Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Like could you have derived the plank equations at 10?
Absolutely not. Still doesn't change the fact that I Jaden101 was explaining the uncertainty principle to a former physics major.
Let's stay on topic, though.
Voyager could have gone home using replicators, in a little more than 11 years.
Originally posted by dadudemonVoyager could have gone home using replicators, in a little more than 11 years.
Or rather, you would've wrote it that way.
Still would've got 11 years out of it.
Personally I would've liked to have seen them fight through more familiar space...Romulan or Cardassian or something...A lot more difficult to explain your presence in the space of an enemy race than that of one you've never encountered before.
Originally posted by jaden101
Or rather, you would've wrote it that way.Still would've got 11 years out of it.
That's also true. I would liked to have seen more episodes out of this television series, as it was good. Not TNG good....but still excellent. Tuvoc was an excellent Vulcan...this may seem off, but I'm making a plug at Gabriel's performance in Star Trek.
I still submit that the transporter and replicator diliema is too immaturely conceived to bode well with me.
There's no reason they shouldn't replicate entire ships at the drop of a hat.
I hope so bad that I can write for a Star Trek show, one day. I'll come up with all sorts of logical things that will shut the "dadudemon" types up.
During the dominion war, why did no one draw up some schematics for a ship sized replicator with a massive computer and resources to pull on, and just replicate ship after ship, in secret? The numbers would have made things awesome.
And why, that far into the future, are ships not remotely controlled through subspace? Subspace communication works at, from what I can tell, 52941 times faster than light...as that is how long it would have taken to send a transmission back to federation space in the episode that the Enterprise D gut launched by that weird alien, out of the galaxy.
Knowing this, we can calculate the speed of a subspace transmission to be 52941.176470588235294117647058824 times faster than light.
Since Voyager was 70,000 light years away, we divide 70,000 by 52941.176470588235294117647058824 to come to the time, in years, for it to take a sub-space transmission to travel.
That is 1.32222222222222222222222222222 years...or
1 year and 117.7 days.
Also, they figured out how to send data super fast at the CRC. Primarily, it was Barclay who did so.
I guess the "soul" is still needed, though. I was thinking about making a "data transmission" of a transporter profile into a real tangible human on the other side. But I think in the Star Trek verse, people have souls. There was that one episode in TNG that had 3 souls take over Data, Troi, and some other person.
Originally posted by jaden101
Personally I would've liked to have seen them fight through more familiar space...Romulan or Cardassian or something...A lot more difficult to explain your presence in the space of an enemy race than that of one you've never encountered before.
Excellent points...but I liked that there were brand new species to explore and the Borg had a huge presence. I loved it. What you're descibing is one or two episodes long...maybe a 5-10 part saga or something, but not 7 years worth of material.
It would have been more interesting. The dominion war was a contemporary issue...etc.
hmm
I..
I've got nothing. I liked Voyager, but the replicator thing got in the way.
Originally posted by dadudemon
There's no reason they shouldn't replicate entire ships at the drop of a hat.
None mentioned. There was also no mentioned reason that they couldn't control reality by flexing their biceps.
Perhaps power requirements rise exponentially or the technology only works at a certain distance.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I hope so bad that I can write for a Star Trek show, one day. I'll come up with all sorts of logical things that will shut the "dadudemon" types up.
I would advise writing Trek novels or background information. There's an old axiom that experts (or anyone who thinks everything needany explaination) make for terrible scriptwriters. Not to mention the simple realities of making movies and TV shows.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
None mentioned. There was also no mentioned reason that they couldn't control reality by flexing their biceps.
Non sequitor.
They have the technology to convert matter directly into energy, move that energy, and then rematerialize it some where else. That means they can do it so efficiently, the ridiculously vast majority of the material is not lost.
There's no reason why they couldn't use a cell of many transporters, or one massive transporter, to put together a ship from just a profile. (A huge replicator, basically.) They could use smaller replicators to power the huge one, by converting matter into energy that is then supplied to the massive replicator. 🙂 There'd be some sort of energy transformer, though. 😆
Since the entire ship obviously doesn't shut down when a transport is done, we can assume that the main computer is minimally affected by this transport. Only when energy is running scarce during battle is transporting ever a big deal. We can assume that it takes more computer attention than, say, the gravity systems, as the gravity system remains in tact, but the replicators can't be used as much, as seen by Voyager. (I am putting replicators and transporters in the same category as far as power and computing goes...)
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Perhaps power requirements rise exponentially or the technology only works at a certain distance.
Okay.
I can agree with the first statement. I'll agree with the exponential part. In fact, I'll say that it is a cubic function, as the objects are 3d. Sound fair?
So, we can agree that it's a volumetric function. 🙂 This is obvious, imo, because the objects being transported are 3d.
So, a cube that has a side that is 2 cm takes 16 megajoules (just for instance, 2 Megajules per cubic cm.)
So a cube that has a side that is double the original would take 128 megajoules.
Double that side again....8 cm. 1024 Megajoules.
As it's volume increases, so does the amount of power required to transport it, exponentially. Again, I feel that this should be obvious.
Now, I could be totally misinterpretting what you're saying and there is some sort of growth above and beyond the cubic function that you're referring to...
Like this.
m = mass
e = energy required to transport material.
x = is constant applied to the geometric formula..
and here's the formula:
m^(3x) = e
Is this what you're wanting?
Or is it my example of just
m^3 = e
?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I would advise writing Trek novels or background information. There's an old axiom that experts (or anyone who thinks everything needany explaination) make for terrible scriptwriters. Not to mention the simple realities of making movies and TV shows.
I disagree. But, I'm a buddying script writer, so you could prove those sentiments true here when my hopes and dreams are dashed to pieces by a producer. 😆
I think one can write intelligent plots whlie still conveying a good story.
I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be ANY plot holes in an excellent* story. Even if you're writing Sci-Fi, you should do a good job of eliminating plot holes. To not do so is to show stupidity and oversight.
With your comment, it is the script, novel, novella, etc. version of "she's beautiful on the inside," while my response is, "That's only what ugly people say." 😆
*By excellent, I mean intelligent and entertaining.
Originally posted by dadudemon
MATH STUFFIs this what you're wanting?
Does it make me right?
Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. But, I'm a buddying script writer, so you could prove those sentiments true here when my hopes and dreams are dashed to pieces by a producer. 😆I think one can write intelligent plots whlie still conveying a good story.
I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be ANY plot holes in an excellent story. Even if you're writing Sci-Fi, you should do a good job of eliminating plot holes. To not do so is to show stupidity and oversight.
A story can certainly be made with zero plot holes. A movie or TV show cannot be made without plot holes if you include not mentioning certain things as a plot hole. It ceases to be realistic when people exposit on pieces of what are (for them) ordinary technology.
Gene Roddenberry summed it up nicely. "Cops don't talk about how a gun fires every time they use one, neither should Captain Kirk." (paraphrased)
People like Doc Smith and Tolkien make expansive, detailed, internally consistent worlds by use of narration (lots of narration), you just can't do that in a visual medium without it turning into music video for a book on tape.
Finally, the first responsibility of a story teller is to tell an interesting story. Everything else is tertiary at best.
My point, basically, is that while plot holes do hurt a story filling them can make things far worse usually by driving the viewer out of the story itself.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Does it make me right?
The real question is...were we ever in doubt that you were wrong? naughty
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A story can certainly be made with zero plot holes. A movie or TV show cannot be made without plot holes if you include not mentioning certain things as a plot hole. It ceases to be realistic when people exposit on pieces of what are (for them) ordinary technology.
For my information system assurance class, I had to design a product, from the ground up, completely on paper.
I included exact measurements, power needs in each mode, etc. It was perfectly designed, as far as "plot holes" go. Sure, it wasn't perfectly secure, it wasn't perfect in design, but those flaws were disclosed and were not designed through, on purpose.
It was a 30+ page document with diagrams, illustrations, product specs, etc. It took me about 13 hours of actual REAL work to do the entire product. Now, 13 hours was probably the least amount of time spent on that paper of anyone in the ISA class, but my product was the best designed, by far. My professor actually said it was the most detailed product she had seen in ISA and that she never wanted to see the word "photonic" again.
The script for a television show is not that long.
A television show is written by a team, usually, with a primary writer on each ep.
They have accuracy checkers, copyright checkers, story continuity checkers, etc. Some flaws are specifically left into the story as working around them with better writing (I hate to say this) would require them to be smarter, more creative, and/or more intelligent. Sometimes, the staff simply isn't smart enough or doesn't know enough to make their deadline. Sometimes, fixing a plot hole to keep series continuity in order, would take too long to fix.
To the Star Trek verse's credit, they have done an EXCELLENT job in keeping things in continuity, across many series. There have been mistakes.
Here's why there were mistakes: They didn't hire a nerd or enough nerds, to check facts.
Now, here is how you fix continuity problems or plot holes in a T.V. series.
You write the entire thing out BEFORE you start filming.
The only problem with that: No series can be done like that, really, because there's no way to know if it would make it beyond the pilot.
However, the basic meat and potatoes could still be written out....or even the whole thing could be written out. A smart enough person could do the whole thing with minimal plot holes. Some Japanese manga is written very well, with very little plot holes, because the main author sometimes has the entire series in their head, or written out in partial form.
Bottom line, I expect more from stories and plot because I expect that same from myself. I, by no means, put my self on equal terms with those writers. Not at all. But I certainly expect out of them what I expect out of myself. Does that make sense?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Gene Roddenberry summed it up nicely. "Cops don't talk about how a gun fires every time they use one, neither should Captain Kirk." (paraphrased)
Ah. Okay.
Yeah, this isn't going in the direction I was talking about.
To counter that point: They have official tech manuals and the like.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
People like Doc Smith and Tolkien make expansive, detailed, internally consistent worlds by use of narration (lots of narration), you just can't do that in a visual medium without it turning into music video for a book on tape.
But there's certainly no reason to have a massive matter to energy device without using it as well as it could be.
You know, it would sit much better with me if they came up with something that explained that. Someone creative and intelligent could come up with something to explain why transporters don't make the use of a dilithium "powered" warp core, obsolete. It would sit better with me, even if I thought it was just a "plothole bandaid."
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Finally, the first responsibility of a story teller is to tell an interesting story. Everything else is tertiary at best.
I was thinking more like quaternary or quinary. 😛
And, no, I disagree, especially with Star Trek. The details are secondary and very much essential to the "fun" that is Star Trek.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
My point, basically, is that while plot holes do hurt a story filling them can make things far worse usually by driving the viewer out of the story itself.
Keyword is "can." An excellent story writer will not only make the details fit properly without plot holes, he or she will actually make the details work to add to the story. ✅
Originally posted by dadudemon👆
Bottom line, I expect more from stories and plot because I expect that same from myself.
On the other hand...when I was a kid and used to write my own space opera stories (and not Trek-based), I was very cognizant of trying to cover all the "Yeah but what about this..." loopholes (eg, instead of a matter-energy teleporter, I used "Jumpercraft": small ships which teleported via dimensional portals). I got so caught up in the details, I eventually stopped writing those stories (though it was still fun inventing future tech).
Originally posted by Mindship
👆On the other hand...when I was a kid and used to write my own space opera stories (and not Trek-based), I was very cognizant of trying to cover all the "Yeah but what about this..." loopholes (eg, instead of a matter-energy teleporter, I used "Jumpercraft": small ships which teleported via dimensional portals). I got so caught up in the details, I eventually stopped writing those stories (though it was still fun inventing future tech).
Because, you know, dimensional teleportation portals don't raise any questions.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because, you know, dimensional teleportation portals don't raise any questions.
Still, even if you dodge one bullet, supertech seems to inevitably cross paths with itself one way or another.
Originally posted by Mindship
That, plus the portal requiring small craft...whatever made it harder to get out of a jam while still using an instant-travel effect.Still, even if you dodge one bullet, supertech seems to inevitably cross paths with itself one way or another.
Indeed.
One technique around it is to remain vague about it or have a character make a vague comment about it not working in other applications.
Such as...
For transporters, all it would take a short, yet interesting converstaion that has a humor twist at the end, to disband the idea of tons of energy moving about at the speed of light...but not being able to use that energy.
Wesley: Why don't we repurpose that energy as a power source and not have to use dilithium power systems again?
O'Brien: The energy is actually in a inter-dimensional flux until the transporter starts to repurpose it. The energy is unusable as a power source while in this state as the real usable energy is appearing and disappearing in the same space as our reality, while in transit to the target.
Wesley: "Oh. Well, I guess someone should work on stabilizing the energy state, or at least create an algorithm smart enough to account for every last millijoule so it can be harnessed at all times.
O'Brien: Good luck with that, Wesley. I bet you like replicator food, as well, don't you?
Here's the idea:
As the energy volume is rematerialized, the energy becomes smaller and smaller, and less excited, eventually resulting in all energy phasing into our reality and being "captured" for rematerialization purposes...and the only way to "recapture" the energy is to grab it and convert it into matter in a very quick amount of time, before that energy packet phases back out of this reality. That process is seen by the "sparkling" and lines seen on the ghost image as the person is materialized. The sparkles are actually excited energy escaping this reality, at a very rapid pace.
Now, that is an explanation of the technology that could be put into an encypclopedia.
Originally posted by dadudemonThis is good. You're reading the rest of this response only because I don't have an applause smiley.
One technique around it is to remain vague about it or have a character make a vague comment about it not working in other applications.Such as...
For transporters, all it would take a short, yet interesting converstaion that has a humor twist at the end, to disband the idea of tons of energy moving about at the speed of light...but not being able to use that energy.
Wesley: Why don't we repurpose that energy as a power source and not have to use dilithium power systems again?
O'Brien: The energy is actually in a inter-dimensional flux until the transporter starts to repurpose it. The energy is unusable as a power source while in this state as the real usable energy is appearing and disappearing in the same space as our reality, while in transit to the target.
Wesley: "Oh. Well, I guess someone should work on stabilizing the energy state, or at least create an algorithm smart enough to account for every last millijoule so it can be harnessed at all times.
O'Brien: Good luck with that, Wesley. I bet you like replicator food, as well, don't you?
Here's the idea:
As the energy volume is rematerialized, the energy becomes smaller and smaller, and less excited, eventually resulting in all energy phasing into our reality and being "captured" for rematerialization purposes...and the only way to "recapture" the energy is to grab it and convert it into matter in a very quick amount of time, before that energy packet phases back out of this reality. That process is seen by the "sparkling" and lines seen on the ghost image as the person is materialized. The sparkles are actually excited energy escaping this reality, at a very rapid pace.
😂 ...'bet you like replicator food'.
Originally posted by Mindship
This is good. You're reading the rest of this response only because I don't have an applause smiley.😂 ...'bet you like replicator food'.
Thank you very much, sir. 😄
I was thinking that in the future, we won't call them mouth breathers, we will call them food replicators....meaning they are too dumb to make their own food and know what good food tastes like. AHA!
That doesn't change the fact that I would replicate food ALL the time. ✅
Here we go. This comes from Atomic Rocket (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3a.html)
And explains why making a movie or TV that has accurate science is impossible.
[i]0) It's a business
This is a business venture - you put money in with the expectation that more money will come out. The general audience is historically happier watching space ships woosh by shooting glowing bolts of energy than they are watching a slowly rotating spaceship lazily drift across the screen. If you're putting tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, you go for the shooty-wooshy space ships every time, pure and simple.
1) TPTB (The powers that be) don't care.
If whats on the screen looks good, and the storytelling is sufficient, then scientific accuracy rarely if ever matters. If they don't care that cars don't blow up when shot with bullets, why should they care about the theoretical effects of FTL travel.
2) There isn't time to dissect and fix scientific inaccuracies
Once production on a movie is started, it is an unstoppable steamroller with a tight deadline. If the script says a spaceship wooshes by, the people working on the film don't have time to work out what kind of propulsion it uses - they just make the engine glow, push it across the screen in an interesting way and move on to the next shot.
3) The decisions are made in too many places and it isn't even thought about except by people who aren't in positions to make judgment calls.
A jet fighter shoots missiles at a big space ship hovering above a city. The director tells the visual effects supervisor to make it happen. The visual effects supervisor tells the digital effects supervisor to make a space ship and to make a jet fighter woosh by and shoot some missiles at the space ship while he goes off and directs the on-set pyro effects.
The digital effects supervisor tells the modeling supervisor to have his team make a space ship and jet fighter and tells the FX supervisor to have his team make some missiles shoot, engine effects, vapor trails, smoke trails and whatnot.
The modelers build a jet fighter and give it harpoon missiles. The modeling supervisor says it looks good. The digital effects supervisor says it looks good. The modelers are done with their job and get put on another production.
The FX supervisor hands the model to the FX team who look at the fighter and say "um...that's not really the right kind of missile to do an air-to-air attack..." "Sorry, the modeler is off the show and these have been approved. Can't change it now" is the response. So the FX team launches harpoon missiles at the space ship.
The final shot is shown to the director/visual effects supervisor and it looks cool, but don't pick up on the fact that the wrong missile is being used. It's approved and put into the film.
(you're probably sensing that this is a true story and know what movie I was working on at the time)
4) The script-reader's gauntlet
Writers use descriptive language to express action in their script. They don't often get into technical details because each page of a script is supposed to represent roughly one minute of screen time. A writer who spends his time describing the intricacies of a space ships propulsion system is a writer who finds his scripts in the script-reader's trash can.
People who write heavily technical novels are almost always terrible script-writers as they have difficulty working within the confines and limitations of that medium. The scripts that pass through the script-reader's gauntlet will likely be of the less technical variety.
5) People in film making have education in film making, they don't usually have PhD's in physics/astrophysics. And people who have PhD's in physics/astrophysics don't usually know how to make a good film.
It's not that they aren't smart enough, it's that their focus of expertise is in other areas. That's why they hire consultants if they're trying to do something with any degree of accuracy, but even then, accuracy is desirable only if it doesn't interfere with the storytelling. Often, things are set in motion that can't be changed after the fact anyway and you just have to shrug your shoulders and say "That's the way it has to be" if you learn too late of some scientific ramification.
6) The power of ego
You know how people fall all over themselves when a famous actor is nearby? Its worse when companies deal with well known directors. Just yesterday we were kicked out of the screening room during our dailies because Michael Bay was parking and MIGHT be needing it. With that sort of hysteria going on, are you going to be the one that walks up to him and say "this is totally unrealistic and you need to change it" knowing that saying so will mean the end of your employment?
What the director says goes, and few people have the will or the power to contradict him. Film making isn't usually done by committee, it is done by imperial decree and if the decree is that cars blow up when shot with bullets, then that is the way it is.
I'm sure there's a few others I've missed but, speaking of unrealism in Hollywood movies, I need to get back to work on a sequence involving bits of LA breaking off and sliding into the ocean because the Earth's magnetic field has collapsed.
I'm not kidding.[i]
So to fill all those holes in the ST movies or shows you'll have to be a skilled director, writer, physicist, market analyst and be able to oversee dozens of people writers, FX designers, actors, set designs, costume designers . . .
So when I suggest writing a book to resolve plot holes it's not a slam at your skills it's just that I think you're human.
[i]0) It's a business This is a business venture - you put money in with the expectation that more money will come out. The general audience is historically happier watching space ships woosh by shooting glowing bolts of energy than they are watching a slowly rotating spaceship lazily drift across the screen. If you're putting tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, you go for the shooty-wooshy space ships every time, pure and simple.
Of course...Because everyone knows what a total flop 2001: a space odyssey and Sunshine were.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Here we go. This comes from Atomic Rocket (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3a.html)And explains why making a movie or TV that has accurate science is impossible.
Not impossible, just more difficult and the general laziness of Hollywood puts this out.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
1) TPTB (The powers that be) don't care.
If whats on the screen looks good, and the storytelling is sufficient, then scientific accuracy rarely if ever matters. If they don't care that cars don't blow up when shot with bullets, why should they care about the theoretical effects of FTL travel.
This is incorrect. Every "trekkie" that has seen the new Star Trek that I have spoken to were a little pissed about the plot holes. Had they fixed those, it would have been an even better film. 😐 This is painfully obvious. And.....the "fixing" would not occur in production or post production either. 😐 More on this later.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
2) There isn't time to dissect and fix scientific inaccuracies
Once production on a movie is started, it is an unstoppable steamroller with a tight deadline. If the script says a spaceship wooshes by, the people working on the film don't have time to work out what kind of propulsion it uses - they just make the engine glow, push it across the screen in an interesting way and move on to the next shot.
Logical fallacy. You don't fix these problems AFTER production starts. You fix them BEFORE production starts. DUH! Whoever wrote this is approaching "idiocy".
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
3) The decisions are made in too many places and it isn't even thought about except by people who aren't in positions to make judgment calls.
A jet fighter shoots missiles at a big space ship hovering above a city. The director tells the visual effects supervisor to make it happen. The visual effects supervisor tells the digital effects supervisor to make a space ship and to make a jet fighter woosh by and shoot some missiles at the space ship while he goes off and directs the on-set pyro effects.The digital effects supervisor tells the modeling supervisor to have his team make a space ship and jet fighter and tells the FX supervisor to have his team make some missiles shoot, engine effects, vapor trails, smoke trails and whatnot.
The modelers build a jet fighter and give it harpoon missiles. The modeling supervisor says it looks good. The digital effects supervisor says it looks good. The modelers are done with their job and get put on another production.
The FX supervisor hands the model to the FX team who look at the fighter and say "um...that's not really the right kind of missile to do an air-to-air attack..." "Sorry, the modeler is off the show and these have been approved. Can't change it now" is the response. So the FX team launches harpoon missiles at the space ship.
The final shot is shown to the director/visual effects supervisor and it looks cool, but don't pick up on the fact that the wrong missile is being used. It's approved and put into the film.
(you're probably sensing that this is a true story and know what movie I was working on at the time)
The fault is in the pre-production. Pre-production doesn't require gobs of money. It just requires nice attention to details. Funny how some movies get it and some movies don't, right?
It's all in the intelligence and willingness to work from the "movie makers".
And excusing laziness to fact check BEFORE it goes to post production is not a good enough excuse, imo. Is it REALLY that hard to fact check before the missile gets hundreds of man hours spent on it? I mean...five minutes would have corrected that simple mistake. It is the fault of the Digital Effects superivisor, post production superivisor, and director. They should have all met together BEFORE post production and decided on keeping things factually correct.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
4) The script-reader's gauntlet
Writers use descriptive language to express action in their script. They don't often get into technical details because each page of a script is supposed to represent roughly one minute of screen time. A writer who spends his time describing the intricacies of a space ships propulsion system is a writer who finds his scripts in the script-reader's trash can.People who write heavily technical novels are almost always terrible script-writers as they have difficulty working within the confines and limitations of that medium. The scripts that pass through the script-reader's gauntlet will likely be of the less technical variety.
Wow. This guy is a retard. I'm fully convinced of that, now. It's called script notes: end notes, technical manuals, etc.
I am writing a horror script right now. I've been writing it off and on since 2004. It includes such details as "angles", clothing worn, colors, what characters look like, the general coloration, sound effects, etc.
Almost all of it has been planned for. The actual script will not be very long. The script notes which will be used in pre-production, will be as long or longer than the script itself. The script will not be sent to production if I included all of those notes. In fact, those notes will be heavily debated and altered during pre-production...and I plan to be, at LEAST, a junior director for the film.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
5) People in film making have education in film making, they don't usually have PhD's in physics/astrophysics. And people who have PhD's in physics/astrophysics don't usually know how to make a good film.
It's not that they aren't smart enough, it's that their focus of expertise is in other areas. That's why they hire consultants if they're trying to do something with any degree of accuracy, but even then, accuracy is desirable only if it doesn't interfere with the storytelling. Often, things are set in motion that can't be changed after the fact anyway and you just have to shrug your shoulders and say "That's the way it has to be" if you learn too late of some scientific ramification.
Yup. He's definitely an idiot. You don't have to have a Ph.D. in physics to know that shooting a bullet at a car will NOT blow it up.
There's a million and one of those very same sayings that could be used to tear apart the sheer stupidity found in blockbuster films.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
6) The power of ego
You know how people fall all over themselves when a famous actor is nearby? Its worse when companies deal with well known directors. Just yesterday we were kicked out of the screening room during our dailies because Michael Bay was parking and MIGHT be needing it. With that sort of hysteria going on, are you going to be the one that walks up to him and say "this is totally unrealistic and you need to change it" knowing that saying so will mean the end of your employment?What the director says goes, and few people have the will or the power to contradict him. Film making isn't usually done by committee, it is done by imperial decree and if the decree is that cars blow up when shot with bullets, then that is the way it is.
I'm sure there's a few others I've missed but, speaking of unrealism in Hollywood movies, I need to get back to work on a sequence involving bits of LA breaking off and sliding into the ocean because the Earth's magnetic field has collapsed.
I'm not kidding.
This is true. This is all true. And this is why it ends up as tripe, from the beginning. This is also why you ensure that the production company and executive producer's have laid down some law and WILL allow some debate in pre-production. It should all be worked out in pre-production and very few things changed during production.
[i]Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So to fill all those holes in the ST movies or shows you'll have to be a skilled director, writer, physicist, market analyst and be able to oversee dozens of people writers, FX designers, actors, set designs, costume designers . . .So when I suggest writing a book to resolve plot holes it's not a slam at your skills it's just that I think you're human.
Aaaaaannnd, I thoroughly disagree. 🙂
Market analyst is not necessary. Director is not necessary. Overseeing doezens of people is not necessary. Being an FX designer is not necessary. Set designer and costume designer is not necessary. Just an intelligent script writer with a knack for ensuring that your script and notes are not altered very much. 🙂
The simple fact tht some movies get it right and some don't should tell you that almost everything above is just an excuse. Some good excuses...but excuses that can obviously be worked around. 🙂