Films/DVD Asylum

Logic

208.255.94.50

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

In Reply to: O Merak! Thou Logic is too Harsh! : An ode in the popular Metaphysickal Manner posted by Bambi B on December 11, 2003 at 21:27:25:

Well, at least my harsh logic can be understood.
What the heck are you trying to say ??

Follow Ups:

Now for some more inpenetrable Logic - Bambi B 21:48:12 12/17/03 (3)
Merak,
I, the Ktachm of the Elders of the Bonaq People hereby send you back to Vulcan for a "Ktath-hooth ba Ruth" or the gentle slap upside the head of Enlightenment.
Now for some more impenetrable logic, so bifurcatedly obfuscated as to render it heuristically pedantic in scope and copyrightedly attributable by nature.
Concept: Behind your conception of the Earth geting all burned up, your idea is to create "science fiction".
Definition: This term contains two words: "science" and "fiction".
Premise: You need to use both science and fiction to comply with the parameters of science fiction.
Use some real, pure science.
But just enough makes it plausible.
The audience is only interested in pure science "reality" until the first impossible time travel, teleportation, or superlight travel scene takes place: then they say "suspend disbelief".
Look into the meaning of "suspension of disbelief" and you will find relief from the torment of having to have everything so tightly "realistic". Once the audince is "on the beam" you don;t have to justify everything. If you justify eveything, the whole thing will be only that explanation. Don't under any circumstances have characters like Jordie on TNG standing around talking about "bypassing the tachyon beam to the main dish to project a field-reversal beam that will change the density of.." as this talk after ten seconds causes headaches in all but the most severely emotionally challenged. It is recognized as cheap filler,and even though there some internal logic to it all based on real science- we don't care- and very quickly.
For reality there's the Discovery Channel and C-SPAN.
This is because the audience for sci fi want to be dazzled by the imagination of exotic environments and characters, the wilder the better. Haven't we seen everything; shape shifting, galactic powers controlled by a single mind, superlight and time travel- and with all these big time miracles now the easy, old stuff (the "mere dalliance" of the poem), but what have you shown me lately?
Think visually.
What is it that has completely killed the "Star Wars" franchise and made the last two products pathetically boring, and lifeless, merchandising mills? It's that the characters are no longer mythic, larger than life, resourceful independent people of action fighting decisive battles of Good and Evil, they are employees, employees of governments that stand around in rooms talking politics and economics of trade blockades. Watch: C-SPAN and there are far more interesting characters.
No amount of great "real science: will make this interesting, we want to see the personal struggles and far outedness- places and characters beyond our imagination.
In Sum: Leave off the science after awhile and use a lot more fiction. This makes it more interesting.
The more extreme the fiction the more interesting. The science part can fall to the background in support of "suspension of disbelief".
The maker of science fiction must incorporate both words of the term "science fiction": "Science" AND Fiction". The proportion is flexible, but there must be both present.
Q.E.D. I think gentlemen, and my wager of One Hundred Thousand Guineas is won.

Cheers,
Bam
PS: Don't rely only on the movies: read Douglas Adams and look for structure in the stories.
- Get Real - Merak 23:11:05 12/19/03 (2)
  My comments and replies were to those questions and concerns that debated my premise, not the storyline. I simply defended the plausibility factor -- and for your information (and that of everyone interested) I know a bit more "science" than the average Joe. Your comments showed you simply misunderstood what was being answered. The "Suspension of Disbelief" is initiated by having an alien spacecraft approach Earth and its bizarre alignment causing it to be unnoticed while coming in on the far side of the Sun. This is further enhanced by having the attacking missile (from Earth) strike the craft in such a way as to cause it to lose sufficeint maneuverability while keeping it in a low Earth orbit. (If the above isn't sufficient for your immagination, then I recommend a course in physics to see just how unlikely all of that happening actually is.) As for the "Human" side of the story, one can encounter the timely stuggle mankind is now forced to endure. Will a solution be found in time? Perhaps alternate theories of how to solve this situation will play against each other -- and a single choice must be made, for there won't be time for a second chance. Themes of man against machine, man against man, man against the unkown, and even man against the impossible where man loses (yes, we CAN lose) can all be entertained here. In my humble opinion, it is when science is taken to its limit of knowledge that the most exciting and entertaining Science Fiction is created -- otherwise, you have only Fantasy.
  - Get Unreal - Bambi B 09:53:21 12/20/03 (1)
    Merak,
    You began this thread with a premise and the the concept of scientific "realism", and now are fortunately softening this stance a bit- "see how unlikely all of that happening actually is".
    I appreciate your interest in scientific plausibility, but my point is that in creating science fiction, the reality of the situation is moot without creating interst in the overall situation. The interest in the story is limited without a fundamental integration of the "storyline" with the concept of the aliens, the destroyer craft and the humans that oppose- or don't oppose- the attackers.
    As you've seen in this thread, if you maintain a concentration on complete "realism", the result becomes a kind of documentary- similar say to the ones of asteroids hitting the Earth, intriguing, but not exciting as sci fi. Without the story overwhelming the science, the audience- as I, late, and orejones have done- will just sit and poke holes all day long in the premise- which is easier than you admit. That's the penalty of insisting - and becoming so defensive- on a kind of barebones "truth", whereas entertainers with a great story only need go so far in that realm. The suspension of disbelief creates a distraction. That's why I recommended Douglas Adams. "Hitchhiker's Guide" which opens with the Earth to be destroyed in 20 minutes. This is done without much fanfare, and no one reading the book questions the physics of it or the reason (to create a galactic bypass), because we have suspended disbelief in the first paragraph.
    There is nothing wrong in clearly identified fantasy and if fact it is the main thing your potential audience is interested in. The thing is, the sci fi audience has just seen it all- we need to know what makes your story idea interesting enough that viewers of "Independence Day" for example, with a similar premise, will want to see your movie too.
    Film scripts are extremely difficult to do well enough to stimulate and amintain interest and you might consider Syd Field's or other books on structure, plot, dialogue, and character. It is important to conceive of your audience/market too. Script seminars like Truby's too can help put the task into perspective.
    I would be interested in reading your story idea again, but balanced within the total story with all the other components in addition to the basic attack one.
    Your comments: "Will a solution be found in time? Perhaps alternate theories of how to solve this situation will play against each other -- and a single choice must be made, for there won't be time for a second chance. Themes of man against machine, man against man, man against the unkown, and even man against the impossible where man loses (yes, we CAN lose) can all be entertained here", all seems to be on a better track and is the most encouraging thing I've seen here. That's the "real" stuff of your movie- not whether the ship can stay in orbit or hide behind the Sun.
    Science is not truth and not even fact very often, but only a belief structure that provides temporary, extremely incomplete opinions on the physical Universe.
    
    Cheers,
    Bambi B
    - All I did was answer questions . . . - Merak 17:44:53 12/20/03 (0)
      If you go back to the original querry (Good idea for a SF movie?) you will see just a basic outline. From there all I starting getting was a bunch of comments wondering how all this can happen. I gave very plausible answers without requiring too much unbelievability. They were both scientific and possible -- after all, this is SCIENCE fiction. Most movies today that are claimed SF are more Fantasy than science -- I call them as I see them. If that's what you believe the audience of today wants, so be it -- but don't call it SF. (As more and more of today's population becomes more and more scientifically ignorant, I can actually conceed your point.) My idea grew out of what was a very well thought out premise, but unfortunately fell short due to early and poor special effects. I also am aiming this film idea at those that actually know some science -- not just those that glanced up at a science catalog and said "Hey, dude, that's cool". It seems that what I heard decades ago is still very true today, the hardest form of literature to write well is Science Fiction, for it must not only be interesting, it must also be accurate. You admitted that my themes are encouraging -- well, they were always present; too many tried to first shoot it down by attacking the science, which only showed their true knowledge (or immagination) was lacking. If one had actually asked about the storyline, they would have gotten here sooner.
      So, if you want to have a film that isn't something that has been done (or seen) much before, consider something scientifically accurate for a change. With that in mind, let me offer some films that have a stronger than average scientific foundation . . .
      1) Forbidden Planet
      2) Andromeda Strain
      3) Alien
      4) 2001: A Space Odyssey
      5) War of the Worlds
      6) The Lost Missile
      7) The Day the Earth Stood Still
      8) Fantastic Voyage
      9) Jurasic Park
      10) The Man in the White Suit
      And here are some authors that have done a fairly good job . . .
      1) Robert Heinlen
      2) Arthur C. Clarke
      3) Issac Asimov
      4) Harlan Ellison
      Now, each film or author has its (his) good and bad points, and nothing is perfect, and one can surely add to each list, but both lists will not be lengthy, because "good" SF is not easy. (Each one is also something of a Classic, showing that if done well, SF can be good, even with good science.) And like so many others, I think you misunderstand what science is. It is a method, not a conclusion (never confuse one for the other), and is always the 100% correct way to better understand reality. So, if you wish to get Unreal, fine -- but I will contine with the more likely reality of good SF.
      PS: Here's a list of movies that pass themselves off as SF . . .
      1) Signs
      2) Solaris
      3) Independence Day
      4) Star Wars (I, II, III, IV, V -- and whatever comes next)
      5) Starship Troopers
      6) Total Recall
      7) Matrix (I, II, III)
      8) Terminator (I, II, III)
      9) Mission to Mars
      10) Jurasic Park (II, III)
      11) E.T.
      12) Close Encounters
      13) Communion
      14) Time Machine
      15) Armageddon
      16) . . . the list just keeps going like the little bunny.
      Yes, they are good (some), but not SF.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

VH Audio

You can not post to an archived thread.