Scifi silly science

[Luminus]

Sound in space is necessary for dramatic purposes. No one wants to watch quiet space battles, unless you're a science geek; in which case, unbelievable snore-fests like Sunshine, 2001: A Space Odyssey and it's sequel would be perfect. 'Splosions are fun.

Adding to this list is:

Spider-Man 2: drowning a sun in the harbor. Riiiight.

 

[Andrew_Kearley]

- The idea in Space: 1999 that an explosion on the dark side of the Moon will cause it go flying into deep space rather than crashing into Earth.

So, you've heard of the fact that the Moon orbits around the Earth? Just want to be sure of that before I go on...

Right so, the nuclear explosion acts like a gigantic rocket motor pushing the Moon out of orbit. However, it's important to remember that the force of the explosion is not the only force acting upon the Moon at that point. The original orbital motion is also still acting upon the Moon. It doesn't just switch off when the waste dump goes up. So now you've got two forces acting upon the Moon - the explosion pushes the Moon from its orbital path towards Earth, sure - but the orbital motion keeps wanting to push the Moon around the Earth as well. Result, the Moon spirals in towards the Earth but still moves past it, a very close transit which results in extreme tidal and seismic effects on the Earth (which is actually stated in the episode). Once past the Earth, the Moon continues on its way out into space.

 

[Traveller]

Sound in space is necessary for dramatic purposes.

No, it isn't. YMMV, of course.

No one wants to watch quiet space battles, unless you're a science geek;

Guess that makes me a science geek, then. Nobody has ever called me a science geek before; I feel... different, somehow...

in which case, unbelievable snore-fests like Sunshine, 2001: A Space Odyssey and it's sequel would be perfect.

In my experience, a boring film has more to do with defective plot and characterization (and with bad pacing) than with silence in space.

'Splosions are fun.

Yup. Love explosions, too. But I prefer them soundless when I see spaceships from the outside. If you want sound, add music. Or war drums, like BSG did. That was perfect IMO

 

[T'Girl]

^
2) was never solved by universal translators or microbes, just handwaved away. It doesn't make sense that when these are used the lip synch matches up, unless they actually make the aliens speak English (which apparently is not how either tech works).

A couple of days ago I watched "Journey to Babel" in spanish, obviously the lips didn't match the voices. It was very easy to believe that each of the ambassadors were speaking in a different language and there was a UT in play.

Any one have a opinion on this: when Spock and Amanda were talking in private, were they speaking in english or vulcan?

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I have zero problem with sound in space if it's only the viewers and not the characters that hear the sound. There's no classical music in space either.

Well if we're talking about Star Wars - midichlorians!

sometimes pseudo-science should just stay pseudo-sicence.

That was a bad one because I don't think anyone was demanding a scientific explanation for the Force, it was better when it was just a mystical thing. Instead it just comes down to how much bacteria is in someone.

Strangely though for as pulp as Star Wars is I think they handle the language situation about the most realistically of any tv/movie science fiction.

 

[Hyperspace05]

Sci-fi in General.
Sound in space.
People EXPLODING in space

Shouldn't you be bugged by people on screen not exploding in space? Because exploding bodies is what you would realistically see if they're in a zero pressure environment...

Not so... The pressure differential just isn't big enough from a from 1 atmospheric pressure to 0, and our skin is actually a surprisingly good pressure vessel. (enough to handle that difference at least)

You'll primarily die from lack of air/oxygen. You will not explode.

2001 is one of the few films which has handled vacuum exposure correctly.

Here is an article on vacuum exposure: http://www.geoffreylandis.com/vacuum.html

 

[Luminus]

Sound in space is necessary for dramatic purposes.

No, it isn't. YMMV, of course.

No one wants to watch quiet space battles, unless you're a science geek;

Guess that makes me a science geek, then. Nobody has ever called me a science geek before; I feel... different, somehow...

in which case, unbelievable snore-fests like Sunshine, 2001: A Space Odyssey and it's sequel would be perfect.

In my experience, a boring film has more to do with defective plot and characterization (and with bad pacing) than with silence in space.

'Splosions are fun.

Yup. Love explosions, too. But I prefer them soundless when I see spaceships from the outside. If you want sound, add music. Or war drums, like BSG did. That was perfect IMO

YMMV?

Anyway, BSG had sound in space. It wasn't just drums. The ships made sound and we heard the explosions. And there's no background music in real life, either. No close ups and no dramatic flybys of spaceship hulls just to see how cool it looks. Real life isn't why I watch television.

And, yes, anyone who likes the films I mentioned is a science geek. The word geek just means "buff", or uberfanatic.

 

[stonester1]

I just like a good movie, I don't really care about this stuff. Only when it's so aggregious, and it's combined with a moronic story does that sort of thing stick out for me.

Armageddon is a great example of that. Sheer excrement.

 

[C.E. Evans]

- The idea in Space: 1999 that an explosion on the dark side of the Moon will cause it go flying into deep space rather than crashing into Earth.

So, you've heard of the fact that the Moon orbits around the Earth? Just want to be sure of that before I go on...

Right so, the nuclear explosion acts like a gigantic rocket motor pushing the Moon out of orbit. However, it's important to remember that the force of the explosion is not the only force acting upon the Moon at that point. The original orbital motion is also still acting upon the Moon. It doesn't just switch off when the waste dump goes up. So now you've got two forces acting upon the Moon - the explosion pushes the Moon from its orbital path towards Earth, sure - but the orbital motion keeps wanting to push the Moon around the Earth as well. Result, the Moon spirals in towards the Earth but still moves past it, a very close transit which results in extreme tidal and seismic effects on the Earth (which is actually stated in the episode). Once past the Earth, the Moon continues on its way out into space.

Wow. A defense of bad science. So allow me to tell you why you wasted some bandwidth there.

First of all, a nuclear explosion big enough to push the Moon out of Earth orbit, towards and past Earth--at velocities near (or even at) the speed of light in order to travel to other star systems in the series--would destroy the Moon right from the start. Even if it did somehow miraculously survive intact, it would have less than two seconds to curve past Earth at the speed the Moon was traveling at in the series.

 

[sojourner]

No, it does originate behind the scenes. Joseph Mallozzi discusses it here.

I'll quote the relevant portion:

Weren't there a few episodes early on where they didn't understand the locals? So that doesn't really make sense either... but whatever, can't say it ever seriously bothered me.

Twice, that I remember. They couldn't understand the monks on Chu'lak in Children of the Gods, and it took the fishman that captured Daniel some time to figure out English. And even then, he wasn't very good at speaking it. "What fate Omoroca?"

This is easy to explain away. Without a proper DHD, Stargate Control didn't identify and activate the language subprogram at first. They only found it later as they became more familiar with the technology. Q.E.D.

 

[FordSVT]

As to Star Trek's humanoid aliens, I have an explanation that doesn't involve The Chase: there are as many non-humanoid aliens in the ST universe as there are humanoid ones, but we virtually never cross paths with them. Their "habitat" and their needs are so different from ours that there are no points of competition, cooperation or trade that would make contact necessary. We're too different to have a meaningful interaction. We don't have anything they'd want or need, and vice versa. Our thought processes and language structure are probably too different to make communication possible. So, there are no stories to tell about "them and us".

I've always thought the same thing. We do come across intelligent, non-humanoid aliens from time to time, including numerous energy beings, the Horta, the Sheliak (good example of non-humanoid species staying the hell away from us), the Crystalline Entity, and the mineral intelligence on that terraformed planet where Data beat the shit out of a mining laser.

 

[Andrew_Kearley]

Wow. A defense of bad science. So allow me to tell you why you wasted some bandwidth there.

Don't patronize me*, I'm well aware that it wouldn't work in real life. Nor would Star Trek or practically any other scifi show. I'm just demonstrating that it's possible to rationalize what happens in the show using the evidence presented in the show - that the writers had at least thought about the implications of what they were saying, without resorting to some made-up technobabble bollocks either. Yes, it's a bit of a handwave explanation, but it's still there.

Anyway, it's a fantasy. What's more important is the fact that the journey starts, not the mechanics of how it happened. You might as well start quibbling the scientific accuracy of the Greek myths.

*(although looking back I realize the tone of my original response might have come over a bit patronizing. Sorry about that, it wasn't intended - blame posting in the middle of the night.)

 

[Traveller]

*sigh* I just meant I'm not going to drag out a discussion about it, because if you have a different opinion, I'm fine with that. If I misunderstood the meaning of "your mileage may vary", I apologize for irritating you. I does happen to non-native speakers now and then.

Anyway, BSG had sound in space. It wasn't just drums.

I didn't say that it was the only sound they had, only that I found it perfect if you absolutely have to have some noise while showing things in space.

And there's no background music in real life, either.

Eh, really? But background music isn't meant to be part of the in-universe experience, unlike the sound of explosions. It's there to set the mood for the viewer. But you don't need music all the time for creating a mood. Sometimes, silence is even better, for example if you want to emphasize the intimidating vastness and alienness of outer space.

And, yes, anyone who likes the films I mentioned is a science geek. The word geek just means "buff", or uberfanatic.

I happen to know what a geek is. Forgive me for not being dead serious in such an important discussion.

 

[Luminus]

*sigh* I just meant I'm not going to drag out a discussion about it, because if you have a different opinion, I'm fine with that. If I misunderstood the meaning of "your mileage may vary", I apologize for irritating you. I does happen to non-native speakers now and then.

Anyway, BSG had sound in space. It wasn't just drums.

I didn't say that it was the only sound they had, only that I found it perfect if you absolutely have to have some noise while showing things in space.

And there's no background music in real life, either.

Eh, really? But background music isn't meant to be part of the in-universe experience, unlike the sound of explosions. It's there to set the mood for the viewer. But you don't need music all the time for creating a mood. Sometimes, silence is even better, for example if you want to emphasize the intimidating vastness and alienness of outer space.

And, yes, anyone who likes the films I mentioned is a science geek. The word geek just means "buff", or uberfanatic.

I happen to know what a geek is. Forgive me for not being dead serious in such an important discussion.

Oy, now he's upset.

I'm done. It's just not that serious.

 

[Greg Cox]

I don't mind fantasy science like telepathy or warp drives or artificial gravity. That's just poetic license. What bugs me is when they get real, practical stuff wrong.

HEROES is a good example. I can accept invisible people, super-speed, time travel, etcetera, because that's the premise of the show. But an eclipse showing up at the same time all over the planet? That's just sloppy. Unlike super-powered mutants, eclipses are real. We know how they work. You can't treat them the same way you'd treat an evil alien shapeshifter from another dimension . . . .

 

[Temis the Vorta]

But an eclipse showing up at the same time all over the planet? That's just sloppy. Unlike super-powered mutants, eclipses are real.

Plus, there's an easy out for the show. Okay if they want to use an eclipse in a poetic-license kind of way, so that it simply serves as a symbol for the advent of mutant-kind (they threaten to "eclipse" humanity).

There's no reason that needs to be made so literal that the eclipse happens all over the globe at once, and certainly not so that it somehow turns the powers on and off, which is not a problem for being implausible so much as being just clumsy writing. The reason for all the powers popping up at once (although mutants have also existed throughout history, apparently) could be left artfully up to the viewers' imagination. Not every detail of a story needs to be explained, particularly when the explanation is worse than just leaving it be.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Here's one thing: In TNG, when somebody fires a phaser, the beam takes a noticeable amount of time to reach its target. Being a beam of light, this should not occur. The beam should instantly appear between the phaser and its target without any noticeable transition time.

The only time in all of Trek that I can remember this actually happening correctly is in VOY's "Future's End", and it was a 29th century phaser being fired.

 

[Gotham Central]

I think that some people do not get exactly what constitutes silly science. To me, at least, its not the basice scifi tropes that we accept as necessary for storytelling.

Silly science, in my mind, is when they take things that we know and understand and make it do things that we know are not possible. Usually its basic science that gets twisted.

For instance, the film The Core, has nuclear bombs jump starting the Earth's core. That's silly science.

Related to this is when filmakers clearly do not understand the science they are using. Armageddon is full of real science applied incorrectly and thus comes across as silly.

 

[Sephiroth]

Here's one thing: In TNG, when somebody fires a phaser, the beam takes a noticeable amount of time to reach its target. Being a beam of light, this should not occur. The beam should instantly appear between the phaser and its target without any noticeable transition time.

The only time in all of Trek that I can remember this actually happening correctly is in VOY's "Future's End", and it was a 29th century phaser being fired.

but does a Phaser "fire" light? I allways thought it was plasma

 

[The Wormhole]

Nobody asks for 100% realism, but stupid, glaring errors such as sound in space could easily be avoided. I think that cutting between scenes of silent battle from a space POV and scenes from inside the ships where you have thos loud explosions, people screaming, etc. would be more dramatic by this contrast.

So I take it you're a Firefly fan.

Actually, weird solar system aside, Firefly is a surprisingly realistic for sci-fi. No sound in space, no FTL.

Related note: Ron Moore considered not having sound in space for BSG, but dropped the idea because he found it "distracting."