SF has to be
>and anyone who disagrees just doesn't understand SF
>properly.
I think I'm beginning to see what button I pushed with my
essay. Look, add SILENT RUNNING to the list of exceptions to my rule,
if it's really important to you. Maybe it is an exception. But you're
missing the forest for the trees :-). Look at the bulk of SF movies;
especially the old ones, where the difference between a planet and a
star, or a solar system and a galaxy, were beyond the writer's ken or
interest. Tell me that such movies don't suck 90% of the time. Tell me
I'm not right when I say they exhibit a total disinterest in anything
but the hope of a quick profit.
By the way, "Luddite" is not SF jargon for mundanes; it is not SF
jargon at all. It's an old and legitimate word with a specific meaning,
and not a random insult. There are artists who hold science in very low
esteem. Are such equipped to do realistic SF? Would Tom Clancy be
competent to write high-tech military thrillers if he hadn't read up on
modern weapons, but instead felt the subject irrelevant to his higher
artistic purposes? SF is the same sort of specialty. There are rules of
physics which are relevant in movies featuring realistic space travel.
There are rules of basic logic that can be deduced for time travel.
There is the simple error of a writer unfamiliar with SF thinking he has
a brilliant, original idea, when it has already been done to death by SF
writers. There are lots of ways to go wrong.
A writer ignores these things at his peril. SF is no longer the
province of a tiny minority. It is now a major element in popular
culture. The good news is that this means more writers who are not SF
specialists know what they're doing; things are better than they were
in the 1950s. But the bad news is that a large fraction of the audience
is now also hip to these considerations. It is not just some
one-in-a-hundred SF zombie who will be bothered by lack of sound logic
or sound science in SF movies, it is a large portion of the viewing
public.
>Like it or not, for the vast majority of people verisimilitude can be
>achieved without obeying your rules. People simply do NOT react to
>science errors in the same way that they would to cowboys with digital
>watches. NOT EVEN YOU. I trust you would agree with me that you would
>not forget it if a cowboy had a digital watch. But what about the Star
>Wars films? Hours of shrieking vacuum - the grand- daddy of all
>science errors - the most obvious error - the error that everyone knows
>about - AND YOU DID NOT EVEN REMEMBER IT!
No. Your assertions about the "vast majority of people" sound at
least as arrogant as anything I've claimed. Of course I remember the
ships made noise. It's not an error. There aren't any symphony
orchestras out there, either, for that matter :-). It's perfectly
obvious that the roaring rockets of STAR WARS were an artistic decision,
not an oversight, would be obvious even if Lucas hadn't been quoted as
saying that he put 'em in because "people expect it". If you weren't so
determined to see me second-guessing artistic decisions, I think you
would have understood why I had no problem with STAR WARS, for it's the
same reason you weren't bothered.
>Quite simply there ARE artistic considerations too.
Exactly. When a movie opens "a long time ago, in a galaxy far,
far away", when the story is white-hat, black-hat melodrama done in a
mythic style, that sets one set of rules, and Lucas obeyed his own
rules. The basic justification is the one you make: artistic decision.
But would you also claim that SILENT RUNNING made the whole movie turn
on its "surprise" as an "artistic decision", or will you admit that the
writer was displaying ignorance?
>>Why do you keep bringing up STAR WARS? It's a "space
>>fantasy" - Lucas' description, not mine.
>
>Bingo! Now we really get to the heart of things. You think it makes a
>difference that Lucas has called it a "space fantasy". For you, there
>are categories.
Try to make do with what I said. My point has nothing to do with
formalities of category, but with the artist's *intent*. You don't have
to hear Lucas say it to know it's a fantasy, and intended as such. Nor
does it matter if you call it fantasy or SF - *I* certainly don't care.
What's important is that I'm *not* second-guessing artistic decisions. I
take the film at face value, and judge it by how successful it is at
doing what it set out to do. STAR WARS implies one set of rules by its
plot, its setting, by everything about it; 2001 implies quite another.
Noisy rockets are fine in a STAR WARS, but wouldn't you agree they'd
have been a complete mood-breaker in 2001?
>>Think for a moment of some egregious example of your own
>>- SPACE 1999 (marked down from $24.95 :-), perhaps. Ask
>>yourself if it would in any way have been hurt by being
>>more careful about the science.
>
>It wouldn't have been hurt, but it wouldn't have helped particularly
>either. That is why I think your attitude is so misguided. You make
>it sound as though science errors were the big problem - as though all
>they needed was a science advisor and everything would have been fine.
Nope, I said the opposite: more often than not, the real
problem is that science errors are a barometer of the film's overall
lack of quality. The key word is "barometer". It has been my experience
that writers who hold science in contempt, hold SF in contempt, as well.
They are not competent to make SF films for this reason.
>This is that lazy thinking that I was talking about awhile ago. I saw
>one reviewer after another cranking out idiotic reviews listing the
>science mistakes while completely missing what the real problem was
>with that show - THE STORIES WERE STUPID.
Precisely my point. That's why I pointed to SPACE 1999, and not
to something like SILENT RUNNING, when I invited you to come up with
your own "worst case". There is always room for disagreement about
specific films, but SPACE 1999 illustrates the general rule: bad
science goes hand-in-hand with bad filmmaking in the SF field.
>>I've got nothing against fantasy; I like it as much as I like
>>SF. But when the fantasy is unintended and totally out of
>>place,
>
>But YOU have no way of knowing whether its intended
>or not, and you only decide that it is "totally out of place"
>based on YOUR categorization of what you are viewing
>and YOUR rules for what you feel is appropriate in that
>category.
Come on, be serious. Your approach to watching movies sounds
downright mystical: "it is what it is, and we are not to question". One
can argue individual cases, but there are rules for genres, and I
didn't make them up. Examples: If you're making a tight, cerebral,
Ellery Queen style mystery, you give the audience enough clues to
figure out, in theory, who done it. If you don't you've cheated. If
you've established a character as a milquetoast choirboy accountant,
you're cheating if you get him out of trouble by suddenly revealing he
was carrying a gun, knows how to use it, and kills without flinching.
There are all kinds of rules. None are hard and fast. Our
accountant *can* be a gun-toter if the film later reveals he's an
ex-mercenary with enemies, and if this is not done simply to explain
away the gun. But do you really disagree with the general idea that
some films are better than others, that some are more logical, just as
some have more interesting characters or more profound themes than
others? Or that an intelligent viewer is capable of noticing such
things?
>I am not trying to say that there is nothing wrong with
>a science goof in a movie. There are two cases where a
>science goof (or any goof) is a serious matter:
>
>(1) The goof is so glaringly obvious that it distracts people from the
>film's story.
>
>(2) The goof is a central part of whatever method is used
>to solve the main problem in the movie. If a movie cheats
>to solve its central problem, THAT is serious.
Right. And these are the kinds of goofs that I agree are
killers. The only additional point I'm making is that there's a strong
"goof-correlation" in SF films, that serious carelessness about science
in a realistic movie is a barometer of a more general carelessness and
ignorance.
>Going into a movie
>intent on finding the errors is a good way to ruin a movie for
>yourself.
Louis, the entire responsibility for enjoying a film doesn't
rest with the audience, the filmmakers have a large responsibility,
too. I don't go looking for errors, but *big* errors jump out at me,
they jerk me out from under whatever spell the film is weaving. This
happens to everyone, though people vary in their sensitivity to various
kinds of errors. I'm sure I've simply failed to notice ruinous errors
in some films, and was therefore better able to enjoy that film than
those who did notice. But I would not then go on to blame those who
notice the error for being overly-sensitive, and tell them they're
spoiling their own enjoyment, or being unfair to the filmmakers for
criticizing. What I may or may not notice is irrelevant. If a filmmaker
makes a boner big enough to annoy a significant fraction of the
viewers, and if that error was obvious enough to be easily avoidable,
that's the filmmaker's fault.
There is artistic arrogance at work here. There are writers who
feel they can get by with shoddy work. This shows contempt for the
viewer. There are also writers who seem to feel that there's nothing
special about SF, that if they can write a murder mystery or a love
story, they are by definition able to write SF of equal quality. And
some can, but some, by the evidence, cannot. Verisimilitude is harder
in SF. SF often takes one to faraway places and times, or tells unusual
stories, stories that couldn't happen in the here-and-now. Depending on
the story, the writer may have to spend more effort creating an
imaginary society than in creating his imaginary heros and heroines. A
writer unused to writing about the future may stint on this, or may
build in holes due to inexperience with this particular brand of
creativity.
Great painteres aren't automatically great photographers; great
novelists aren't automatically great screenwriters; and great tellers
of one kind of story aren't always so hot at other kinds. There are
special considerations in SF. Those too lazy or too arrogant to notice
this write bad SF.
- From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE: ba...@netcom.com OR apple!netcom!barry