What tropes in science fiction annoy you?

[JD]

Why would it be less convenient to be more realistic?

If we're going to maximize realism, then we can't have warp drive, transporters, humanoid aliens, etc. In other words, we can't have Star Trek at all. Those things make storytelling more convenient. We can get to other planets, we can get around more quickly and easily once we're there, and we can depict aliens using actors with minimal makeup if need be. In short, being less realistic can make things way more convenient. Being unrealistic makes Star Trek possible in the first place.

A universal translator is more convenient by skipping right over the communication issues to focus on whatever the actual story is. There have been a few times in Star Trek when communication was the issue. In those cases, the UT was disabled, it was ineffective, it was first used, or whatever, and the story was about or at that moment focused on communication issues.

Do you really want to waste forty-five minutes of every episode with the humans trying to figure out what the aliens are saying and vice versa? As Corporal Captain says, better to just get to the story--unless the story is all about a language barrier.

The UT also makes a lot easier from a production/viewer perspective too. Without it they'd have to try to come up with a different language for every single different alien race the heroes ran into, which would get hard after a while. It would also mean that every scene involving aliens or at least aliens and our heroes would have to be performed in that language and subtitled, and we saw what kind of a reaction that can get with the Klingons in Discovery.

 

[Discofan]

The UT also makes a lot easier from a production/viewer perspective too. Without it they'd have to try to come up with a different language for every single different alien race the heroes ran into, which would get hard after a while. It would also mean that every scene involving aliens or at least aliens and our heroes would have to be performed in that language and subtitled, and we saw what kind of a reaction that can get with the Klingons in Discovery.

I'll respond that there isn't a UT in realistic movies, yet they manage to make them in every country in the world. How do they make films about Americans in Italy for example?

 

[JD]

Italian is real language that has existed for centuries that thousands or millions of people speak, and a lot of movies set there still have everyone speaking English.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

There isn't a demonstrable impossibility to warp drive or FTL in the real scientific world. Stephen Hawkings said that it wasn't impossible, he even validated the possibility of time travel. (which are somewhat linked, if you move in space and back in time at the same time it's conceivable that you can go faster than light)

That isn't true for the UT.

1) That's not how science works. One can't prove the impossibility of something mathematically using scientific theories, because scientific theories are by definition falsifiable. The best one can do is prove that something is impossible according to currently accepted theories.

2) Asserting that something does not violate currently accepted theories is not the same thing as saying that there is a realistic probability that it will ever occur. Example: there is a non-zero chance of a tennis ball quantum tunneling through a tennis racket every time someone takes a swing at a tennis ball. That is a demonstrably possible phenomenon according to quantum physics. That does not mean that it is a realistic possibility that we will ever see that happen at any point in human history, and it isn't realistic because the odds of that occurring are astronomical.

3) Even though there are spacetime metrics with FTL properties that are mathematical solutions to the field equations of general relativity, we have no idea how to construct an FTL drive, and nor is it even possible to assign a probability to its discovery. Without any idea how to build one, it remains unrealistic.

 

[Discofan]

1) That's not how science works. One can't prove the impossibility of something mathematically using scientific theories, because scientific theories are by definition falsifiable. The best one can do is prove that something is impossible according to currently accepted theories.

2) Asserting that something does not violate currently accepted theories is not the same thing as saying that there is a realistic probability that it will ever occur. Example: there is a non-zero chance of a tennis ball quantum tunneling through a tennis racket every time someone takes a swing at a tennis ball. That is a demonstrably possible phenomenon according to quantum physics. That does not mean that it is a realistic possibility that we will ever see that happen at any point in human history, and it isn't realistic because the odds of that occurring are astronomical.

3) Even though there are spacetime metrics with FTL properties that are mathematical solutions to the field equations of general relativity, we have no idea how to construct an FTL drive, and nor is it even possible to assign a probability to its discovery. Without any idea how to build one, it remains unrealistic.

You're missing the point completely. Although a world with FTL is something that isn't demonstrably impossible, a world with the UT is something that is definitely, completely, irrevocably, indisputably, indubitably, undeniably, unavoidably IMPOSSIBLE!

I don't know how to make it clearer.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

You're missing the point completely. Although a world with FTL is something that isn't demonstrably impossible, a world with the UT is something that is definitely, completely, irrevocably, indisputably, indubitably, undeniably, unavoidably IMPOSSIBLE!

I don't know how to make it clearer.

I really don't think I missed a thing.


Moving on.

P.S. Google Translate keeps getting better and better.

 

[Discofan]

I really don't think I missed a thing.
...

A friend of mine who's born blind says the same thing about sight. He says that he can't even imagine what it is. He thinks it's something between hearing and touch but is somewhat mysterious. So he doesn't feel like he's missing something.

 

[Greg Cox]

I'll respond that there isn't a UT in realistic movies, yet they manage to make them in every country in the world. How do they make films about Americans in Italy for example?

Depends on the story and the intended audience. If the movie is intended for Italians, but set in America, you have the actors speaking Italian even though they're "supposed" to be speaking English. Unless the story involves Italians meeting Americans, in which case the language barrier maybe a plot point. Or you establish that the Americans can speak fluent Italian while visiting Rome. (James Bond seems to know every language on Earth, even though we usually hear it as English.)

Look at movies like THE TEN COMMANDMENTS or BEN-HUR or SINBAD or HERCULES. We all know that nobody was actually speaking English in ancient Greece or Rome or Baghdad or whenever, but, if it's an American film, the actors speaks English so American audiences can follow the dialogue, with maybe a few foreign words or phrases thrown in for flavor.

If you have characters using different languages in the movies, there are a couple of techniques. You can assume that the "Russian" characters are speaking Russian when they're talking to each other, even if they're actually speaking English, or you can use subtitles, or you can do what THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER did and start out with a few lines of subtitled Russian to establish that they're speaking Russian, then segue into accented English for the sake of the audience . . ...

In SF, the UT or "Babel fish" or whatever just means that the protagonists don't have spend weeks learning how to communicate with the aliens before discovering what the plot is all about. You sacrifice "realism" for the sake of pacing.

Look at the original PLANET OF THE APES. Is it realistic that the Apes speaking English doesn't tip Taylor off that he's still on Earth? Of course not. But would the movie have been better if he'd been forced to spend weeks learning the apes' language (as he did in the original novel)? And the rest of the movie had been filmed in subtitled Ape-ish?

I think not.

There's a famous old quote from Saki that I love and that applies to most fiction and theater: "An ounce of inaccuracy saves a ton of explanation."

Word to live by.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Oh, I had just assumed it was because I was a stereo setup for stuff meant for surround sound.

Yeah, it surprised me. I suspect there's something a bit more complex going on there.

 

[Discofan]

Depends on the story and the intended audience. If the movie is intended for Italians, but set in America, you have the actors speaking Italian even though they're "supposed" to be speaking English. Unless the story involves Italians meeting Americans, in which case the language barrier maybe a plot point. Or you establish that the Americans can speak fluent Italian while visiting Rome. (James Bond seems to know every language on Earth, even though we usually hear it as English.)

Look at movies like THE TEN COMMANDMENTS or BEN-HUR or SINBAD or HERCULES. We all know that nobody was actually speaking English in ancient Greece or Rome or Baghdad or whenever, but, if it's an American film, the actors speaks English so American audiences can follow the dialogue, with maybe a few foreign words or phrases thrown in for flavor.

If you have characters using different languages in the movies, there are a couple of techniques. You can assume that the "Russian" characters are speaking Russian when they're talking to each other, even if they're actually speaking English, or you can use subtitles, or you can do what THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER did and start out with a few lines of subtitled Russian to establish that they're speaking Russian, then segue into accented English for the sake of the audience . . ...

In SF, the UT or "Babel fish" or whatever just means that the protagonists don't have spend weeks learning how to communicate with the aliens before discovering what the plot is all about. You sacrifice "realism" for the sake of pacing.

Look at the original PLANET OF THE APES. Is it realistic that the Apes speaking English doesn't tip Taylor off that he's still on Earth? Of course not. But would the movie have been better if he'd been forced to spend weeks learning the apes' language (as he did in the original novel)? And the rest of the movie had been filmed in subtitled Ape-ish?

I think not.

There's a famous old quote from Saki that I love and that applies to most fiction and theater: "An ounce of inaccuracy saves a ton of explanation."

Word to live by.

It takes weeks for Taylor to learn the ape language but you could show it in a couple of minutes. It's done in many films. Someone learns a skill and you see him evolve in that skill in a quick sequence. that works well.

Also in the novel, it isn't Earth, which makes more sense. How could Taylor miss the moon in the sky????

 

[Greg Cox]

It takes weeks for Taylor to learn the ape language but you could show it in a couple of minutes. It's done in many films. Someone learns a skill and you see him evolve in that skill in a quick sequence. that works well.

But it wouldn't be as dramatic as having him shot in the throat so he can't speak. And, even as a montage, it would lessen the urgency of his situation. Dr. Zaius just sits back and give Taylor weeks to learn their language before trying to having him lobotomized and gelded?

"Oh, this human is gradually learning our language. Nothing to worry about, I'm sure."

And Taylor has the leisure to take daily Ape-ish lessons from Zira, as part of his daily routine? That doesn't exactly convey a sense of danger or suspense. . ..

"It's a madhouse! With vocabulary lessons!!!"

At the end of the day, the UT is no more implausible than, say, telepathic green-blooded Vulcans, or beings who evolved a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away looking and talking like Carrie Fisher. It's just a staple of science fiction and fantasy.

If you want absolute realism, watch DEATH OF A SALESMAN.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Destiny. I'm so sick of characters that have a "destiny" that's given to them in bits and pieces in cryptic, prosaic prose. It's been an albatross around the necks of a many science fiction writer. Mostly overused in media SF-TV, from Star Trek to Babylon 5 to Battlestar: Galactica.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

^ That reminds me. The countdown to lethal radiation exposure, as if at 0:01 all is well but at 0:00 you're dead from radiation poisoning. Ugh.

Heck, most countdowns, for that matter.

Not to mention most, nearly all movie and TV bombs have huge freaking readouts counting down the time.

On language I don't think that kind of thing is explainable. Howcome some people who suffer brain trauma sometimes can speak in other languages yet they've never been exposed to them or learnt them? Where did that all come from?

 

[JD]

Destiny. I'm so sick of characters that have a "destiny" that's given to them in bits and pieces in cryptic, prosaic prose. It's been an albatross around the necks of a many science fiction writer. Mostly overused in media SF-TV, from Star Trek to Babylon 5 to Battlestar: Galactica.

I've always thought of that as more of a fantasy thing, so I find it surprising how often it does pop up in stuff like Star Trek that is straight sci-fi.

 

[FormerLurker]

Also in the novel, it isn't Earth, which makes more sense. How could Taylor miss the moon in the sky????

In the novel, it isn't Earth. In the film, cloud cover. There's a line of dialog about it.

 

[GNDN18]

But it wouldn't be as dramatic as having him shot in the throat so he can't speak. And, even as a montage, it would lessen the urgency of his situation. Dr. Zaius just sits back and give Taylor weeks to learn their language before trying to having him lobotomized and gelded?

"Oh, this human is gradually learning our language. Nothing to worry about, I'm sure."

And Taylor has the leisure to take daily Ape-ish lessons from Zira, as part of his daily routine? That doesn't exactly convey a sense of danger or suspense. . ..

"It's a madhouse! With vocabulary lessons!!!"

At the end of the day, the UT is no more implausible than, say, telepathic green-blooded Vulcans, or beings who evolved a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away looking and talking like Carrie Fisher. It's just a staple of science fiction and fantasy.

If you want absolute realism, watch DEATH OF A SALESMAN.

That universal translator. It’s liked, but not well-liked, if you know what I mean.

 

[Greg Cox]

And, of course, a lot depends on just how "realistic' a given project is trying to be. You wouldn't hold BARBARELLA to the same standards you'd hold "2001" to, even though they both came out in the same year or are of the same era. Similarly, Krypto the Super-Dog would feel out of place in a Christopher Nolan BATMAN movie but would fit in perfectly with the more whimsical approach of LEGENDS OF TOMORROW.

Same thing with Universal Translators or alien space princesses. They're only a problem if a project is supposed to be rigorously "realistic" or whatever. Most of the time a UT is just a convenient plot device.

 

[Discofan]

...
If you want absolute realism, watch DEATH OF A SALESMAN.

Which is a masterpiece!

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Speaking of classics Mildred Pearce and They Drive By Night. "The doors, the doors" Ida Lupino did crazy well.

 

[Skipper]

If you want absolute realism, watch DEATH OF A SALESMAN.

And even with it you can't have absolute realism, because it's a a story written by someone with a beginning, a middle and an end and (unfortunately) real life isn't structured in this way. Even documentaries aren't t absolutely realistic, because people behave differently in front of a camera. Only an invisible voyeur can enjoy true realism