Poll: Science and Logic in your books, movies, games, etc.

[Red Oni]

There's something we all have in common: a willing suspension of disbelief. It lets us temporarily shut off the parts of our brain that say "No, this cannot happen in the real world". But where do you draw the line and say "You're right, this is stupid"?

 

[DoPo]

I'm going to give the most shocking and mosat unique of answers you will never find not only on the Escapist but nowhere else in the entire universe. You may want to sit down. In fact, lie down - that's a better idea. For, you see lesser minds shut down when they attempt to process the information. Even greater minds may experience memory loss or loss of control over the body for brief periods of time.

So warning has been given - here it goes: It. Depends.

You all right? Hopefully your mind is still intact and if you sat down or lied down, you didn't get any injuries from falling. So yeah, it depends - stuff like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ain't make not much sense and it is stupid as hell. There is an alien life form that is a more intelligent shade of the colour blue and that's in the beginning, stuff breaks down further the more you go into it. Yet I am more than willing to believe in it because it's engaging enough. The amount to which I'd tolerate breaks from reality relies on the entertainment value of the product.

 

[[Kira Must Die]]

I'm not a very nit-picky person, so I'm able to suspend my disbelief mostly as long as I'm enjoying myself. Also, science has never been my strong point, and even if it was I wouldn't waste my time pointing out all the inaccuracies in a movie/show/game/etc. and belittle it for not knowing something that isn't exactly common knowledge among people, unless it's a documentary or something. Really, it depends on what kind of movie it's trying to be.

 

[Vault101]

if you notice somthing the first time you read/watch/play somthing then its a valid complaint

noticable the second time? mabye third or fourth? nah...

I can accept most things except when they are inconsistant...for example theres no way you should be able to take out a Krogan with ease by slitting its throat...who says aliens have jugulars!? (it happned in a spin off comic)

 

[evilneko]

if you notice somthing the first time you read/watch/play somthing then its a valid complaint

noticable the second time? mabye third or fourth? nah...

I can accept most things except when they are inconsistant...for example theres no way you should be able to take out a Krogan with ease by slitting its throat...who says aliens have jugulars!? (it happned in a spin off comic)

But yet, you can accept the aliens, the FTL travel, the space combat, etc.

Y'know what? There's a trope for that!

What, you want me to link it? Hah! Not gonna! Neener neener!

 

[Vault101]

But yet, you can accept the aliens, the FTL travel, the space combat, etc.

*facepalm*

does that mean if all of a sudden shepard radios in for her pet dragon to use its dragon magic to defeat the reapers I should be totally cool with that because "aleins and space"? a fantastical setting is no excuse for bad writing

the thing is when you create a world or setting then you also create rules for that setting to follow, it doesnt matter how crazy it is as long as it follows its own logic

I'm not a lore natzi and I actually hate brging thease things up....but I wouldnt complain about this unless it was glaringly obvious

with everything we learn about the Krogans in-universe (redundant nervous systms...back up organs..generall "warrior" culture" points to the fact they are hardy, not invincible but hardy...you could not insta-kill one with a knife, it goes against everything weve previously learned (not only that but doing the "throat slit" like you would a human doesnt take into account aleins may actually be very different biologically....in other words its lazy)

 

[The Abhorrent]

Despite a strong background in the physical sciences (heck, arguably because of it; have to be able to let my mind let go of reality, or else I'll go even more crazy), I don't have any issues with the suspension of disbelief... provided one of the two following criteria are met:

The setting is adequately developed and the internal logic is solid and coherent
What makes a story believable is less about it being grounded in reality, but rather just how well-developed it is. Take the time into making sure everything has some sort of explanation and don't take anything for granted (though preferably without too much of exposition nor an info-dump), and the audience will accept the setting for what it is. Bioware's games are quite good at this... well, usually. The first Mass Effect game and Dragon Age: Origins are more or less dedicated to world-building, which greatly helps both of those games feel very substantial compared to other games; namely those which rely on cliches to be accepted, rather than fleshing them out and doing them well.

The story knows full well it's ridiculous and runs with it
Only works well in comedies and parodies, but it certainly works when done well; I find myself to be a HUGE fan of self-referential humour, which more or less comes to down at least being aware of how ludicrous something is. The Muppets is a classical source of this type of humour, as well as just about anything which pokes fun at the medium it belongs to.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

There's something we all have in common: a willing suspension of disbelief. It lets us temporarily shut off the parts of our brain that say "No, this cannot happen in the real world". But where do you draw the line and say "You're right, this is stupid"?

Yes, but not really in the way you're saying.

Characters behaving stupidly or unrealistically - not the way an actual person would act - takes me out of a story very badly. I've never been a fan of "Idiot Ball" plots.

On the other hand, most laws of physics can take a flying leap because Magic and I have no issues with it.

I do prefer when magic functions within physics - fire behaving like fire rather than like a D&D spell, for instance. But it isn't necessarily a deal breaker. Rule of Cool can handle that one.

 

[Olas]

Everything I was going to say has already been said pretty well up above ^
So ya.

The story knows full well it's ridiculous and runs with it
Only works well in comedies and parodies, but it certainly works when done well; I find myself to be a HUGE fan of self-referential humour, which more or less comes to down at least being aware of how ludicrous something is. The Muppets is a classical source of this type of humour, as well as just about anything which pokes fun at the medium it belongs to.

This is very true. What bothers me is when an animated show will transition back and fourth between being incredibly serious, and therefore realistic and then later become comically absurd. It seems like a form of inconsistency.

 

[Ljs1121]

If something is meant to be serious and scientifically accurate and screws up, then it'll bother me. But if it's lighthearted, entertaining, and doesn't take itself seriously? I don't care in that case.

 

[The_Echo]

I don't really notice the small details in things, so I don't care. And I'm not proficient enough in any field of science to pick up on things without meaning to.

The only time I think science should ever matter is in science fiction. Because it's... a bit implied by the genre.

Alt-reality, fictional universes, Earth + fantasy elements? Nah, science and logic can go away. They just ruin the fun.

 

[mfeff]

There was a discussion that tangent off into this direction... rather than type it all up again I will just link it...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.402488-I-Just-Realized-The-Elder-Scrolls-can-be-considered-Sci-Fi?page=2#16611585

As far as suspension of disbelief (and how much that is maintained by science) in turn how that effects (my) personal enjoyment of a work or product? Not that much one way or the other... so long as I have a pretty clear idea about what I am expecting from the work itself.

That is to say that I am fond of both science fiction and science fantasy, low and high fantasy... I don't mind when they are blended... I "do" mind when the work is play-billed as science fiction and it strays off into fantasy for extended periods of time.

Consistency is key here. I like Final Fantasy, I like ME 1 and 2; I have issues with ME 3 (beyond just the ending), and I have some niggling issues with N7 armor as a DLC in Final Fantasy.


That it is in there and optional does not really bother me... that the fantasy elements of Japanese pop culture stuff has worked it's way into western science fiction has become an ulcer... at least for me, the notion that these things "need" to be cross branded strains the works sense of identity.

That said I am no stranger to modding my Skyrim into a J-RPG facsimile for kicks. Change it up a little bit.

MOST stuff in science fiction and fantasy is near a hopeless lost cause for applied science anyways... for a myriad of reasons. It is fiction after all.

Giant Mechs? No - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law

Warp Drive? No - http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/warpstat_prt.htm

Nano Technology? No - http://www.asdn.net/asdn/physics/nano-myths.shtml

These topics come up more often then I would like in my career... surprising just how much SciFy is seriously discussed by money people... with no clue...

EDIT:

This thread reminded me of an old youtube channel... enjoy!


Physics teacher discusses science and how it is used and abused in pop culture.

 

[SomeLameStuff]

It all depends. Is it marketed as serious and realistic? Then I'll apply all sorts of logic to it. Which is why I didn't like Dark Knight Rises at all. I was twitching from trying not to laugh the entire movie (There is NO WAY a ground-to-air missile of that size can sustain flight for FIVE FECKING MINUTES).

Is it marketed as goofy? Then my logic gets chucked out the window, as was the case with Saints Row and Just Cause.

 

[Heronblade]

Depends on the context.

comedies and parodies can get away with pretty much anything. I don't look for it to make sense.

Outside of that category, I strongly prefer that any technical explanations match any basic laws of reality that would apply, but am not particularly concerned about minor violations. (one exception concerns people's misunderstanding of radiation, I've been dealing with the public's fearful ignorance of the topic for so long its become a pet peeve.)

What really gets under my skin however are blatant inconsistencies. If an artist is going to screw around with the rules, that's relatively fine, just stick to the changes that are made.

 

[Joccaren]

Science and logic?
Yes, must be strictly adhered to at all times.
The twist?
Its the story's universe's science and logic. If its established in universe that magic exists, or ships can FTL jump, then fine. If its a major plot point in finding out that such things exist and beginning to learn about them, fine. But if something goes against the science and logic of the universe depicted in the story, then I'll dislike it and it'll be somewhat jarring.

 

[Yopaz]

I'm going to give the most shocking and mosat unique of answers you will never find not only on the Escapist but nowhere else in the entire universe. You may want to sit down. In fact, lie down - that's a better idea. For, you see lesser minds shut down when they attempt to process the information. Even greater minds may experience memory loss or loss of control over the body for brief periods of time.

So warning has been given - here it goes: It. Depends.

You all right? Hopefully your mind is still intact and if you sat down or lied down, you didn't get any injuries from falling. So yeah, it depends - stuff like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ain't make not much sense and it is stupid as hell. There is an alien life form that is a more intelligent shade of the colour blue and that's in the beginning, stuff breaks down further the more you go into it. Yet I am more than willing to believe in it because it's engaging enough. The amount to which I'd tolerate breaks from reality relies on the entertainment value of the product.

Yeah, this is the answer to pretty much everything.

Take a TV series such as CSI where they claim to be doing science. Well, they're not. I don't like CSI for that reason. The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy doesn't pretend that it's scientifically accurate so whenever they do something strange it's no big deal.

I wont vote in your bipolar poll because other or depends aren't options.

 

[Nouw]

Well there is one particular thing that bothers me in 'serious' sci-fi films and that's sound in space. 2001 got it right, Moon didn't and it kinda threw me off.

 

[The Sanctifier]

For me, when it comes to games it depends on how complicated it would make things.

As an example I would use Civ 5. You could say it would be more realistic that you would have to send messangers to talk to other civs which could take a long while, however, that would be too tedious, so being able to talk with them at any time is much more convenient. Also, the embarking feature where you no longer have to worry about building transports also contributes to making things less tedious.

On the other hand, it does feel rather glaring that bombers can be damaged by warriors who are somehow able to throw torches up at them. Its only like 2 or 3 points of damage but it still feels a little silly.

 

[Therumancer]

There's something we all have in common: a willing suspension of disbelief. It lets us temporarily shut off the parts of our brain that say "No, this cannot happen in the real world". But where do you draw the line and say "You're right, this is stupid"?

Lacking a middle answer I didn't get into the poll.

To be honest I feel that it's up to the creator of the fiction to create suspension of disbelief in the context of their work. If I stop and go "wow, that's stupid, and could never happen" they fail. The trick is to make things seem plausible, even when they are outrageous, when you see them.

To put things into perspective, "Star Wars" is utterly preposterous in pretty much every aspect of the series, ranging from the laser swords, to being able to get from point A to point B merely at "light speed", flaming explosions in space, and my personal favorite... armored vehicles that walk, and can be defeated by tripping them (lol). It does a good job of building it's unreality though so you can kind of take it as it comes, which is why it became such a popular universe, it just doesn't bother many people.

A good comparison would be perhaps looking at a good horror movie that endures to produce a series, as opposed to one that just generally blows, gets mocked, and dies in obscurity. A series of movies like say "Friday the 13th" managed to gradually build itself into a mythos where you could sort of believe in it's own context that you had this pretty much unkillable murder machine running around tearing people apart, by doing it well, and selling the character and enviroment so you could suspend disbelief to an extent, which is why they kept making those movies and Jason became an icon. Compared to some generic movie that might cover the same ground (supernatural urban legend slasher killing people) but just have people rolling their eyes and going "this is dumb" even if they otherwise might have liked "Friday the 13th" and tried this other movie hoping for more of the same. It all comes down to how well you sell it, rather than what it is per se. Directors, writers, and actors, all matter, not everyone can just put on a creature suit and sell the part like say Kane Hodder or Robert Englund.


It's also been my experience that people who have problems with unreality tend to stay away from fantasy, super heroes, etc... and to be honest I think this is why such things stay on the fringes and appear in cycles, the everyman tends to keep things relatively grounded which is why we're always going to see dozens of sitcoms and cop dramas for every space opera or monster fighting show on TV.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

As long as I'm being entertained I'm willing to suspend my disbelief pretty far.