See, angst is your reward for being too knowledgeable. As a wise man once said, “Too much thinkin’ ain’t good for ya’”. LOL
My work-around is that the sound is actually artificially generated by the sensor system of the ship/suit/whatever. Humans have only a few ways of acquiring information, and hearing is one of them. So it’s easier to create fake noise and rely on the human ear to determine its importance, as opposed to putting up some kind of visual prompt of “Gunfire coming from over there —>”
Yup. We have electric cars make fake engine sounds so it’s reasonable that the similar effects will be used with space ships and laser guns.
See also stick shakers in airplanes, which uses tactile feedback to give the pilots critical flight information.
In Doctor Who (at least 2005 onwards), it’s made explicit that during the upcoming Great and Bountiful Human Empires, humans conquer the stars and spread out everywhere, so the humans they find at all ends of the galaxy in the future are descended thousands of years back from Earthlings.
Some people do care about scientific accuracy. That’s why hard science fiction exists.
This is not my wheelhouse, but I got the feeling Fascape attempted to change the formula or at least freshen up the standard sci-fi tropes. You’ll have to get past the Muppet-like nature of some of the creatures tho.
So how do you like traditional (or non-traditional) horror, with supernatural ghosts, werewolves, vampires, people who can’t be killed, or have super powers, etc.? What say you about LOTR or Harry Potter or …? Or the silly super-humanity of James Bond or Mission Impossible or Sly Stallone or … ad nauseum.
I’m generally disinterested in fiction, but banking spaceships are far less onerous to me than are guys sprinting or kung fu-ing at top speed for 10 minutes atop a moving train. You?
This is called Haptic Freeback, in use for a lot of things already. Happens in my car if you have traction control on and spin the tires the accelerator will kick back at your foot so you know.
Harry Potter is fine with me. It’s almost like an alternate universe in which magic exists. Same with werewolves and such. Star Trek purports to be the future of today’s world. They have gone back to historical events that actually happened, reference real pop culture, etc. This makes the bad science jarring. But yes, things like kung fu guys leaping 20 feet in the air or people running on the tops of trains is annoying as well. The original Mission Impossible TV show was more realistic and much more enjoyable.
I’d like to see an adaptation of Heinlein’s The Menace from Earth or The Moon is a Harsh Mistress wit proper lunar gravity.
Humans born and raised on the Moon would know how to adapt their movements to lunar gravity, of course. And having grown up without Earth gravity to constantly push against, they’d probably not have the leg musculature to begin with to jump six times as high or far as we can on Earth. But any tourists from Earth would probably be a constant source of amusement as they repeatedly rammed their heads into ceilings while trying to walk normally.
Not a movie, but the Apple series For All Mankind. The Phoenix is a converted space hotel used to ferry a crew on a two year mission to Mars. The spacecraft has large rooms with high ceilings. Where is all the oxygen coming from? Likewise with the North Korean astronaut stranded on Mars for a year. How did that little probe have enough oxygen and food to sustain him for all that time?
In some old thread I brought up the problem with weapons in the future. Despite the incredible advancements in technology nobody ever figures out how to make one hit what they’re aiming at.
Stargate SG1’s 100th episode shows “behind-the-scenes” scenarios of the production of an over-the-top sci-fi series based on Stargate. A lot of the reasons sci-fi is rarely scientifically accurate is because of actor egos, production SNAFUs, and having to play to audience expectations. This one scene is particularly telling:
DIRECTOR
Eh, Marty has a problem with a scene in Act Three.
EXEC. PRODUCER
(condescendingly)
Oh, is that a fact, Marty?
MARTIN
You have two-way travel through a wormhole.
EXEC. PRODUCER
So?
[He shrugs and looks at the Director, who also shrugs and mouths “I know”.]
MARTIN
That’s impossible! Matter can only move one way through an open wormhole. The scene is…scientifically unsound.
EXEC. PRODUCER
(sighing)
Okay, show of hands. Who here has won a Cable Ace award, hmm?
(he raises his own hand while the others roll their eyes and look away.)
Thank you.
Sounds like you’re primarily hung up on the hard/soft science fiction divide. Almost all of what you describe is not liking the softer side of things. Which is fine, but it’s not a problem with the movies or TV themselves; it’s nearly always a consequence of the source material not being hard science fiction.
That said, I do agree that sometimes there are little additions that are thrown in for filming’s sake that make zero practical sense. For example, little lights around the wearer’s face in the helmet of a spacesuit. Seems like all it would do is screw up your vision, but they do it so that the actors’ faces are more visible.
But ultimately the hardest sci-fi show will have to bend in the face of budgetary constraints. They’re NOT going to fool around with zero-g simulations every week, for example. Movies can and often do; look at Gravity for an example.
Or, as Mark Hamill claims Harrison Ford once said, “Hey kid, it ain’t that kind of movie.”
It doesn’t really bother me, but I’ve noticed in a lot of sci-fi shows a futuristic computer very often looks like a computer from the era the show was made, but it’s more capable.
In Star Trek TOS and other 1960s sci-fi computers were big boxes with flashing lights on them. Sure, maybe they could talk and do other amazing things 1960s computers couldn’t do, but they still fundamentally looked like 1960s computers.
In TNG the Enterprise computer could accept voice commands, but that console on Picard’s desk still looked an awful lot like a 1980s laptop, with a really thick frame and laughably small screen by today’s standards.
In recent sci-fi like The Expanse, everyone has devices that look like thin, transparent iPhones and iPads.
I always figure the people who make those shows are trying to go for something that seems just futuristic enough to fit in with the setting, but is still familiar enough that the audience will recognize it as a computer.
I basically agree with you, and I love hard science fiction. There does seem to be a mild trend towards reasonably hard science fiction in recent years, as opposed to the fantasy of Doctor Who and Star Trek. Examples include The Expanse and The Martian, although even these have ‘soft’ elements included. I think this trend may continue, especially if the future includes some interesting, real space exploration missions programs.
But;
I disagree with some points.
- Sound in the vacuum of space: this can be potentially justifiable. Often you hear conversations relayed from that ship, even at a distance; I think that implies the presence of a microphone on the ship. Such a microphone would relay the sound of the ship’s motors as well, so there should be no surprise that you can hear the ship’s motors via that route. Also you could hear the sound of an explosion if the ship is destroyed, although the sound should quickly fade away into static.
- Blast Waves: although there would be a minimal pressure wave in a vacuum because there would be no atmosphere to compress, a sufficiently energetic explosion would create a rapidly expanding, spherical shell of particles that could cause damage at short range. The thing that annoys me is the circular expanding disc that is often seen in space SFX, which is really difficult to justify.
- Any talk about “speed”. Relative to what? Acceleration is the only thing that matters: Well, relative velocity is important, too. You could destroy a spaceship with a bucket of bolts if it had enough relative velocity. And sometimes you want to know what fraction of light-speed you are travelling at, so long as you can choose a frame of reference to compare it to. But you are right - speed alone is over-simplistic.
A lightweight series I read dealt with the first contact translation issue hilariously. Earth sent the planet a bunch of pictograms and got the reply “We’ve been monitoring your planet’s transmissions for centuries, no need for your primitive pictures. Also, don’t contact us again.”
I read that when Star Trek: Enterprise was in pre-production the producers were in a bit of a bind. They had to make technology within the show that was less advanced than the original Star Trek, but more advanced than when the show was being made. The gap was smaller than it should have been.