Why is TV SF so bad? (And a modest proposal to fix it)

[Alelou]

My only real concern with your version, Transwarp, is that 1) it sounds as if it would take more screen time to work out, in an episode that is already very tight, and 2) the idea that you could build a machine to house people's memories that successfully is just as wild to me and also opens up the whole question of why that isn't done as a matter of course with EVERYONE, or at least every Steve Jobs type figure the future produces. Who needs katras in clay jars if you can have a hard copy? And how exactly would one write over to the other? Is that really any more believable than magic larvae?

I do like your version better on behalf of Phlox's and Archer's ethics, though.

[panyasan]

It's interesting that see that in just a couple of posts ideas fly by. For me that is one of the reasons TV SF is lacking ideas: the writer is under such stress to produce there is hardly time to brainstorm together with other writers. If I remember correctly, the lead writer of Doctor Who said once that a certain episode was born out of a brainstorm - and Doctor Who can be very original.

[WarpGirl]

Alelou is perfectly stating that without the whacked out monstrosity that was the science of that episode we wouldn't have been treated to the gut-wrenching performance Mr. Trineer gave.

I completely disagree that Mr. Trineer (or any actor) requires whacked-out science to give a great performance. This is part and parcel of a prevalent attitude that seems to suggest that good science in a show will cause the quality of the show to suffer; or that any attempt to keep bogus science out of a show will insure that the show is dull, tedious and boring. You will forgive me if I do not subscribe to that notion.

What was it about my little plot summary below that would have affected Connor Trineer's performance and prevented him from turning in a gut-wrenching performance? Because I really don't see it.

Sometimes whacked out science tells a dang good story. It's NECESSARY!

Necessary? Or just lazy?

Okay first of all I never said that an actor requires deliberately bad material to give a good performence. What I said was that an actor can rise above it when they have enough talent.

And yes, sometimes whacked out science IS necessary. The fantastic, the impossible, the bazzar, is entertaining sometimes to tell a good story it's NICE to suspend belief in the natural laws. Does this mean that every episode has to have bad science in it? NO! When it is possible to tell a great story with accurate science that by all means bring it on. But the problem with that is, you are not going to get millions of viewers who uderstand advanced scientific concepts, so you have to ask what is more important teaching the people who don't get it EVERY WEEK? Or, do you present simpler ACCURATE science that most people understand and weaving it into something that they want to tune into every week?

There was nothing wrong with your idea, and I never said that accurate science shouldn't be something in science fiction. But if you ONLY stuck to the possible then you waste the oppertunity for imagination transporting you to places.

[Transwarp]

it sounds as if it would take more screen time to work out, in an episode that is already very tight

Yeah, might have to be a two-parter.

the idea that you could build a machine to house people's memories that successfully is just as wild to me

I believe I said it would *copy* from one brain to the other, not store. I sort of envisioned a machine that would read the synaptic pathways in the old brain and duplicate them in the new brain. It would be a serial operation, so there would be no need to store the entire configuration of the old brain. Nowhere NEAR as wild as the idea that all your memories are contained in a strand of DNA.

And how exactly would one write over to the other?

<Waves hands vaguely in the air> Why, using a neural re-sequencing beam, of course! (How else would one do these sorts of thing, hmmm?) It's a variation of transporter technology that scans the OLD brain, and reproduces the synaptic pathways in the new. It does rely on a certain genetic similarity, of course, so it will only work on the brains of twins or clones of the same age. And the RECEIVING brain must be unimprinted with existing pathways, so you can't zap your twin brother's brain with a copy of your own. (Unless he's been in a coma since birth and hasn't learned anything on his own, I suppose.)

Is that really any more believable than magic larvae?

Well, I used the magic larvae too. Either way, you need an incredibly fast growing clone. The larva wasn't what I objected to. The larva wasn't what was so jarring to me that it through me COMPLETELY out of the story. It was the clone with all the memories. To this day I don't know if the writer really believes a clone would have all the memories of the original, or the writer just assumed no one would notice, hence it didn't need to be explained. Either outlook is equally shocking to me.

I have been smacked over the head many times on this site. It does give me headache and makes me rather feeling unwelcome

Let me know next time someone smacks you. They'll have ME to deal with!

[Transwarp]

and yes, sometimes whacked out science IS necessary. The fantastic, the impossible, the bizarre, is entertaining sometimes to tell a good story it's NICE to suspend belief in the natural laws.

I suppose it's all about where you draw the line. I suspect you might have an issue if you were watching an episode where Archer was captured by bad guys on a planet but was able to escape by using his X-ray vision. Wait, you say. When and how did Archer get X-ray vision? That was *never* explained in the episode! Just accept it? I think not.

But the episode was one of the best all season! A tiny impossibility like Archer having X-ray vision shouldn't spoil it...

[Cogito]

And yes, sometimes whacked out science IS necessary. The fantastic, the impossible, the bazzar, is entertaining sometimes to tell a good story it's NICE to suspend belief in the natural laws.

I suspend disbelief every time I watch an episode, because of course warp drive and alien civilisations a few days travel away and aliens miraculously speaking English are all hopelessly unlikely. Just like stargatey wormholes are.

I have no trouble doing that, and I absolutely agree that this fantasy is fundamental to the enjoyment. Take away the SciFi and have the same plots in a mundane situation and I'm not interested. But the world that I'm shown has to be self-consistent.

Oh, and my fix for Sim growing up with Trip's memories would probably be that the larva is slightly telepathic; as well as adapting to Tucker's DNA it also connected to his unconscious mind and imprinted itself with that. And in my imagined version of the story, the cost of this marvellous adaptability is that it is unstable and never settles in a fixed state - it continues to evolve and try to imprint new memories, and once it has caught up to the natural age of the original this process goes off the rails and it breaks down. Telepathy doesn't address the whole problem, but no doubt instead of producing a faithful duplicate of his entire life experience it only picks up on the things that are of paramount importance- time with Mum and Dad, the beloved warp drive, and of course T'Pol.

[Alelou]

Actually, the DVD has an audio track with the writer of "Similitude" talking about how the mimetic clone idea is of course impossible, but it allowed him to do what he wanted to do with that episode. I seem to recall an embarrassed heh-heh or two.

All these stories usually got some brainstorming, at least in ST land, because the entire writing staff would sit in a room and 'break' the story together, scene by scene, character by character. (That's in addition to sessions where they simply brainstorm episode ideas for the season.) I've often wondered if that process is why you can get such mediocre groupthink out of TV shows. On the plus side -- yes, you get all the energy and new ideas of brainstorming, and the show tends to have the cohesive feel of a single vision, and most of all things actually get done on time. On the negative side, surely all that homogenizing can result in something rather lackluster/safe/tired, especially as groups get more burnt out as a season or a show progresses, or if there's somebody negative in the mix who really interferes with the process. And then someone or some team goes off to actually script the thing, and sometimes they don't really know how hard it's going to be to work out an idea in a believable way until they actually have to sit down and write the words. Once it's on the schedule there's not any backing out -- it's got to get done and they'll be staying up all night to do it, and even then their script might get thrown to someone else to fix, which must feel pretty rotten even if it comes with the territory.

Sounds hellish to me, although not that different perhaps than what goes on in high-flying ad agencies. You've got to have talent, speed, stamina, patience, a good sense of teamwork, and strong political skills. I think it's no wonder actual science literacy might not be high on the list of what show-runners are looking for.

[WarpGirl]

And yes, sometimes whacked out science IS necessary. The fantastic, the impossible, the bazzar, is entertaining sometimes to tell a good story it's NICE to suspend belief in the natural laws.

I suspend disbelief every time I watch an episode, because of course warp drive and alien civilisations a few days travel away and aliens miraculously speaking English are all hopelessly unlikely. Just like stargatey wormholes are.

I have no trouble doing that, and I absolutely agree that this fantasy is fundamental to the enjoyment. Take away the SciFi and have the same plots in a mundane situation and I'm not interested. But the world that I'm shown has to be self-consistent.

Thank you for making my point and I agree that it should be self consistent!!!!! Taking away the warp drive, (an impossible technology) alone would destroy Trek as we know it. I assume we all love ST in some way otherwise what are we doing here.

I suppose it's all about where you draw the line. I suspect you might have an issue if you were watching an episode where Archer was captured by bad guys on a planet but was able to escape by using his X-ray vision. Wait, you say. When and how did Archer get X-ray vision? That was *never* explained in the episode! Just accept it? I think not.

But the episode was one of the best all season! A tiny impossibility like Archer having X-ray vision shouldn't spoil it...

No I wouldn't "just accept it" now you're just taking my opinion and and running wild with it. If Archer escaped from prision with X-Ray vision I would hope because the food, water, a drug (whatever) caused some neurolgical effect that altered his brain's perception of what he sees. If they didn't write something remotely plausible I'd call it trash!

As to how scripts get written I think that the process is flawed, too many cooks spoil the broth.

[Transwarp]

No I wouldn't "just accept it" now you're just taking my opinion and and running wild with it. If Archer escaped from prison with X-Ray vision I would hope because the food, water, a drug (whatever) caused some neurological effect that altered his brain's perception of what he sees. If they didn't write something remotely plausible I'd call it trash!

Yes, I'm absolutely running wild with your opinion, in order to show you where it leads when taken to extremes (the time-honored technique of reductio ad absurdum).
You would object if Archer was suddenly endowed with X-Ray vision on the show. You would rightly demand an explanation. But that's exactly what they did in 'Sim'. They used something equally impossible without ANY attempt to explain it. None. Didn't even TRY.

Cogito's idea of the telepathic larva would have satisfied me. Or maybe the telepathy is emanating from Trip (and we could have a scene where Phlox and Archer are looking at Trip's brain scan, and Phlox is explaining about this unusual brain activity in Trip's brain that looks almost... Vulcan, while an uncomfortable T'Pol looks on...)

But give us *something*. *Anything*. Just don't slap your viewers in the face and expect them to take it.

Once it's on the schedule there's not any backing out -- it's got to get done and they'll be staying up all night to do it, and even then their script might get thrown to someone else to fix, which must feel pretty rotten even if it comes with the territory.

Which points back to my original suspicion that the main reason we're getting what we're getting is because of time constraints, and anything that would allow more time per episode would be a good thing.

[WarpGirl]

And your insistence on "good science" can be taken to absurd extremes as well. I'm not saying the science in the "Sim" episode was a good thing, I guarentee you that I found it just as annoying if you don't believe me look up Dinah's thread on it. The absurdity taken with the natural laws DID NOT negate thr fact that Mr. Trineer's performance was beautifully compelling and elevated it from something horrendous to something moving.

I admire your dedication to scientific excellence and I realize your background demands it. However, what about all the people who do not have a scientific background? How do they get enjoyment out of knowing the "facts" are correct. Is watching TV supposed to be like sitting in school? I call you the Clive Cusslar of this fandom for a reason it isn't just a joke. He also uses science in his novels. But while a great deal of it IS accurate, he also pushes the bounderies. Heck he brought Abe Lincon to Africa. That's STORY TELLING.

Science Fiction is a term where although the word science gets top billing, the FICTION is the most important part. Without it, it would be no better than high school or college. I don't know about you, but I'm glad I got out!

[Alelou]

Transwarp, I agree with you -- but I'm sure a producer would point out that time is money.

Wouldn't it be nice if the writers just went away, wrote the whole season, and ONLY WHEN IT MADE SENSE AND WAS DONE put it into production? But then we'd probably miss some of those things that come about as the writing staff reacts to what they see happening as this thing they have written actually comes to life. Maybe Trip would have remained a clownish minor character if CT hadn't turned out to be such a capable actor. Maybe they would have written T'Pol and Archer together because wouldn't have had the chance to notice that the chemistry was much better somewhere else. One of the things the "Similitude" writer said that really resonated with me was how lucky he felt that he got to have a great soundtrack on his episode. And it's so true -- something like that can make a huge difference, but the writer has no control over that at all.

[WarpGirl]

God why qould anyone who wants to write, write for TV? I don't think ALL TV productions are like that though. The first five seasons of The West Wing certainly weren't according to my DVD set. And even after Sorkin left they maintained an average of very high quality writing.

[putaro]

God why qould anyone who wants to write, write for TV?

Well, you do get paid. And you get paid whether the ratings are good or not, which is better than books. I'm sure there's a lot of satisfaction is seeing your work acted out, on the screen. You get to work with other people and that's a plus for some. Sitting alone at home writing isn't for everyone!

[WarpGirl]

Well, I don't know if anyone around here has let it slip but WG's a bit of a control freak, for me the process dear Alelou is describing sounds worse than death, the dentist, a stay in the hospital, all rolled into one.

[Transwarp]

I'm sure a producer would point out that time is money.

And you get what you pay for.

Wouldn't it be nice if the writers just went away, wrote the whole season, and ONLY WHEN IT MADE SENSE AND WAS DONE put it into production? But then we'd probably miss some of those things that come about as the writing staff reacts to what they see happening as this thing they have written actually comes to life.

It's true; there are some advantages to the current system. I'm just not sure that overall the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

I do appreciate your insights into the way it really works. I had NO idea. I share WG's horror at the thought of participating in such a process. It's something I think I'd be ill-suited for.

your insistence on "good science" can be taken to absurd extremes as well.

I'm having a hard time imagining 'good science' taken to the extreme. What does that look like? Wouldn't that be called 'real life?' Wouldn't a show where 'good science' is taken to the extreme be just about any show that's set in the real world?

The absurdity taken with the natural laws DID NOT negate the fact that Mr. Trineer's performance was beautifully compelling and elevated it from something horrendous to something moving.

You keep bringing this up, but I am completely unable to see ANY correlation between the science in an episode and the actor's performance. What am I missing? How would adhering to 'good science' have affected the quality of Mr. Trineer's performance in any way at all?

what about all the people who do not have a scientific background? How do they get enjoyment out of knowing the "facts" are correct.

That's not the point. I don't desire 'good science' (or consistency, or any of the other things we're talking in this thread) to get enjoyment out of them, I desire them so they don't get in the way of a good story (which is the actual source of my enjoyment.) Anyone without a scientific background isn't going to know the difference either way, so 'good science' should not affect their enjoyment one way or the other.

Is watching TV supposed to be like sitting in school?

Uh... no. But you can tell a good, enjoyable story with or without 'good science'. So why not WITH? This assumption that the quality of an episode will suffer if an effort is made to insure 'good science' is completely baseless.

Science Fiction is a term where although the word science gets top billing, the FICTION is the most important part.

We are in complete agreement. But once again, the two are not mutually exclusive. The fiction does not suffer when the science is accurate. But I do demand an explanation for an obvious impossibility. Just make the attempt and I'll be happy. Going back to my example of Archer using X-Ray vision to save himself, you said you would have been okay if it was somehow explained. That's really all I need: an attempt to explain a phenomenon so I don't feel like I've been thrust from the world of Science Fiction into Fantasy.

If a comedy show like 'Big Bang Theory' can get science right, then I see no reason why--with a little effort--a science fiction show couldn't. Unfortunately, from what I've read on this thread, it's pretty clear that the effort required just isn't considered worthwhile by TPTB.