Should movies just not explain the science?

[Hand of Evil]

Simple question; How often are you asked to explain stuff in your everyday life? Look at everything around you, think about how it works, how often have you been asked to explain it?

Shows should only explain stuff if it is a plot point and most of the time, you don't need to spend a lot of time on it.

Okay, explain to me decaffeinating coffee? just joking, I know but the Swiss Water Method, still sounds like making coffee.

 

[EscherEnigma]

In honor of this topic, should I ever be in position to write techno-babble for a TV show, movie, or comic-book, I will do my best to make sure the tecno-babble passes first-glance inspection but completetly falls apart upon further reflection. More importantly, directly after the techno-babble I'll have some earnest-sounding schmuck of a character (most likely our intrepid hero) ask "Wow, is that really how it works?" whereupon the smart lad or lass that gave the expository techno-babble will reply "No, I just needed to distract you while I finished working and... done!"

 

[Ahnehnois]

To me, this is really two questions: should they explicate how the technology works, and should they decide in the writer's room how it works. I think the second is really important. Movies that have an internal logic play better and are easier to understand. And the science can be researched after the fact, so it's important that the movie's level of scientific fidelity live up to the expectations of its audience (whatever they are).

Conversely, I'm not a huge fan of expository dialogue, and I see nothing wrong with keeping it to a minimum. Show, don;t tell. Simply put the technology on screen and show how it works. If you sell it well and there's an underlying logic to the world, no explanation is needed.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Riddick had a scene in on this very subject, on the incompatibility of fuel cells in two different ships...the guy was explaining in techo-babble, to Starbuck, that it would be faster to find the cells in question than for him to go into the techno-babble on why they were incompatible and what was needed to make them compatible.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

EDIT: And I'm an idiot who can't even post in the right window.

Regardless, EE's idea sounds fine, but nothing, in my mind, will ever beat the technobabble of Stargate.

 

[Janx]

Some folks may experience that phenomenon - that the science issue is either merely one aspect among several, or a rationalization after the fact of judgement. But, as a counterpoint I bring up my own point - I really liked The 4400! I went out and bought the DVDs so we can rewatch it. But, that one point of science, and a couple of others, were galling enough to lessen enjoyment.

I'm not sure what to think about the 4400, as we're netflix DVDing it now for the first time.

It seems to be one new character sketch per episode, so they've got room for 4400 episodes...

Meanwhile, I'm enjoying re-watching Lost.


I think some people are too dang picky. Like that one guy who doesn't like anything.

 

[Umbran]

It seems to be one new character sketch per episode, so they've got room for 4400 episodes...

They start off with a number of "monster of the week" episodes while you're getting to know the main characters, yes. But eventually, arc plot does coalesce.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm not sure what to think about the 4400, as we're netflix DVDing it now for the first time.

It seems to be one new character sketch per episode, so they've got room for 4400 episodes...

It changes very radically over time. They occasionally do character sketches, but it becomes about a much larger (in game terms) metaplot and is highly serialized, with each season taking on a new theme. It also gets much darker. It also (fair warning) ends on a cliffhanger, though I think it is nonetheless worth watching to the end.

Their "science" is pretty ridiculous, but I was still able to enjoy it.

Edit: ninja'd on that.