The original Battlestar Galactica series is even more painful to watch 
as a veteran than it was as a civilian.

My wife is watching the original Battlestar Galactica series on NetFlix. 
  (I want to watch Yellow Submarine, but who am I?)

The science howlers are too numerous to list here.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 24/06/2012 10:35 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
> The science howlers are too numerous to list here.

That is Hollywood for you. ;-)
And SF movies in general.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24/06/2012 10:44 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 24/06/2012 10:35 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
>> The science howlers are too numerous to list here.
>
> That is Hollywood for you. ;-)
> And SF movies in general.

Pick, oh I don't know, ANY FILM involving space ships. Immediately we 
have a raft of question:

- Why are these ships so damned loud in the high vacuum of outer space?

- Why do they come to a stop if the engine stops working?

- Why do they fall downwards in screen space if there's a major failure?

- Why are they so flammable in a vacuum?

- Why bother with aerodynamic shapes when there's no frigging /air/?

Then we usually have things like cloaking (rather difficult in a cold, 
dark vacuum), tractor beams (how would that work?), teleporters (um...) 
and so forth.

If you actually stop and analyse the details of all these things... 
damn, you wouldn't be able to watch much. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 25/06/2012 9:14 AM, Invisible wrote:
> If you actually stop and analyse the details of all these things...
> damn, you wouldn't be able to watch much. ;-)

True, and that is why we have the phrase suspension of disbelief. But 
some of the howlers are like a slap in the face with a wet fish. Maybe 



-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> - Why are these ships so damned loud in the high vacuum of outer space?

It's a filming convention.

You don't complain if you hear, for example, two people speaking inside
a restaurant even though the "camera" is filming them from outside, through
the window. Realistically speaking what you should hear is the sound of
traffic and no dialogue, but instead it's the other way around. Yet how
many people complain about this being "unrealistic"?

None, because it's a filming convention. There is no camera, there is no
microphone, and the convention is that the soundtrack depicts the sounds
heard by the subjects being shown on the picture. If it's two people
talking, the soundtrack depicts their conversation. Likewise if the picture
shows a spaceship, the soundtrack depicts what can be generally heard inside
the spaceship (ie. the humming of the propulsion system or whatever).

Remember, there is no "camera" nor "microphone" in the vacuum of space
(in the fictional reality of the film), so expecting them to behave like
they were would be the unrealistic thing to do.

(Not that this cannot be done effectively as well. Space Odyssey 2001 did
it quite well. However, that can be considered just another filming
convention.)

> - Why do they fall downwards in screen space if there's a major failure?

Care to give an example?

> - Why bother with aerodynamic shapes when there's no frigging /air/?

It can be justified in that many of those spaceships also need to fly in
atmospheric conditions.

> Then we usually have things like cloaking (rather difficult in a cold, 
> dark vacuum)

What do you mean?

(Besides, vacuum is not cold. It has no temperature because there's nothing
to have any temperature.)

> tractor beams (how would that work?)

Why not? Even mundane things like magnetism work. It's not completely
inconceivable that in the distant future other forms of action at a
distance are developed/discovered.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 25/06/2012 11:07 AM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> - Why are these ships so damned loud in the high vacuum of outer space?
>
> It's a filming convention.

Still doesn't really explain why all ships have to make that low 
rumbling "I'm moving through space" noise, but hey...

> (Not that this cannot be done effectively as well. Space Odyssey 2001 did
> it quite well. However, that can be considered just another filming
> convention.)

I was waiting for somebody to mention the ONE TIME IN FILM HISTORY that 
this was done right. ;-)

>> - Why do they fall downwards in screen space if there's a major failure?
>
> Care to give an example?

I literally can't find the image I'm looking for, but near the end of 
Star Wars Episode I, when the "driod control ship" blows up from the 
inside, the pieces all dramatically sink downwards... despite the planet 
clearly being BEHIND the ship, not BELOW it.

(While we're on the subject, why do ships always park perpendicular to 
the surface of a planet's equator rather than parallel to it anyway?)

>> - Why bother with aerodynamic shapes when there's no frigging /air/?
>
> It can be justified in that many of those spaceships also need to fly in
> atmospheric conditions.

Yeah, that one I'll give you.

>> Then we usually have things like cloaking (rather difficult in a cold,
>> dark vacuum)
>
> What do you mean?

On Earth, you could conceivably render yourself invisible by simply 
emitting less radiation than your surroundings. (And by somehow curving 
nearby light around yourself. And making less sound than your surroundings.)

In outer space, which is perfectly jet black apart from a few tiny 
points of light, it's going to be a tad difficult to not emit a single 
stray photon of thermal radiation. A space ship is presumably quite hot. 
Certainly a damn site hotter than what little dark matter is floating 
around out there. I'm also unsure whether you can shield the /outside/ 
world from radio-frequency signals emanating from /inside/ a structure. 
(These ships have computers, right?)

>> tractor beams (how would that work?)
>
> Why not? Even mundane things like magnetism work. It's not completely
> inconceivable that in the distant future other forms of action at a
> distance are developed/discovered.

It's not completely impossible, just a little unlikely, that's all. I 
will agree, compared to faster-than-light travel, solid matter 
teleportation, and subspace radio communications, this is one of the 
more plausible ideas. :-P

Post a reply to this message

On 25/06/2012 11:53 AM, Invisible wrote:

> I literally can't find the image I'm looking for

What I /did/ find, however, was this:

http://tinyurl.com/744s9cu

Given that this wasn't even what I was searching for... Well, apparently 
some people feel quite strongly about the matter.

Also:

http://tinyurl.com/6wp9lzf

Anyone can say Episode I sucked. It's more difficult to articulate 
exactly /why/ it sucked. I especially like how one guy managed to 
describe ways to /improve/ it, and that actually seemed really insightful.

(OTOH, I don't agree with all the comments. E.g., the kid playing 
Manikin Skylark was at least as wooden as the internationally renowned 
actors he co-stared with. I don't see what the big deal about 
midichlorians is; considering all the fatal failings of the film, this 
is the /least/ of my worries. And so on.)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 25/06/2012 11:07 AM, Warp wrote:
> > Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
> >> - Why are these ships so damned loud in the high vacuum of outer space?
> >
> > It's a filming convention.

> Still doesn't really explain why all ships have to make that low 
> rumbling "I'm moving through space" noise, but hey...

Why do all cars make the same noise? Lack of imagination?

> I literally can't find the image I'm looking for, but near the end of 
> Star Wars Episode I, when the "driod control ship" blows up from the 
> inside, the pieces all dramatically sink downwards... despite the planet 
> clearly being BEHIND the ship, not BELOW it.

Perhaps the gravity generator malfunctioned?

> (While we're on the subject, why do ships always park perpendicular to 
> the surface of a planet's equator rather than parallel to it anyway?)

Why not?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 6/25/2012 1:14 AM, Invisible wrote:
> - Why bother with aerodynamic shapes when there's no frigging /air/?
>
This one actually makes some sense. There is solar wind, small objects, 
etc., all of which can either impact the ship, or slow it down, 
depending on direction of flight, so, even though the result may be 
relatively small, compared to atmospheric flight, there still exists a 
need to "push through" things in space, which means a lower cross 
section, in the direction you are flying, if you *at all* want to reduce 
fuel costs, or impact profile, etc.

Post a reply to this message

On 6/25/2012 1:14 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Then we usually have things like cloaking (rather difficult in a cold,
> dark vacuum), tractor beams (how would that work?), teleporters (um...)
> and so forth.
>
Not really. You are not trying to cloak the stuff that isn't there, just 
the stuff that is, which includes light, EM, and possibly your own 
signals. Interestingly, one of the recent Star Wars books did it right, 
in that cloaks, as we can do them, don't just leave the thing inside 
invisible, they render everything inside unable to see out, so there was 
a whole fleet, sitting and waiting, for a scout to finally slip in at 
their coordinates and say, "Ok, time to move", in the mean time, they 
all sat in the, literal, complete dark, looking at a black wall, with no 
idea what was going on outside.

As for tractor beams. The problem is, as mentioned, distance. Gravity 
can't be adjusted, yet, magnetism can, but has a short range, and 
doesn't work on non-metals, so you have some issues making it work. The 
biggest one is compensating for masses. Two ships of equal size would be 
pulled "towards" each other, unless one of them was intentionally 
thrusting away, to compensate. Surprisingly, a lot of Sci-Fi shows, and 
books, get this right. Others, just ignore it. None of them, in general, 
actually violate the rule, they just fail to explain that the "pulling" 
ship is either way larger, so relatively unaffected by mass, already 
traveling in the same direction, so only accelerating a bit in that same 
direction, or, most likely, reducing its speed/thrusting the opposite 
direction, to compensate.

Post a reply to this message