# Most annoying sci-fi TV/movie tropes **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 5, 2016, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-sci-fi-tv-movie-tropes/742257 "2016-01-05T19:35:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![botsgotme](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@botsgotme](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/botsgotme)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2016, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-sci-fi-tv-movie-tropes/742257/161 "2016-01-15T14:14:22Z")
I always liked the idea of aliens viewing the earth as a big beef ranch. In the classic Twilight Zone" episode “To Serve Man”-the aliens leave a book at the UN-which turns out to be a cookbook. Really, would humans be all that delicious to alien cannibals? ---
**Author:** ![HowSoonIsThen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@HowSoonIsThen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HowSoonIsThen)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2016, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-sci-fi-tv-movie-tropes/742257/162 "2016-01-15T14:19:45Z")
> [@botsgotme](#): > > Really, would humans be all that delicious to alien cannibals? Maybe not. But surely we’re better than the aliens eating their own species. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2016, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-sci-fi-tv-movie-tropes/742257/163 "2016-01-15T14:49:00Z")
> [@botsgotme](#): > > I always liked the idea of aliens viewing the earth as a big beef ranch. In the classic Twilight Zone" episode “To Serve Man”-the aliens leave a book at the UN-which turns out to be a cookbook. Really, would humans be all that delicious to alien cannibals? Humans would be terribly inefficient as meat animals. We require a high-value diet and grow slowly. Alien cattle rustlers would be more plausible (and more amusing). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2016, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-sci-fi-tv-movie-tropes/742257/164 "2016-01-15T14:52:48Z")
> [@botsgotme](#): > > I always liked the idea of aliens viewing the earth as a big beef ranch. In the classic Twilight Zone" episode “To Serve Man”-the aliens leave a book at the UN-which turns out to be a cookbook. Really, would humans be all that delicious to alien cannibals? Hungry aliens would do better to make us offer them tribute in the form of dressed beef carcasses. ---
**Author:** ![RikWriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/49beb7/32.png) [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2016, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-sci-fi-tv-movie-tropes/742257/165 "2016-01-15T15:14:36Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Humans would be terribly inefficient as meat animals. We require a high-value diet and grow slowly. Alien cattle rustlers would be more plausible (and more amusing). Except if you have star travel, you can grow your own meat in a vat without having to actually kill a cow. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2016, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-sci-fi-tv-movie-tropes/742257/166 "2016-01-15T16:11:42Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Hungry aliens would do better to make us offer them tribute in the form of dressed beef carcasses. It’s not about the calories, [it’s about the style](http://partiallyclips.com/comic/bounty-hunter/). ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2016, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-sci-fi-tv-movie-tropes/742257/167 "2016-01-15T17:37:12Z")
> [@botsgotme](#): > > I always liked the idea of aliens viewing the earth as a big beef ranch. In the classic Twilight Zone" episode “To Serve Man”-the aliens leave a book at the UN-which turns out to be a cookbook. Really, would humans be all that delicious to alien cannibals? You misspelled “classic Damon Knight story.” 😛 ---
**Author:** ![danhanegan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/eb9ed0/32.png) [@danhanegan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/danhanegan)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2016, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-sci-fi-tv-movie-tropes/742257/168 "2016-01-15T23:38:52Z")
Not so much a Star Wars or Stargate thing, but in Trek: all aliens look just like humans with funny space wrinkles. This became so much a trope it has come to be expected, and many modern Sci-fi fans don’t seem to grasp that aliens almost certainly will NOT remotely resemble humans. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2016, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-sci-fi-tv-movie-tropes/742257/169 "2016-01-16T00:00:36Z")
> [@danhanegan](#): > > Not so much a Star Wars or Stargate thing, but in Trek: all aliens look just like humans with funny space wrinkles. This became so much a trope it has come to be expected, and many modern Sci-fi fans don’t seem to grasp that aliens almost certainly will NOT remotely resemble humans. Bilateral symmetry, two legs, two arms with manipulative “fingers”, two eyes, a gut, skin- all seem fairly likely. And not too far from Human size- no bigger than a bear, no smaller than a Chimp. Assuming carbon based life. But color, fur or no, what sort of teeth, etc- all are up for grabs. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2016, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-sci-fi-tv-movie-tropes/742257/170 "2016-01-16T01:16:18Z")
> [@botsgotme](#): > > I always liked the idea of aliens viewing the earth as a big beef ranch. In the classic Twilight Zone" episode “To Serve Man”-the aliens leave a book at the UN-which turns out to be a cookbook. Really, would humans be all that delicious to alien cannibals? No. If they’re alien cannibals, they eat other aliens. Not us. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2016, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-sci-fi-tv-movie-tropes/742257/171 "2016-01-16T01:25:22Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > You need to start off with no acceleration in any direction. > > That’s not correct. Look at how the Space Shuttle flipped itself over. It’s the same thing. What in the name of Henry are you trying to say? Why do you need to “start off” with no acceleration? And if you’re in a space shuttle that flips over, it does very much matter if the axis of rotation is it’s center or at one extreme end: you’re still feeling acceleration, but the magnitude and direction of the acceleration will vary. You will feel a different directionality of acceleration if the shuttle is flipping around a wingtip instead of flipping around its centerline. In one case, the force shoves you sideways against the arm-rest of your seat; in the other, the force is “outward” from your center, shoving blood up into your head and down into your feet. I’m not questioning your knowledge of physics (yet) but I’m certainly totally at sea as to what you think you are trying to describe. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2016, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-sci-fi-tv-movie-tropes/742257/172 "2016-01-16T03:38:32Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Wouldn’t The Force be a range weapon? > > “One thought, one kill.” > [@MrSBaldrick](#): > > Through that way, the dark side lies, hmmm? Yes, the Force is only a range weapon for Sith. Jedis do not use the Force to attack, only for defense. Thus blocking blaster bolts, but not causing aortas on stormtroopers to pop.\* > [@Scumpup](#): > > Controlling space always seemed pretty pointless to me. Space is mostly empty space and having control of it seems to offer little in the way of profit. Controlling planets means controlling resources, but planetary resources can be had from any planet of the right type. Many books create wormholes or gateways or whatnot, that provide preferred transportation routes. Thus, planets in the vicinity of those paths have economic advantage over ones without, and control of those paths is an economic advantage. > [@msmith537](#): > > “Nukes” being somehow more morally reprehensible than other, more powerful future weapons of mass destruction. Jeff Goldblum’s speech in ID4 and I recall John Crighton making similar comments in Farscape. I get it. As 20th century Earthmen, you have a cultural aversion to nukes. That doesn’t make your plasma anti-mater planet destroyer better. Using nukes does have the unfortunate disadvantage of polluting the resulting planet. Yeah, on the balance having some radioactive pockets is far superior than being annihilated. However, use enough nukes and the results aren’t substantially different. All well and good to kill the invader, but what do you do when the resulting radiation destroys the biosphere sufficiently to mean no food crops, no safe population zones? > [@](#): > > Don’t even get me started on Doctor Who. I get that he tries to be a “good” guy, but when you are a thousand year old time traveler, it seems fairly arbitrary which tyrant he stops from taking power or which small band of astronauts he saves from eaten by a space monster. Does he ever just land on a space station, say “sorry, you’re that group of astronauts that were eaten by a space cockroach in 2523 on Space Station Alpha, peace out.” and hop back in his Tardis? “The Waters of Mars” started with the premise that it was one of those “fixed points in time” that mustn’t be changed. Then he decided to change it anyway, and then the person he saved committed suicide to protect the timeline. > [@billfish678](#): > > PS. I always wondered in all the crashed gigantic alien ships caused the mother of all ecological/pollution disasters. Seems to me they would have been filled with all kinds of toxic shit in large volumes. That’s probably true. > [@Quartz](#): > > Not if done properly. Firstly you need no acceleration in any direction. Secondly you need attitude thrusters at the extremities of the spacecraft. Thirdly, it helps if the human is or is near the centre of gravity. You aren’t making sense. To change the direction of motion _requires_ acceleration. You can limit the strength by stretching the duration, but acceleration is the definition of changing motion. Newton’s Laws and all that. > [@Quartz](#): > > You need to start off with no acceleration in any direction. > > That’s not correct. Look at how the Space Shuttle flipped itself over. It’s the same thing. That’s exactly how the Starfuries changed direction. They rotated their orientation to point the thrusters against the direction they wished to travel, then activated the thrusters. Rotation is acceleration, activating thrusters is acceleration. * * * \*Remember when Luke was trapped in the Rancor pit? That was my proposed solution - Force pop the aorta or squeeze the carotids or whatever equivalent. Dead Rancor. For some reason Luke (nor any other Jedi) seems to have had the Force levels I imagined. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2016, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-sci-fi-tv-movie-tropes/742257/173 "2016-01-16T10:33:21Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > You aren’t making sense. To change the direction of motion _requires_ acceleration. You can limit the strength by stretching the duration, but acceleration is the definition of changing motion. Newton’s Laws and all that. Newtons laws are why you have to start with no acceleration. You can then apply acceleration to make the spin. Are you confusing acceleration with velocity? Remember that in space you can be moving very fast (high velocity) yet have no acceleration (change in velocity). ---
**Author:** ![botsgotme](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@botsgotme](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/botsgotme)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2016, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-sci-fi-tv-movie-tropes/742257/174 "2016-01-16T13:40:32Z")
It was from 1959 , i think-anyway, a bunch of handsome teenage males land in suburban Los Angeles-they promptly begin killing humans (they have a device that instantly turns you into a skeleton). Anyway, they fall in love with the local teen girls-aliens in love with humans? that’s a weird meme!:eek: ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2016, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-sci-fi-tv-movie-tropes/742257/175 "2016-01-16T13:48:12Z")
> [@botsgotme](#): > > It was from 1959 , i think-anyway, a bunch of handsome teenage males land in suburban Los Angeles-they promptly begin killing humans (they have a device that instantly turns you into a skeleton). Anyway, they fall in love with the local teen girls-aliens in love with humans? that’s a weird meme!:eek: But, what about the torture?! :mad: (mst3k) ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2016, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-sci-fi-tv-movie-tropes/742257/176 "2016-01-16T15:00:45Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > That’s exactly how the Starfuries changed direction. They rotated their orientation to point the thrusters against the direction they wished to travel, then activated the thrusters. Rotation is acceleration, activating thrusters is acceleration. Ah, we’re talking about different things. I’m talking about going in one direction while pointing in another. Sorry for the confusion. ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2016, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-sci-fi-tv-movie-tropes/742257/177 "2016-01-16T16:37:32Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > That’s exactly how the Starfuries changed direction. They rotated their orientation to point the thrusters against the direction they wished to travel, then activated the thrusters. Wouldn’t it just be simpler to do an Immelmann? :dubious: 😕 ---
**Author:** ![iljitsch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/77aa72/32.png) [@iljitsch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iljitsch)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2016, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-sci-fi-tv-movie-tropes/742257/178 "2016-01-16T17:32:09Z")
> [@terentii](#): > > Wouldn’t it just be simpler to do an Immelmann? :dubious: 😕 That would be where you pull up until you’re flying upside down and then flip 180 degrees along the long axis (sideways) so you’re flying level again, but now in the opposite direction. If you do this in space while burning your engines, what happens is that you have now accelerated in the “up” direction for no good reason and you’re still flying mostly in the original direction (i.e., backwards) until you’ve decelerated to a full stop and then begin accelerating in the new forward direction. So no, that wouldn’t be simpler. What would be simpler is using your attitude thrusters to turn 180 degrees while the main thrusters are off, then fire the main thrusters. Obviously that doesn’t work for an airplane because those can’t fly backwards. Space ships have no such limitation. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2016, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-sci-fi-tv-movie-tropes/742257/179 "2016-01-16T18:06:58Z")
> [@iljitsch](#): > > That would be where you pull up until you’re flying upside down and then flip 180 degrees along the long axis (sideways) so you’re flying level again, but now in the opposite direction. > > If you do this in space while burning your engines, what happens is that you have now accelerated in the “up” direction for no good reason and you’re still flying mostly in the original direction (i.e., backwards) until you’ve decelerated to a full stop and then begin accelerating in the new forward direction. > > So no, that wouldn’t be simpler. What would be simpler is using your attitude thrusters to turn 180 degrees while the main thrusters are off, then fire the main thrusters. > > Obviously that doesn’t work for an airplane because those can’t fly backwards. Space ships have no such limitation. Fictional spaceships, as they generally use imaginary technology, have whatever limitations the writer, director, and FX crew choose. Given that we almosf always see, say, the Enterprise turning around to change direction rather then flying backwards or sideways, it’s a reasonable supposition that backwards or sideways flight is contraindicated for some reason. ---
**Author:** ![iljitsch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/77aa72/32.png) [@iljitsch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iljitsch)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2016, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-sci-fi-tv-movie-tropes/742257/180 "2016-01-16T18:30:58Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > Fictional spaceships, as they generally use imaginary technology, have whatever limitations the writer, director, and FX crew choose. Well, duh. The problem is that they’re often doing a bad job. > [@](#): > > Given that we almosf always see, say, the Enterprise turning around to change direction rather then flying backwards or sideways, it’s a reasonable supposition that backwards or sideways flight is contraindicated for some reason. That’s reasonable. You’d want to have a nice big armored hull to protect the people inside from dust ramming into your ship at relativistic speeds. But at the same time, their engines are pointed backwards. Can’t have it both ways. At least not while hanging on to any level of scientific credibility. Your argument seems to be that the makers don’t care about that, but that doesn’t invalidate my complaint that they should. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-sci-fi-tv-movie-tropes/742257.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-sci-fi-tv-movie-tropes/742257.md?page=10)