|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> Every time a sci-fi movie comes out, somebody will complain and point
> out how ludicrous some detail about it is,
Well, actually, thinking on this, I think part of it is that sci-fi has a
relatively unique place in art.
For example, if there's some ludicrous event in a romantic comedy, like the
same couple running into each other in the airport every time they go on a
trip, that's just "part of the story." Sure, it's ludicrously unlikely, but
that's part of the story. In a magic story, if the sorcerer can't get five
fireballs off in a row and there's no explanation for why he's limited to
four, people just accept that. But if someone has a blaster and it only
shoots four times and then needs to be dipped in water, people will say
"that's stupid - why would anyone build a gun that only fires four times?"
People make fun of westerns where the cowboys fire dozens of times from one
revolver without reloading, but it doesn't really spoil the movie, because
the focus of a western isn't the wonders of the gunplay per se. (At least,
not usually.)
But I think in a SF movie, people are going to examine every tiny aspect of
the science and find something that they'd let pass in any other genre.
Nobody complains that Clouseau outrageous accent, so strong that *nobody* he
lives near can understand him, wouldn't disappear and normalize in a few
weeks. But everybody complains when aliens speak english, and then complain
more when they have an accent (or don't use contractions, or don't
understand slang, or whatever).
Another place this nit-picking happens is mysteries, especially murder
mysteries. You wouldn't accept a murder mystery where the murderer set up
some long convoluted rube goldberg series of events to kill someone, unless
the point of the mystery is how awesomely intelligent the murderer is.
The whole point of Ocean's Eleven (at least, the new version) was how
awesome everyone was to be able to pull off something like that, not that it
was a normal and expected heist. So the fact that the victims responded in
exactly the predicted way needed to make it all come together doesn't ruin
the film.
You don't give the potential murderer an alibi, but then in the last chapter
point out how, while he was at the restaurant with friends all evening, he
was actually in the restroom at the restaurant for over an hour and nobody
noticed. (Unless it's a French murder mystery, I guess.)
Most genres people will go with the flow for the sake of the story. Nobody
really cares if a slapstick comedy's participants would really be seriously
injured by falling off a roof. Nobody cares if a ghost in a ghost movie can
sometimes move things and sometimes can't.
A handful of genres (like, comic book remakes) will expect the movie to
match the book closely, because that's how the fans are. (Cue complaints of
movie-Spiderman not needing technological web shooters.)
Another handful of genres (SF, mystery, to name the two I can think of
offhand) tell stories where the accuracy and believability of every detail
is important to the enjoyment of the story itself. It's a matter of "how
clever was the author" and not just "tell me an entertaining story."
So maybe that's what I'm actually interested in in my more intellectual
reading: something clever and detailed, beyond just the flow of the story.
Not necessarily technology, but something that falls apart if the author has
to ham-hand the story to make it turn out.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |