Is it OK to criticize Sci-Fi writers for inaccuracy?

[KingMerv00]

Oh the sci-fi show Heroes, there was a total eclipse. I took part in an exchange in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4250690#post4250690):

Originally Posted by KingMerv00 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4240655#post4240655)
Am I the only one who found it amusing that the eclipse seemed to cover the entire Earth?


Originally Posted by wafonso http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4249799#post4249799)

Thank you! I thought I was the only one who, in a series involving people with weirdly impossible powers, would get annoyed because the eclipse is not physically possible.

:seangry:

Why oh why do people insist on using non sequiturs?

The unspoken pledge in all works of fiction is that, except where explicitly stated by the creator, the fictional world is essentially the same as the real world. A day is 24 hours, there are three branches to the US Federal government, and alcohol gets you drunk.

If a writer wants to introduce an unusual element, they have four acceptable options.

1) Don't explain it
(Example - Artificial Gravity in Star Wars)
People do not generally discuss how everyday technology works so this technique is probably the most realistic and means the author doesn't have to spend pages on techno babble. Accuracy is not expected.

2) Explain Just a Little
(Example - Heisenberg compensators on Star Trek)
When then author knows a little about the science involved, it can be fun to give a wink and a nod to the audience. This option is useful because it gives the characters something to shout when things go wrong. ("Captain! The Einstein-Rosen generators are failing!") Only general accuracy is expected.

3) Give a Realistic Explanation
(Example - Artificial gravity in 2001: A Space Odyssey)
Sometimes sci-fi is ALMOST reality. Engineering and financial limitations suck. #3 is great because it makes the fantastic seem real. Accuracy is somewhat important.

4) Explain the Crap Out of It
(Example - The alternate reality history of Middle-Earth)
For when you are paid by the word. I tend to not like this option because I am not interested in reading a 30 page dissertation on bread. Accuracy is not important because I've fallen asleep anyway.

Now, let's look at Heroes:

When it comes to the functioning of the powers they choose option #1. This does not annoy me.

When it comes to the origin of the powers, they choose option #2. Mohinder claims evolution is the cause. I am annoyed because he cannot even get the foundations of natural selection right.

The eclipse is particularly annoying because in Season 1 it appeared on both sides of the planet simultaneously. This means that the writers FORGOT THE EARTH WAS ROUND. I suppose it is possible that in the Heroes-verse, Earth rotates more slowly, is part of a binary star system and has two moons. The simpler (and correct) explanation is that the writers are hacks.

In closing...Star Trek, Star Wars, Lost, X-Files, and Aliens good. Heroes and Fringe bad. Writing sci-fi does not give you a license to be a moron and fiction can be inaccurate




Am I just a nitpicking jerk or what? When sci-fi and bad science collide, where do you draw the line? When is it Ok to complain?

For the record, this is a pet peev of mine so my response was a bit over the top.

[Piscivore]

When is it Ok to complain?

When your "Suspension of Disbelief Field" collapses. ;)

[Morrigan]

No, I completely agree with you, suspension of disbelief has its limits. I dislike the use of science-fiction as an excuse to write complete inane crap that insult your intelligence, and it's one of the main reasons I stopped watching Heroes after the first few episodes of season 1 - I couldn't stand the inanity in that Indian guy's pretentious, pseudo scientific rants (when he said "they say we only use 10% of our brains" I almost turned it off right there). Of course, the fact that the writing just plain sucks and I generally hate anything with superheroes in it were also factors. In Fringe, I stopped watching not just because of the blatant pseudo-science (it can be entertaining sometimes), but mostly because it became formulaic, incredibly predictable and just kind of dull (though I liked that "observer" guy), and the main heroine is about as compelling as a doorknob.

[Jimbo07]

No, I completely agree with you, suspension of disbelief has its limits. I dislike the use of science-fiction as an excuse to write complete inane crap that insult your intelligence, and it's one of the main reasons I stopped watching Heroes after the first few episodes of season 1 -

Ummm... am I the only one who has never thought that Superhero fiction is a part of Science fiction? Similarly that Horror fiction is not a part of either? You can have elements of all three... but what about Horrific Fantasy fiction? Of course, there, the superheroes are called wizards...

[fuelair]

Oh the sci-fi show Heroes, there was a total eclipse. I took part in an exchange in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4250690#post4250690):








Am I just a nitpicking jerk or what? When sci-fi and bad science collide, where do you draw the line? When is it Ok to complain?

For the record, this is a pet peev of mine so my response was a bit over the top.

If the person is writing actual science fiction - fiction with a decently large base in science (aka hard science fiction) - is allowed very little leeway in that - the accuracy is part of why it has it's fans. If it is tv Sci-Fi ,or science fantasy, etc., (if you like peanuts, you'll like ski-fy) it really doesn't matter (it should, but we sf fans have long since given up on that).

[Dunstan]

I agree with you. It doesn't bother me that there's no explanation of why an eclipse would give or remove superpowers, because there's really not going to be a good explanation for superpowers to begin with. But screwing up basic astronomical facts is annoying. And it's not like they needed it to be an eclipse anyway, given the complete lack of explanation for superpowers; they could have had it be some other phenomenon.

[KingMerv00]

Ummm... am I the only one who has never thought that Superhero fiction is a part of Science fiction? Similarly that Horror fiction is not a part of either? You can have elements of all three... but what about Horrific Fantasy fiction? Of course, there, the superheroes are called wizards...

Superheroes are sci-fi. They subvert the laws of physics and biology.

If you like, we could lump everything under speculative fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_fiction). Then again, we are in the science forum and this is my thread so...:D

[drkitten]

No, I completely agree with you, suspension of disbelief has its limits.

My rule of thumb is that you get one chapter (or one episode, or 2-3 scenes) to introduce all the major ways in which your world differs from "the real one." And that all happens at the beginning, and everything else is either just-as-it-is, or else inferrable from the changes you introduced.

Case in point : _Star Wars_. We know the political structure (which is actually fairly boring) from the opening verbiage, we know that we've got spaceships and blasters from the opening scene, and we learn that the Force exists and does funky stuff from our conversations with Ben in the first reel.

Case in point: _LoTR_. We know that wizards, hobbits, elves, and magic rings exist from the first chapter.

Case in point: _Firefly_. We know that people fly spaceships and speak Chinese, but shoot guns instead of laser beams ten minutes into the first episode.

Counter-case in point : _Superman_ Who can pull any power he likes out of his (ahem) costume at the whim of the various hacks who have written him,.... which is why they've been just as quickly written out in the movies. Have we ever seen "red kryptonite" in a movie? Have we seen any of the variant colors of kryptonite? Why not?

[Denver]

Ummm... am I the only one who has never thought that Superhero fiction is a part of Science fiction? Similarly that Horror fiction is not a part of either? You can have elements of all three... but what about Horrific Fantasy fiction? Of course, there, the superheroes are called wizards...

Back in the early 1900s, I believe this was all grouped into the category of "Weird Fiction".

But as to the OP, as long as it is entertaining, I tend to agree with the well know words of wisdom:

If you're wondering how he eats and breathes,
And other science facts
Just repeat to yourself, "It's just a show,
I should really just relax..."

[KingMerv00]

But as to the OP, as long as it is entertaining, I tend to agree with the well know words of wisdom:

I love MST3K and I respect the mantra. On the other hand, MST3K chose option #1 above so I have no complaints. Plus, it was a comedy and a parody so any explanation they gave would just be a gag.

[Denver]

I love MST3K and I respect the mantra. On the other hand, MST3K chose option #1 above so I have no complaints. Plus, it was a comedy and a parody so any explanation they gave would just be a gag.

I think really that the comments about suspension of belief make the most sense. I think it depends on the amount of effort a person has to put into suspending their belief, and how fair they think that effort is given the movie and the circumstances.

So, watching a comedy, I am probably not putting much effort into it, and so when it is violated, no big deal. And if I am watching some serious scifi, and they are really trying hard to keep my belief suspended, then my own effort does not seem snubbed, one-sided, or inequitable.

But if it's serious scifi, and I seem to be putting a lot more effort into it than the scifi is, it starts to seem unfair at some level, and that creates frustration. And then I want to complain.

[Morrigan]

My rule of thumb is that you get one chapter (or one episode, or 2-3 scenes) to introduce all the major ways in which your world differs from "the real one." And that all happens at the beginning, and everything else is either just-as-it-is, or else inferrable from the changes you introduced.

Case in point : _Star Wars_. We know the political structure (which is actually fairly boring) from the opening verbiage, we know that we've got spaceships and blasters from the opening scene, and we learn that the Force exists and does funky stuff from our conversations with Ben in the first reel.

Case in point: _LoTR_. We know that wizards, hobbits, elves, and magic rings exist from the first chapter.

Case in point: _Firefly_. We know that people fly spaceships and speak Chinese, but shoot guns instead of laser beams ten minutes into the first episode.

Counter-case in point : _Superman_ Who can pull any power he likes out of his (ahem) costume at the whim of the various hacks who have written him,.... which is why they've been just as quickly written out in the movies. Have we ever seen "red kryptonite" in a movie? Have we seen any of the variant colors of kryptonite? Why not?


Good post. A good writer has consistent rules, even if they are fantastical or physically impossible. A hack makes s**t up as he goes, invents new "rules" or magic systems or whatever as plot devices to suit his arbitrary needs *coughTerryGoodkindcough* and so on.

Not sure I agree with "one chapter", though. For multi-volume fantasy sagas, it can take a bit more than that. But so long as it's well introduced (massive infodumps = teh suck) and remains consistent, that's what matters.

[Lonewulf]

I draw a line between soft scifi and hard scifi.

Science Fiction that isn't pretending to be scientific, I have no problem with.

[KingMerv00]

I think really that the comments about suspension of belief make the most sense. I think it depends on the amount of effort a person has to put into suspending their belief, and how fair they think that effort is given the movie and the circumstances.

So, watching a comedy, I am probably not putting much effort into it, and so when it is violated, no big deal. And if I am watching some serious scifi, and they are really trying hard to keep my belief suspended, then my own effort does not seem snubbed, one-sided, or inequitable.

But if it's serious scifi, and I seem to be putting a lot more effort into it than the scifi is, it starts to seem unfair at some level, and that creates frustration. And then I want to complain.

I draw a line between soft scifi and hard scifi.

Science Fiction that isn't pretending to be scientific, I have no problem with.

Yup. My nitpicking is directly proportional to the amount of serious effort put in by the author.

[Lonewulf]

Yeah, the people going on about how it's evilwrongsad to not put in perfect science into movies probably didn't like Douglas Adams much.

[ZirconBlue]

Counter-case in point : _Superman_ Who can pull any power he likes out of his (ahem) costume at the whim of the various hacks who have written him,.... which is why they've been just as quickly written out in the movies. Have we ever seen "red kryptonite" in a movie? Have we seen any of the variant colors of kryptonite? Why not?

In the movies, no. But red kryptonite has appeared on Smallville. There was Lex Luthor's pseudo-kryptonite in Superman III, though.

[ZirconBlue]

Yeah, the people going on about how it's evilwrongsad to not put in perfect science into movies probably didn't like Douglas Adams much.


Why? None of that stuff was impossible, it was just "highly improbable".
;)

[Lonewulf]

Why? None of that stuff was impossible, it was just "highly improbable".;)

:D

Actually, that makes it WORSE. For instance, which is the story you'll put down first? The one where a mad scientist builds a death ray that relies on superscience, or the one where the hero guesses a 1 in a million combination on the first try, and does similar unlikely things throughout the story?

[KingMerv00]

:D

Actually, that makes it WORSE. For instance, which is the story you'll put down first? The one where a mad scientist builds a death ray that relies on superscience, or the one where the hero guesses a 1 in a million combination on the first try, and does similar unlikely things throughout the story?

I know you aren't being serious but please see the Rule of Funny. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfFunny) Futurama and HHGTTG are awesome BECAUSE they are wrong about the laws of physics.

[CapelDodger]

Am I just a nitpicking jerk or what? When sci-fi and bad science collide, where do you draw the line? When is it Ok to complain?

For the record, this is a pet peev of mine so my response was a bit over the top.

When I consider how many people didn't say at any point in production "Ummm ... Excuse me ... About this eclipse thing?" I am saddened rather than enraged. It's when I consider how much these people probably earn that I get seriously irritated.

There was a desperate sci-fi series over here about present-day scientific trouble-shooters; it lasted three episodes or so, one of which involved a black-hole in a chamber that only sucked you in when the door was open! Screw the black hole : I want the technology behind that door. So to speak :).

[CapelDodger]

... when he said "they say we only use 10% of our brains" I almost turned it off right there ...

Oh my, they did that?

I live in a Universe where Firefly was cancelled, and there's something fundamentally wrong with it. I don't care about science glitches in Firefly because they're only part of the setting; the stories are wonderful.

[technoextreme]

Since when was Heroes ever classified as sci-fi? It's fantasy.

[Lonewulf]

Since when was Heroes ever classified as sci-fi? It's fantasy.

From what I know, it's a Superhero show. The thing is, from what I know, they tried to be somewhat "scientific" about the super powers.

Still, it's superhero fantasy. Bad science is rampant in those.

I mean, hell. There were villains that fired MOON BEAMS. They're beams. From a guy from the moon. So they're moon beams. And they can block heat vision from Superman or something.

[KingMerv00]

Since when was Heroes ever classified as sci-fi? It's fantasy.

The writers of Heroes attempt to explain things scientifically, ergo it is sci-fi. They could have gone with a mystical explanation from day one but they didn't...so i hate them.

[Earthborn]

When I consider how many people didn't say at any point in production "Ummm ... Excuse me ... About this eclipse thing?"It can be much much worse. I once saw this low budget werewolf movie, where the werewolves were planning some sort of ritual during a total lunar eclipse.

Which is kinda cool when you think about it. If you suspend your disbelief enough to accept that there are werewolves and werewolves are affected by the full moon, it doesn't seem illogical that they would consider a lunar eclipse to be of special significance.

But when at the end of the movie the lunar eclipse was shown I was quite surprised by how they chose to depict it.

It showed the eclipse as a dark disk in the night sky, surrounded by the bright flaming corona of the moon :oldroll:

Personally I would have thought that "blood-red" would have been more appropriate.

[dudalb]

I HATED the totally inaccurate protrayal of Galactus in the film version of "The Fantastic Four".

[CapelDodger]

It can be much much worse. I once saw this low budget werewolf movie, where the werewolves were planning some sort of ritual during a total lunar eclipse.

Which is kinda cool when you think about it. If you suspend your disbelief enough to accept that there are werewolves and werewolves are affected by the full moon, it doesn't seem illogical that they would consider a lunar eclipse to be of special significance.

But when at the end of the movie the lunar eclipse was shown I was quite surprised by how they chose to depict it.

It showed the eclipse as a dark disk in the night sky, surrounded by the bright flaming corona of the moon :oldroll:


Oh my ...

Personally I would have thought that "blood-red" would have been more appropriate.

Works for me, and it would have required an even lower budget. But try pitching it to a low-budget producer and see where it gets you. Subtlety fails; FX works.

[Steelmage]

(when he said "they say we only use 10% of our brains" I almost turned it off right there).

I use to work in technical support, and sometimes you get those customers in which you wonder if they use that much of their brains.

[Steelmage]

I HATED the totally inaccurate protrayal of Galactus in the film version of "The Fantastic Four".

That we agreed on, it totally suck. It was also phoney that he would blow up next to earth with nothing happen to the planet at all.

[Darth Rotor]

Good post. A good writer has consistent rules, even if they are fantastical or physically impossible. A hack makes s**t up as he goes, invents new "rules" or magic systems or whatever as plot devices to suit his arbitrary needs *coughTerryGoodkindcough* and so on.

Thank you so much for that TG critique.

@ King Merv: science fiction needs good science, or it's not good science fiction. Not perfect science, but good science. The simple stuff being right is good science -- like an eclipse.

[quixotecoyote]

Thank you so much for that TG critique.



But of course, TG would never admit to being something as undignified as a fantasy writer... :dqueen

[Radrook]

I once saw this Star Trek episode where the shadow of the Interprise as it approached a planet almost covered the whole globe. One wonders whether the people in charge are assuming viewer stupidity or are themselves ignorant.

[luchog]

Am I just a nitpicking jerk or what? When sci-fi and bad science collide, where do you draw the line? When is it Ok to complain?
No, I completely agree. In order to suspend disblelief, all the mundane details must be as close to reality as possible. That kind of sloppiness really annoys me as well.

C.S. Lewis said "The man to whom extraordinary things happen must not, himself, be extraordinary." For something to truly be extraordinary, it must be set in the context of the ordinary. This goes for settings just as much as for people.

That's one of the reasons I dislike Star Trek, all the annoying technobabble that doesn't really explain things, and is typically just complete and utter gibberish (that and they use it so often as a plothammer).

[luchog]

Yeah, the people going on about how it's evilwrongsad to not put in perfect science into movies probably didn't like Douglas Adams much.

But Douglas Adams never claims that his "science" is anything more than a convenient plot device, created purely for humorous purposes.

[Morrigan]

Oh my, they did that?
In the very first episode, IIRC.


I live in a Universe where Firefly was cancelled, and there's something fundamentally wrong with it. I don't care about science glitches in Firefly because they're only part of the setting; the stories are wonderful.
100% agreed and hey, at least Firefly got the "no sound in space" thing right!

[fromdownunder]

I can live with some errors in science in SF books and shows. And with a lot when something is an excellent read, and entertaining. For example, Doc Smith's Lensman series was utterly impossible from page one of the first volume until the final page of Children. Smith never explained anything at all. He just took you aslong for the ride - as did Burroughs in his Mars books. How do you get a man to Mars? Just stand him outside a cave, and wish for it. Simple, and no explanations. Fun to read if you just want to go along for a ride.

Hard SF writers - Clarke, Asimov, Heinlein, mostly had hard science bubbling just beneath the plot - it was there but it was never obvious, unless necessary to the story (Heinlein's juvenile Have Space Suit Will Travel had an 8 page explanation as to how a Space Suit works. Essential to the plot, all hard science, and amazingly entertaining reading).

It is when, as others have said, people try to have it both ways that I get annoyed. And when something is so bad that you suddenly sit up and say - Oh! Come on! and your suspension of disbelief is disturbed to the extent that you get ripped out of any interest in the story completely and start thinking about what was wrong with the plot point, the scene - then you have a fail. I cite the movie The Swarm here, because there were Oh! Come On! moments about every two minutes.

OK my above examples are all at the extreme edges, but it can happen anywhyere, any time. and especially in visual entertainment especially in superhero movies, where rabbits are always being pulled out of hats, because there is no other logical way to keep going (the original Christopher Reeve Superman movies).

Norm

[Dunstan]

I think the most important thing is to be internally consistent with the things that have been stated explicitly. If the phlebotinum drive can go full speed for 10 hours on this week's episode, I'd better not hear the ship's engineer say next week that it needs to recharge after only a half-hour chase.

And it's ok to be fuzzy about some things. When asked how fast a particular spaceship could fly, Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczinski replied "they travel at the speed of plot." I don't really have a problem with stuff like that, unless you're making clear contradictions (like the journey from A to B takes five hours one episode, and five days the next, on the same ship, without explanation). It's unfair to expect writers to prepare or consult an exhaustive technical manual on every plot point.

[Slimething]

I have no idea why you all have strayed from the OP with meaningless dialog. The question was:


Is it OK to criticize Sci-Fi writers for inaccuracy?


The only correct response is: OF COURSE! As a matter of fact, it's your duty to complain about anything that irritates you. If you won't, who will? Make your voice heard. No one or thing is above criticism.

Nap time now.

http://www.oldmansimpson.com/pics/grabpics/grampa09.gif

[Angus McPresley]

The eclipse is particularly annoying because in Season 1 it appeared on both sides of the planet simultaneously. This means that the writers FORGOT THE EARTH WAS ROUND.


Not as uncommon as you might think. I was sent the awesome Earth at night (http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~kcobb/energy/earth_at_the_night_1024x768.jpg) image in a chain mail once, with the explanation that it was taken from the space shuttle (wrong enough) on a "particularly cloudless night".

So, not only was the whole Earth visible at once, and the whole Earth cloudless at once, but the whole Earth was experiencing nighttime at the same time.

My coworkers had to ask me why I was weeping...

[Seanette]

I use to work in technical support, and sometimes you get those customers in which you wonder if they use that much of their brains.

I've done tech support and other call center jobs. I have to agree here.

[Lonewulf]

But Douglas Adams never claims that his "science" is anything more than a convenient plot device, created purely for humorous purposes.

Oh come off it. When science is often mentioned in "soft sci-fi" (which is what I'd call a show like Heroes), it's also a convenient plot device. I guess it's different if it's for "humorous" purposes than cool factor? :rolleyes:

Here's a tip: Lightsabres probably couldn't exist in reality, at least, as they do in Star Wars.

Here's another tip: Lightsabres are still kickass.

You may walk away enlightened, grasshopper.

(I would like to add that it's often better to leave soft science unexplained, instead of throwing up a completely false idea like the "10% of our brains" BS; so I can understand criticism there. Still, if you're unwilling to enjoy the story after that, it tells me that you're a Science fundamentalist. :p)

[Lonewulf]

I think the most important thing is to be internally consistent with the things that have been stated explicitly. If the phlebotinum drive can go full speed for 10 hours on this week's episode, I'd better not hear the ship's engineer say next week that it needs to recharge after only a half-hour chase.

And it's ok to be fuzzy about some things. When asked how fast a particular spaceship could fly, Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczinski replied "they travel at the speed of plot." I don't really have a problem with stuff like that, unless you're making clear contradictions (like the journey from A to B takes five hours one episode, and five days the next, on the same ship, without explanation). It's unfair to expect writers to prepare or consult an exhaustive technical manual on every plot point.
+1

Exactly.

[Third Eye Open]

I agree, the eclipse pissed me off. Also, Mohinders various speeches about evolution were a bit annoying, but at least they were trying.

The main thing for me is that shows have to follow their own rules. I don't care if the rule makes sense or not, but if you made it, follow it.

A character is able to regenerate any wounds and heal himself instantly? Fine, that's your rule. Later in the show he is 'knocked out' by a blow to the head? That is irritating.

Heroes has decided that their characters live on earth. On earth you can't have two total solar eclipses in the space of a year (or less?) and those eclipses aren't visible simultaneously at all places on earth, and totality lasts minutes not hours.

In short, these things subtract from the enjoyability of the show, and writers should stop expecting their viewers to be morons. We aren't going to forget what happened earlier in the season just because it would be easier for you to do that neat 'twist' if we did.

[Lonewulf]

Okay, yeah, now that I read about the Eclipse thing, that definitely is annoying. It doesn't just break the laws of science, but also that of common sense.

Not sure why a regenerating dude wouldn't be able to suffer from damage to the brain enough to knock him out, though? Would you really "snap awake" as soon as your brain heals itself physically? Personally, I don't see anything wrong with that. I guess I'm the stupid audience they're aiming at. :D

[Third Eye Open]

Okay, yeah, now that I read about the Eclipse thing, that definitely is annoying. It doesn't just break the laws of science, but also that of common sense.

Not sure why a regenerating dude wouldn't be able to suffer from damage to the brain enough to knock him out, though? Would you really "snap awake" as soon as your brain heals itself physically? Personally, I don't see anything wrong with that. I guess I'm the stupid audience they're aiming at. :D

Certainly not calling you stupid! :)

It's just that previously in the show, every time said character is hurt, say, cut across the face, it visibly heals instantly. The only time he/she was incapacitated was when an object was lodged in his/her brain. When this object was removed, he/she woke up instantly (gasp of breath, sitting up straight with eyes wide, you know the drill) I don't see how you would be able to bang someone like that's head enough to 'knock them out' for long enough to restrain them.

Then again, maybe my threshold of disbelief is too low.

[Lonewulf]

Ah, I see what you're talking about. When the object was removed from their head, they snapped back to consciousness right after the healing; then afterward, they suffer a concussive blow to the head, which knocks them out for a point of time even though the damage would have been healed.

I see. That is inconsistent.

[shadron]

Way back when, Isaac Asimov got conned into writing the book for Fantastic Voyage: an Amazing Journey Through the Human Bloodstream, a task that he verily did not want to do, but Hollywood had sway with his publisher. The film was already in the can, and he sat down and added to it an explanation about how the shrinking could occur, with the atoms of the voyagers being shrunk in a field.When the movie people saw it they bitched about "What's all this drivel about a shrinking field"? He told them that they wanted a hack, they got a hack, but it would be his kind of hack.

[megaresp]

When your "Suspension of Disbelief Field" collapses. ;)
Excellent...best laugh I've had all day!

I predict a long and prosperous career for you, writing future episodes of Star Trek.

[Lonewulf]

Don't disturb the "Suspension of Disbelief" fairies.

[Darat]

I think the most important thing is to be internally consistent with the things that have been stated explicitly.

...snip...

Larry Niven wrote a good piece about this and his point was that often throwing in something in one story because it worked for that story caused problems if you wanted to go back to that world. He used the example of a (technological) teleport he came up with and then how he had to constantly think of why that couldn't be used in subsequent stories.

[gnome]

Way back when, Isaac Asimov got conned into writing the book for Fantastic Voyage: an Amazing Journey Through the Human Bloodstream, a task that he verily did not want to do, but Hollywood had sway with his publisher. The film was already in the can, and he sat down and added to it an explanation about how the shrinking could occur, with the atoms of the voyagers being shrunk in a field.When the movie people saw it they bitched about "What's all this drivel about a shrinking field"? He told them that they wanted a hack, they got a hack, but it would be his kind of hack.

I need to get a hold of "Fantastic Voyage II" which he describes as not actually a sequel, but how he would have written it in the first place if he had creative freedom.

[Ryan O'Dine]

...snip...

That's one of the reasons I dislike Star Trek, all the annoying technobabble that doesn't really explain things, and is typically just complete and utter gibberish (that and they use it so often as a plothammer).

I heard a local radio interview a while back from one of the writers on, IIRC, Voyager. He mentioned that when he needed a technical term, he'd write [tech], and later a consultant would fill in the goofy trumped-up technobabble. He joked that he'd try not to have sentences like, "...he [techs] the [tech] with the [techy] [tech] in the [tech]."

He was an amusing guy, but that kind of irked me. It's pretty pathetic when a sci-fi writer can't even fake the fake science.

[Lonewulf]

Or maybe he just didn't want to waste his time on it :P

[I Ratant]

I criticised Mike Resnick on Compuserve's Sci-fi forum for a theme he was working with, he got very upset.
David Gerrold is another "Forum bully" when you run into him.
I've been reading for 60 years, the Analog/Asimov forums have several writers I've never heard of. These guys are quite full of themselves.
There's many inflated egos in sci-fi, I guess from all the fandom adulation.

[gnome]

I heard a local radio interview a while back from one of the writers on, IIRC, Voyager. He mentioned that when he needed a technical term, he'd write [tech], and later a consultant would fill in the goofy trumped-up technobabble. He joked that he'd try not to have sentences like, "...he [techs] the [tech] with the [techy] [tech] in the [tech]."

He was an amusing guy, but that kind of irked me. It's pretty pathetic when a sci-fi writer can't even fake the fake science.

I think that's probably one of the biggest reasons that Star Trek fandom has been so alienated from those that actually make it.

One of the notable things about early Star Trek was that it tried to avoid meaningless technobabble... and there emerged a sense of consistency. You could imagine learning something about how the ship worked, even which controls did what.

This internally-consistent science (which originally attracted many of the original fan base) slipped more and more over time.

[Spud1k]

I would summarise that it's OK to criticise SF writers for bad science if it spoiled your enjoyment of it. It just happens that people have greatly different thresholds for that. For me, it depends on what the author/writer is trying to achieve; the application of 'good' science in SF can really capture the imagination, so when someone who is trying to do just that manages to slip up, it can totally derail it. For instance, the pi-meter significantly blotched Greg Bear's Eon for me, but the gazillion transgressions in Firefly I barely even notice.

Star Trek doesn't bother me most of the time, but every now and then they make a schoolboy error that I can't help but to cringe at. And every time they mention 'tachyons' in The Next Generation it makes me wince, not because of the bad physics but because it normally portends some incredibly lazy writing.

[Dunstan]

Larry Niven wrote a good piece about this and his point was that often throwing in something in one story because it worked for that story caused problems if you wanted to go back to that world. He used the example of a (technological) teleport he came up with and then how he had to constantly think of why that couldn't be used in subsequent stories.

The replicators on Star Trek (Next Generation and later) were a troublesome invention. They didn't really serve any useful plot purpose other than to show how advanced Federation science was, but they caused all sorts of logical problems. Any time the plot required the Enterprise to obtain, or prevent someone else from obtaining, substance X, they had to handwave that "oh, X can't be replicated." Nor can "gold-pressed latinum." And other stuff (fine wine) can be replicated, but "it's just not the same." (Which has disturbing implications for the transporter system, which is based on similar technology. If the ship can't preserve the raspberry and cedar notes of your favorite Burgundy, do you really trust it to disassemble and reassemble YOU properly? McCoy was right!)

They had to do some handwaving with the transporter system, too (there's always "interference" when the plot requires it), but at least the transporters had much more upside. They (1) were cool; (2) solved a lot of scripting problems (the cavalry can arrive immediately, without having to jump into a shuttlecraft; action can move from ship to planet seamlessly); and (3) even created some storylines (mirror universe, etc.).

[Delvo]

Mirror Universe... oh ya, now THERE's a positive outcome...:boggled::eye-poppi:rolleyes:

[fuelair]

Superheroes are sci-fi. They subvert the laws of physics and biology.

If you like, we could lump everything under speculative fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_fiction). Then again, we are in the science forum and this is my thread so...:D

I believe Harlan would appreciate that!!:D

[JWideman]

"Comic book science" does not make it science fiction.

[Spud1k]

The replicators on Star Trek (Next Generation and later) were a troublesome invention. They didn't really serve any useful plot purpose other than to show how advanced Federation science was, but they caused all sorts of logical problems. Any time the plot required the Enterprise to obtain, or prevent someone else from obtaining, substance X, they had to handwave that "oh, X can't be replicated." Nor can "gold-pressed latinum." And other stuff (fine wine) can be replicated, but "it's just not the same." (Which has disturbing implications for the transporter system, which is based on similar technology. If the ship can't preserve the raspberry and cedar notes of your favorite Burgundy, do you really trust it to disassemble and reassemble YOU properly? McCoy was right!)

They had to do some handwaving with the transporter system, too (there's always "interference" when the plot requires it), but at least the transporters had much more upside. They (1) were cool; (2) solved a lot of scripting problems (the cavalry can arrive immediately, without having to jump into a shuttlecraft; action can move from ship to planet seamlessly); and (3) even created some storylines (mirror universe, etc.).

As I understand it, the original reason for the transporters was that right back at the beginning, they didn't have the budget to film shuttle landing sequences.

I find the holodeck stories in TNG onwards amusing for contrived science. How come whenever something goes wrong, the first thing to go is the safety features? And come to think of it, why do they have control panels on the bridge that explode whenever something at the far end of the ship breaks? Evidently the concept of 'failsafe' doesn't exist in the future. It must have gone the way of seatbelts.

[jimbob]

:D

Actually, that makes it WORSE. For instance, which is the story you'll put down first? The one where a mad scientist builds a death ray that relies on superscience, or the one where the hero guesses a 1 in a million combination on the first try, and does similar unlikely things throughout the story?
Douglas Adams would agree...


Dirk also claims to believe that Sherlock Holmes' principle "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" is incorrect, and that in many cases the impossible has a certain credibility that the improbable sometimes lacks. He cited as an example a bizarre case of a young girl somehow recounting the prices of the stock market as they changed, but merely 24 hours behind schedule. It was impossible that she was pulling the prices out of thin air, but the only alternative, however improbable, was that it was all a massive hoax that brought her no practical benefit; the first suggested that something was happening that nobody knew about, while the second was contrary to a basic fact of human nature that they did know about.



And it's ok to be fuzzy about some things. When asked how fast a particular spaceship could fly, Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczinski replied "they travel at the speed of plot."

Iain M Banks said that he decided that the ships of the Culture would take a similar length of time to circumnavigate the galaxy as the early explorers circumnavigated the earth.

He writes "soft" SF, but it isn't the worse for it. Terry Partchett is also pretty good, even when he was just writing a series of gags with little plot in between.

[gnome]

Mirror Universe... oh ya, now THERE's a positive outcome...:boggled::eye-poppi:rolleyes:

Hell, there's some of my favorite stuff. As well as satisfying an urge for dark stories in a generally Utopian genre, it had an amazingly good characterization by Leonard Nimoy, it's outstanding for fun speculation, and is one of the more influential memes Star Trek ever created.

[technoextreme]

From what I know, it's a Superhero show. The thing is, from what I know, they tried to be somewhat "scientific" about the super powers.

From what I know you'd have to be insane to interject scientific and Heroes and all I have watched was a single commercial.
EDIT:
Lonewolf actually beat me to the plot device that I'm talking about.
And come to think of it, why do they have control panels on the bridge that explode whenever something at the far end of the ship breaks? Evidently the concept of 'failsafe' doesn't exist in the future. It must have gone the way of seatbelts.
When your dealing with a significant amount of power sometimes the end result is an explosion. Especially if everything goes wonky due to a power surge. Of course that actually involves a significant amount of electrical engineering.

[qwints]

I criticised Mike Resnick on Compuserve's Sci-fi forum for a theme he was working with, he got very upset.
David Gerrold is another "Forum bully" when you run into him.
I've been reading for 60 years, the Analog/Asimov forums have several writers I've never heard of. These guys are quite full of themselves.
There's many inflated egos in sci-fi, I guess from all the fandom adulation.

I like some of Resnick's stuff. He's won several Hugos and a Nebula, so it's not like he's a nobody. Steve Ely over at Escape Pod (http://escapepod.org/) has run several of his stories. I've never encountered him online or in person, so I can't opine as to his personality, but the few authors I have interacted with have all been pretty normal.

My opinion has always been that as long as the inconsistencies or scientific errors don't get in the way of a good story then I don't care.

[Hindmost]

"The Ringworld is Unstable."

It really depends on how good author is. Poorly written scifi that relies on very unscientific technobabble is easy to criticize. However, if the yarn is good, I think most would allow the author to twist the laws of physics.

Breaking glass floors on Star Trek always bothered me. We can make make polymers now that can withstand more than in the 24th century. And I really wish they wouldn't violate conservation of mass.

glenn

[fuelair]

I like some of Resnick's stuff. He's won several Hugos and a Nebula, so it's not like he's a nobody. Steve Ely over at Escape Pod (http://escapepod.org/) has run several of his stories. I've never encountered him online or in person, so I can't opine as to his personality, but the few authors I have interacted with have all been pretty normal.

My opinion has always been that as long as the inconsistencies or scientific errors don't get in the way of a good story then I don't care.
Mike used to be somewhat full of himself (not at a terrible level, just..noticeable). - I can't say for now because it's been over 12 years since I have seen him but used to be at at least a couple of cons per year.

[gnome]

"The Ringworld is Unstable."

It really depends on how good author is. Poorly written scifi that relies on very unscientific technobabble is easy to criticize. However, if the yarn is good, I think most would allow the author to twist the laws of physics.

Breaking glass floors on Star Trek always bothered me. We can make make polymers now that can withstand more than in the 24th century. And I really wish they wouldn't violate conservation of mass.

glenn

Well, they have their "transparent aluminum".

But you go to the Final Frontier with the floors you have, not the floors you want :)

[dudalb]

I love Larry Niven's story of how at Worldcon, right after "Ringworld" was published, he had to continually endure groups chanting "The Ringworld is Unstable" wherever he went.
Niven himself did one of my favorite specualative essays in "Man Of Steel, Women of Kleenix".

[Hindmost]

I love Larry Niven's story of how at Worldcon, right after "Ringworld" was published, he had to continually endure groups chanting "The Ringworld is Unstable" wherever he went.
Niven himself did one of my favorite specualative essays in "Man Of Steel, Women of Kleenix".

The first edition of Ringworld has the earth turning in the wrong direction as well...rumor has it the first editions are tough to find. Needless to say, he is one of my favorits authors.

glenn

[Bikewer]

Niven has an ongoing blog/discussion group on his various ideas and criticisms thereof, still up as far as I know. He's discussed the problems (and fixes) with Ringworld in the prefaces to several of the novels.

I don't generally hold TV "science fiction" to the same standards I would a novel....It's nice when someone actually does things right, but it's not a killer for me. I enjoyed Star Wars thoroughly.
I remember being impressed by Babylon 5; they rotated the station for "gravity", the fighter spacecraft had thrust-vectoring for maneuver, and so forth. (Harlan Ellison was one of the consultants)
However, "Space, Above and Beyond" was just dreadful. So many boners in the few episodes I managed to watch....

[Almo]

In the case of something meticulous like Ringworld, yeah write to Niven and say, "The Ringworld is unstable!"

When your suspension of disbelief is broken, the writer has many times gone too far. If it happened because you happen to be the world's foremost researcher into the Higgs Boson, then maybe they haven't. If it's something simple like an eclipse that everyone in theory has read about in high school, then yeah: they messed it up.

[JWideman]

I criticised Mike Resnick on Compuserve's Sci-fi forum for a theme he was working with, he got very upset.
David Gerrold is another "Forum bully" when you run into him.
I've been reading for 60 years, the Analog/Asimov forums have several writers I've never heard of. These guys are quite full of themselves.
There's many inflated egos in sci-fi, I guess from all the fandom adulation.

Analog/Asimov is a famously hard market to crack and the authors that do have every right to be arrogant. Or are you talking about the ones who DIDN'T crack the market because all they write is drivel?

[alfaniner]

Not sure why a regenerating dude wouldn't be able to suffer from damage to the brain enough to knock him out, though? Would you really "snap awake" as soon as your brain heals itself physically? Personally, I don't see anything wrong with that. I guess I'm the stupid audience they're aiming at. :D

Granted, it's a fantasy, but one thing really bugged me about the first Chronicles of Narnia. One of the characters is given a vial of something that will "instantly heal any wound." When she uses it on her brother who has just been killed (or close to it), his big gaping spear wound is healed, but he still has a cut on his lip! Maybe it was "one healing per miracle"...

Larry Niven wrote a good piece about this and his point was that often throwing in something in one story because it worked for that story caused problems if you wanted to go back to that world. He used the example of a (technological) teleport he came up with and then how he had to constantly think of why that couldn't be used in subsequent stories.

One of the most irritating things about Star Trek Voyager which happened so often it turned comical: BOOM!!! "Warp drive is offline!" By the last season I was saying the line even before the character said it.

[fuelair]

The first edition of Ringworld has the earth turning in the wrong direction as well...rumor has it the first editions are tough to find. Needless to say, he is one of my favorits authors.

glennFirst ed. paperbacks were going for 11 times the price or so within less than a year of printing first . There was a rumor at that time (unlikely, but, I suppose possible) that he had insisted that the publisher halt selling the first and print a second, corrected, edition.

[luchog]

Oh come off it. When science is often mentioned in "soft sci-fi" (which is what I'd call a show like Heroes), it's also a convenient plot device. I guess it's different if it's for "humorous" purposes than cool factor? :rolleyes:
Actually, when science is mentioned in space opera or other non-hard-sci-fi programs it's rarely even a plot device. It's mostly just pointless window-dressing.

Lightsabres don't have any real explanation in the canonical material, explanations only exist in the extended universe. Lucas was smart enough not to try and explain anything, because doing so was unnecessary, and might tend to detract from the story he was trying to tell. He did break that rule a few times in the Prequel trilogy, and has been almost universally derided for doing so.

Adams only explains things when it would introduce a new layer of humour, and his explanations are strictly humorous, not scientific.

Heroes adds a completely unnecessary explanation that doesn't really fullfil any rule of explanations. It's not a real attempt to speculatively derive a future from the technology; it's not "rule of cool", and it's not "rule of funny". It's pointless window-dressing. Star Trek made much the same mistake with much of their tech.

[fuelair]

Actually, when science is mentioned in space opera or other non-hard-sci-fi programs it's rarely even a plot device. It's mostly just pointless window-dressing.

Lightsabres don't have any real explanation in the canonical material, explanations only exist in the extended universe. Lucas was smart enough not to try and explain anything, because doing so was unnecessary, and might tend to detract from the story he was trying to tell. He did break that rule a few times in the Prequel trilogy, and has been almost universally derided for doing so.

Adams only explains things when it would introduce a new layer of humour, and his explanations are strictly humorous, not scientific.

Heroes adds a completely unnecessary explanation that doesn't really fullfil any rule of explanations. It's not a real attempt to speculatively derive a future from the technology; it's not "rule of cool", and it's not "rule of funny". It's pointless window-dressing. Star Trek made much the same mistake with much of their tech.and their many mystery beams, particles, fields, etc. which seemed deus ex mach (or daemon ex mach)every time.

[fuelair]

Granted, it's a fantasy, but one thing really bugged me about the first Chronicles of Narnia. One of the characters is given a vial of something that will "instantly heal any wound." When she uses it on her brother who has just been killed (or close to it), his big gaping spear wound is healed, but he still has a cut on his lip! Maybe it was "one healing per miracle"....
Or, it only healed the wound she was concerned about - or the victim was.

[Donna Gore]

I have mixed feelings about this. I get irritated if I spot something that is inaccurate, or just seems too wildly implausible. But then I remind myself that it IS called "Science FICTION" and then I try to just sit back and enjoy it. Sometimes if I over-scrutinize then I am unable to enjoy it. Other times I get curious about exactly how much is science, and how much is fiction. The thing that got me interested in Quantum physics was a (BAD) movie about time travel.

[Belz...]

Am I just a nitpicking jerk or what? When sci-fi and bad science collide, where do you draw the line? When is it Ok to complain?

Well, there is a certain level of anti-physics that is acceptable, even desirable, in fiction -- obviously.

The problem is, each person draws the line at different places.

Personally, I draw the line when I feel my intelligence is beign insulted... specifically, when something is not only physically inaccurate, but when it's assumed to be accurate by the authors. In other words, the writers/director think it's okay, or think I won't notice that it isn't.

[Spud1k]

Well, there is a certain level of anti-physics that is acceptable, even desirable, in fiction -- obviously.

The problem is, each person draws the line at different places.

Personally, I draw the line when I feel my intelligence is beign insulted... specifically, when something is not only physically inaccurate, but when it's assumed to be accurate by the authors. In other words, the writers/director think it's okay, or think I won't notice that it isn't.

One thing I like, but you don't see very often, is when a scientific liberty is taken for the sake of plot or dramatic effect but a nod is put in to say that the writer is fully aware of what they're doing. The bullet bending in Wanted is a good if somewhat blatant example - Morgan Freeman's line about it is basically a between-the-lines admission to the tune of "look, we know this is physically impossible and we're not going to even try to explain it, but if you don't question it, I promise you'll enjoy the film more". That way, they kind of subtly make their apology and get on with it.

[Cuddles]

On earth you can't have two total solar eclipses in the space of a year (or less?)

Are you sure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_eclipses)? 10-11 months is about the cut-off, less than a year apart is relatively common.

As for the OP, as others have already said it depends on what you're writing and why. In general, the important thing is to set the rules for the universe early on and then stick to them. If you've established that things work a certain way but then suddenly have them working completely differently, that spoils the story unless you can come up with a good explanation why.

[Piscivore]

As a matter of fact, it's your duty to complain about anything that irritates you. If you won't, who will? Make your voice heard. No one or thing is above criticism.

Annie Wilkes: When I was growing up in Bakersfield, my favourite thing in the whole world was to go to the movies on Saturday afternoons for the Chapter Plays.
Paul Sheldon: Cliffhangers.
Annie Wilkes: I know that, Mr. Man! They also called them serials. I'm not stupid ya know... Anyway, my favourite was Rocketman, and once it was a no brakes chapter. The bad guy stuck him in a car on a mountain road and knocked him out and welded the door shut and tore out the brakes and started him to his death, and he woke up and tried to steer and tried to get out but the car went off a cliff before he could escape! And it crashed and burned and I was so upset and excited, and the next week, you better believe I was first in line. And they always start with the end of the last week. And there was Rocketman, trying to get out, and here comes the cliff, and just before the car went off the cliff, he jumped free! And all the kids cheered! But I didn't cheer. I stood right up and started shouting. This isn't what happened last week! Have you all got amnesia? They just cheated us! This isn't fair! HE DIDN'T GET OUT OF THE COCK - A - DOODIE CAR!

[jmercer]

In answer to the OP (albeit a bit late)...

My litmus test is pretty simple. If the inaccuracy is minor (in the sense of being insignificant in the development of the main the story line and truly a minor breach), then I pretty much let it go although it does detract a little from my enjoyment. Some good examples - curving flights in space vehicles while "dogfighting", noise in space, planetary explosions that look like fireworks, yadda yadda yadda. (Yeah, I'm using Star Wars simply because it's the one that jumps out at me at 6:15 AM. :D)

If the inaccuracy is non-trivial, then there better be a damned good explanation for it, even if the explanation is pure fantasy. My favorite explanations, though, are those that use current gaps in scientific knowledge - or even currently accepted theoretical possibilities. First Contact - both Carl Sagan's book and the movie - is one of my favorites. Other common mechanisms (such as warp drives) are often intrinsically flawed in their explanations - but I make allowances because while "warp drives" as described may not be possible, there are other theoretical possiblities that might provide the same capability - traveling without the penalty of tightly linking distance with time. :)

So, yeah, criticize away. Just be a bit lenient, since the goal is entertainment. If there's an element of education... well. That's a plus. :D

[KingMerv00]

I have mixed feelings about this. I get irritated if I spot something that is inaccurate, or just seems too wildly implausible. But then I remind myself that it IS called "Science FICTION" and then I try to just sit back and enjoy it. Sometimes if I over-scrutinize then I am unable to enjoy it. Other times I get curious about exactly how much is science, and how much is fiction. The thing that got me interested in Quantum physics was a (BAD) movie about time travel.

I think this is all covered in the rant in the OP. Writing fiction is no excuse to write poor fiction.

[Belz...]

Well, it's all about internal consistency. In any movie some things will be different than in reality, and some things will be assumed to be the same. So if they get the "same" things wrong, well...

It's also about internal consistency. Even the "different" things need some level of logic.

[Rolfe]

Way back when, Isaac Asimov got conned into writing the book for Fantastic Voyage: an Amazing Journey Through the Human Bloodstream, a task that he verily did not want to do, but Hollywood had sway with his publisher. The film was already in the can, and he sat down and added to it an explanation about how the shrinking could occur, with the atoms of the voyagers being shrunk in a field.When the movie people saw it they bitched about "What's all this drivel about a shrinking field"? He told them that they wanted a hack, they got a hack, but it would be his kind of hack.


Oh, I just finished doing a basic haematology lecture to some science students, and I meant to point out the screamingly wrong premise of Fantastic Voyage, but didn't remember.

The person with that bloodstream is dead. They have anaemia so bad they can't be alive.

40% or more of the total blood volume is occupied by red blood cells. Any miniaturised ship sailing in that is pretty much just going to have to go with the flow because there are far too many cells to allow navigation. But instead we were treated to a vision of empty fluid plasma space, with the occasional mis-shapen and anisocytotic erythrocyte floating lazily past. (Yes, the few cells we saw were just weird, not the very uniform size and shape they should have been either.)

And real blood goes pretty fast, too, it doesn't just dally lazily along even in the veins.

The lack of red cells completely ruined the film for me. I'm just saying, well, forget it, with that much haemoglobin you died anyway.

And the eclipse thing annoyed the HELL out of me the minute I saw it. I remember the 1999 eclipse. The entire country got a minute-by-minute account of who could see what and where, and the exact path the umbra and penumbra took across Europe. I was standing very close to the area of totality but annoyingly not in it. I'd have thought most people know enough by now to slay the Heroes writers where they stand.

It was just sloppy thinking and sloppy plotting, and I suspect they just didn't know enough to realise they were wrong, and didn't have enough sense to research it. The whole boiling of them. Hell mend them.

Rolfe.

[gnome]

Did Innerspace do it any better?

[technoextreme]

"The Ringworld is Unstable."

It really depends on how good author is. Poorly written scifi that relies on very unscientific technobabble is easy to criticize. However, if the yarn is good, I think most would allow the author to twist the laws of physics.

Breaking glass floors on Star Trek always bothered me. We can make make polymers now that can withstand more than in the 24th century. And I really wish they wouldn't violate conservation of mass.

glenn
There is a problem though with technobable. Even if it makes complete and utter sense from a science prospective it can still sound completely and uterly made up. There was one episode of Star Trek where the technobable made complete scence from a sceince prospective. The problem being that maybe a handful would udnerstand the science.

[Ordover]

Okay, I'm speaking with 25 plus years in the science fiction field as a writer and editor, and with some comic book writing experience as well....

First, it is a mistake to lump Super-Hero fiction in with science fiction. In comic books, where 99 percent of super-hero fiction takes place, people in brightly colored costumes fight each other to the bitter end in the skies all over the world, yet 99% of the time nothing else changes - president is the same, politics are the same, technology available to the general public as opposed to super-scientists is the same, etc.

Second, the scientific accuracy of science fiction well, it varies with type. What's called "Hard" science fiction does its best to stay within known physical laws. Looser, or what I call "Pulp" science fiction tips its hat toward the physical laws by using terms like "Warp Drive" or "Hyperspace" to acknowledge that to get past the speed of light will take a leap forward in technology, as it would to achieve time travel or other such things.

But the important thing is that what you are watching establishes its own rules and sticks by them. But even by that loose standard, the stupidity of the overlong and overwide eclipse was compounded by Suresh (the Indian Guy) flipping open a book about eclipses that SHOWED how they work. :)

As for the voice-overs - yes, it's not how science works in -our- world, but I liked that he took the time to explicate how science works in -their- world, in the world of HEROES. I'm far more concerned with how stupid and pointless the plots have been since season one.