Transwarp wrote: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?
That's just the point if science fiction is just like "real life" what is the bloody point!
Transwarp wrote: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?
My point is that if Sim didn't have Trip's memories and then no beautiful performance.
Transwarp wrote: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.
Fair enough, but a person without your background might be annoyed trying to figure out the real science. It's easier to just chalk it up to fantasy. Lazy? Yes. A good thing? Not really. But let's face one very inportant fact, that in order for TV shows to succeed they need millions of people.
Transwarp wrote: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.
It would suffer if millions of people sat in the living room scratching their heads because you need a master's degree to understand it! I'm not saying they shouldn't TRY as often as possible but you have to play to a very large audience.
Transwarp wrote:
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.
I agree, but sci-fi is also fantasy, all fiction is fantasy. You have to embrace that element as well.