SF and Hollywood's Dumbness: A Question About Burton's _Apes_ Movie (1 Viewer)

[Rain]

"any sufficiently advanced civilization would be indistinguishable from magic."

Those may by the smartest words that Clarke ever wrote.

But couldn't this same sort of explanation be applied to many other films, wherein you would consider the science to be a bit questionable?

This can also be related to the point that I was trying to make about the possible existence of other life in the universe in another thread.

Until such time as we have a complete understanding of everything (which obviously will never occur, for the more we learn, the more questions we are able to ask), it is difficult to say with absolute certainty what is scientifically plausible and what is not.

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

I wish Hollywood would do its homework more often in all genres, not just sci-fi. Sci-fi comprises more than hard sci-fi, however. While writers like Greg Bear have 400 hundred pages to explain the interworkings of the technology he uses, a film has a mere two hours or so to do everything it wants to do. I would rather they not explain a device at all then explain it badly. Like the hyperdrive from Star Wars, I don't need to know how it works, I just taken it as a given that it does.

 

[Jack Briggs]

"But couldn't this same sort of explanation be applied to many other films, wherein you would consider the science to be a bit questionable?"

Absolutely. And in those inferior films, these plot devices often show up as some sort of deus ex machina.

As for plausibility, we can base a story on what we know now. If our present understanding of science is replaced by a more complete understanding later, the film based on the earlier understanding is still valid as SF. (For example, 1950's Destination Moon still ranks as valid SF, though it was hopelessly wrong.)

This new version of Planet of the Apes is, apparently, based on Tim Burton's misunderstanding of (or apathy toward) scientific possibility. But I suppose I shouldn't say any more about it, having not seen the thing.

 

[RobertR]

couldn't this same sort of explanation be applied to many other films, wherein you would consider the science to be a bit questionable?

No. There's a difference between saying "we have the technological means to do something you can't do" and "we're just going to ignore science and not even bother explaining why we're ignoring it". I hope I didn't misunderstand your question.

 

[JoeDelan]

And I say again, Did CLarke actually think that we, as humans, would be advanced enough by 2001 or 2010 to get our lazy asses to Jupiter? I dont care about stargates and such, but lets get real here, Bemoaning Tim Burton cause he wanted to get to the Stars in 30 years is a little over the top...It's only a movie...

And on top of that do you REALLY think that Rodney could pull off a Triple Lindey! At his age!!! What the hell was that director thinking!

 

[Jack Briggs]

Back when Stanley Kubrick's film was in its planning stages back in 1964, it was a pre-counterculture/antiwar-movement/social-progressivism era. The Space Age was young and the possibilities seemed limitless. It therefore seemed entirely possible that much of what was depicted would be feasible by the first year of the 21st century.

However, those counterculture ideals that I uphold so vigorously also served to erode the political and popular support that NASA had enjoyed through so much of the '60s. It's a case of something being very much possible but not coming about because of a lack of political resolve.

But, with all due respect, "it's just a movie" doesn't cut it for me. There are films made by directors who endeavored to get it right; they command our respect--and our enjoyment. In my opinion, of course.

 

[Rain]

Did CLarke actually think that we, as humans, would be advanced enough by 2001 or 2010 to get our lazy asses to Jupiter?

As Jack has already pointed out, the goals of the space program in 1968 were somewhat more ambitious than they are now, or than they have been for the past several years. Had the trends continued, we would have been much farther by now. Hard to do with inadquate funding.

 

[JoeDelan]

Another thing...What makes you think this is THIS Earth...Who's to say what Earth it is. That is if you want to beleive in Alternate Universes.

You slam Independence Day but when was the last time you saw Bill Paxton as President...Or the person he portrayed?

I dont blame Tim Burton for getting us to space in 30 years...what I hated about the movie was the lame ass ending...

I am still gonna chime in with Science Fiction and NOT science Fact...That is what Most movies are for, to suspend belief for a few hours...TO be entertained...

 

[Jack Briggs]

Suspending disbelief works for fantasy but not for science fiction.

 

[RobertR]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what Science Fiction is, Joe. The "fiction" part of it does NOT mean you can make up anything you like about the laws of physics or sociopolitical reality.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Suspension of disbelief is *not* the willing acceptance of any premise of the film, no matter how outlandish, illogical, or implausible it might be.

Rather, it is the ability to cultivate a mindset that enables the viewer to integrate the film experience within the limitations of a film presentation; provided that the film offers up a believable world view that is appropriate to the tone and style of the material being viewed. Not all films require rigid adherence to fact, due to those stylistic differences. But some, most notably SF, historical, and biographical IMO, do require as much vermislitude as is possible within the confines of filmmaking.

Suspension of disbelief, when misapplied to film viewing is merely an excuse for poor or lazy filmmaking.

- Walter.

 

[Jack Briggs]

The previous two posts could not have been better said, Walter and RobertR. Bravo.

 

[Mohsen Sadeghi]

I am not going to defend POA as I never cared for the original or saw the new version.
That being said, the whole idea that SF should somehow be compatible with our current understanding of science or technological abilities is, IMHO, absurd. Take the space travel for example. Yes with our current capabilities we will never reach the stars but who is to say that 10 years form now a geek in Canada would not discover the stargate technology? That could be the premise for a SF movie and I would not have any problem accepting it.

 

[JoeDelan]

Isnt that what we do everytime we go and watch Star Wars? Watch Star Trek? Watch 2001? watch 2010? Watch The Time Machine?

Do you really think long, long ago, in a Galazy far, far away something like that could happen?

Do you think that Warp Speed will be available in a few years?

Do you REALLY beleive that there is an civilization out there SO advanced that they can warp around to be where ever they want OR that they can influence Evolution from afar, or even turn a Planet into a sun?

Or that a TIme Machine could be made out of a Bath tub?

Explain the physics in that to me? Explain teleportation, explain light sabers...If you dont suspend what you already know then all of these will not be possible.

I do want to say I am in NO way defending Tim Burton cause he made a truly terrible movie...

 

[Jason Seaver]

Joe, you're making the same mistake many people make when they invoke the "suspension of disbelief" argument: You're arguing that suspension of disbelief is the responsibility of the audience.

It's not. It's the responsibility of the filmmakers. It is the job of the writer, director, cast, production designer, science consultants, etc., to present the story in such a way that the audience accepts what they see on screen, even if it contradicts known fact.

For example, Steven Spielberg has optioned Doris Kearns Goodwin's biography of Abraham Lincoln for a film. Now, if Mr. T is cast in the title role and I don't buy it, is it my fault because I didn't play along, or the producers' fault for engineering the worst cobination of actor and role ever?

Getting the science right, or at least selling it, is the same thing. If Emmerich and Devlin had bothered to sweat the details on Independence Day, for example, the movie would have been better, and more suspenseful to more people, because the peril would have been something the smarter memebers of the audience could believe in.

Similarly, most of the science and technology in "Star Trek" is absurd. But since it is used in a consistent manner (on non-"Voyager" shows), the audience can accept it.

The really aggravating thing is that, as Jack points out, getting this stuff right is really not that difficult. Hire an intern. Compared to $20M that the star is getting paid, what's $10K to have Steven Barnes, Gar & Judy Reeve-Stevens, or some other Hollywood-friendly sci-fi writer do a re-write that clears these things up? (I mean, we're not talking Larry Niven or Ben Bova - though those are names that would be worth some small amount on the poster, too) It's just that the producers are lazy, and the audience allows them to be lazy by lapping up the thoughtless crap that's they're given.

 

[Terrell]

You're arguing that suspension of disbelief is the responsibility of the audience.

Is is the responsibility of the audience. Yes, the filmmaker has to at least present something you can do that with, but you can't lay all of that off on the filmmaker. People have to be able to suspend disbelief. And if they can't, then they can't going to be able to enjoy anything.

 

[Chris Lynch]

As Jack has already pointed out, the goals of the space program in 1968 were somewhat more ambitious than they are now, or than they have been for the past several years.

While I wholeheartedly agree with you on the reasons for the slowdown of our Space Explorations, I wouldn't necessarily say the space program is less ambitious, just limited beyond their means. It is the politicans and the voting public that are less interested, and therefore the space program recieves, like you said, less funding. Just being a stickler.
I think SF films, even the popcorners like Armegeddon and POTA(2001) help in keeping J6P interested in real scientific endeavours. And sometimes the moderately implausible, excluding severe far-fetchedness, can really get the ole imagination rolling, for both J6P and the Science nut. Geo-stationary Satellites come to mind. And the more we are interested in this stuff, the more money NASA gets. That is why NASA has resorted to a few stunts lately, i.e. putting John Glenn in space again, announcing Oscar winners aboard the Space Station (was it the Oscars?) etc.
And personally, I can stand a few factual errors if the story and Cinematography rock. I actually enjoyed POTA, but boy did I care not for Mission to Mars. Bleeaach!

 

[Jason Seaver]

Is is the responsibility of the audience. Yes, the filmmaker has to at least present something you can do that with, but you can't lay all of that off on the filmmaker. People have to be able to suspend disbelief. And if they can't, then they can't going to be able to enjoy anything.

The audience should not have to actively suspend their disbelief, though. The filmmaker has to present a reality that the audience can accept, even if only during the time they're watching it. I'm not saying the audience should be actively seeking out flaws, not at all, but at the same time, we shouldn't have to work to believe what we're seeing, either.

 

[Terrell]

But there are somethings and subjects that require more suspension of disbelief than others. Take The Mummy. Now I'm not trying to start an argument about whether the movie is good or not, or whether it has flaws, but that subject alone requires an incredible suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience. Because there are no mummies walking around with great power, no matter how well the filmmaker portrays the subject onscreen.

 

[Rain]

...I wouldn't necessarily say the space program is less ambitious, just limited beyond their means... Just being a stickler.

Point taken. I suppose I could have worded my post better.