SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

V.W. wrote: "The "sound" could be explained in several ways.

First is that what the audience hears is the sound of the ship as heard by its own crew..."

Nope. The crew of the ship will hear one steady sound. The ship passing by sounds in movies invariably include the Doppler shift effect, which means the sound is as observed from an outside perspective.

V.W. wrote: "Second is in the case of (e.g.) Enterprise type ships which use some kind of "warp" drive. While sound in the sense of vibrations through air cannot exist in space, vibrations transmitted in the form of (say for example) gravitational fluctuations of the ship's drive might cause something perceived as "sound". "

Nope again. Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through a medium (solid, liquid, gas). There is no medium in a vacuum, ergo no pressure wave and no sound.

I don't sweat that kind of thing in a movie like Star Wars. It's just one more thing to laugh at while you enjoy the mindless brain candy of the movie. There are just so many "that can't happen" things in SW that you really have to accept it for what it is, or don't watch it in the first place. (I'm taking the latter option on the new SW stuff.)

Just watched Bradley Cooper in Limitless (2011). He only had "access to 20% of his brain," until he started taking NZT. Now, I guess he has access to 100%, whatever that means.

my other annoyance is when all bright ideas fail, the baddie is just so much smarter and then wow some twit comes up with some far fetch idea to save the day.

a bit of equality between baddies and goodies is what I want!!! yes I know it wouldn't make a good movie/tv show

Katrinasam wrote: "Bill wrote: "A recesive gene on the X chromosome would affect a male but not a female (usually) eg Haemophilia A. So I am not sure what the error is?"

I may have misstated what I remember, but at the time I researched it and the man could not have had that particular disease.

Bill wrote: "Katrinasam wrote: "Bill wrote: "A recesive gene on the X chromosome would affect a male but not a female (usually) eg Haemophilia A. So I am not sure what the error is?"

I may have misstated what ..."

Of course now I want to read the book just so I, too, can be irritated by the glaring error. Do you remember what it was called?

Micah wrote: "I don't sweat that kind of thing in a movie like Star Wars. It's just one more thing to laugh at while you enjoy the mindless brain candy of the movie. There are just so many "that can't happen" things in SW that you really have to accept it for what it is, or don't watch it in the first place. (I'm taking the latter option on the new SW stuff.) "

Yes. Any space opera is really just technofantasy, so it's hard to get riled up when scientific inaccuracies occur.

I'm fully in the "it should be internally consistent" camp, though. I dont care how silly the rules are, as long as the rules are always followed. For instance, you can't get more ridiculous than the Roadrunner/Wile E. Coyote cartoons, but Chuck Jones had hard and fast (no pun intended) rules about the characters and the world that couldn't be broken. Our collective notions about "cartoon physics" is actually derived from Jones' work, most of it from the Roadrunner shorts. He understood the value of internal consistency. You can mess with reality all you want, as long as the fictional world breaks the rules of our world the same way every time.

I believe one of the main reasons JJ Abrams' version of Star Trek offends hardcore fans is because they break too many long-established rules of the universe, and they do it with the attitude of, "It's all fantasy, so who cares? It looks cool, and that's all that matters!" So they have starships being built on the ground, fly in atmosphere and act like submarines. Fans didnt really care for that, and new viewers just assume it's all magic.

Star Trek is possibly less scientific than Star Wars once we start counting all of their sins against science, but it still has 50 years of established rules one ignores at the detriment of the tale. Just as a Roadrunner cartoon where the bird acts maliciously rather than michieviously (one of Chuck's rules) would be seen as not a "real" RR story, the new Trek movies are viewed as fake by many long-time fans.

Bill wrote: "Just watched Bradley Cooper in Limitless (2011). He only had "access to 20% of his brain," until he started taking NZT. Now, I guess he has access to 100%, whatever that means."

It's the erratic nature of his new mental abilities that irritate me. He's only smart, wise, and observant when the plot needs him to be.

fully agree with Trike. set the rules and then be consistent. watching the new star trek movies I was amazed at how many "changes" were made.

ANd yes I don't really care if the basic rules are a tad fictious as long as they stick to them

Katrinasam wrote: "Of course now I want to read the book just so I, too, can be irritated by the glaring error. Do you remember what it was called?"


I'll see if my wife remembers.

V.W. wrote: "It's the erratic nature of his new mental abilities that irritate me. He's only smart, wise, and observant when the plot needs him to be. "

It's magic, but entertaining. At least he figured out that he had to find a way to make his own supply.

Katrinasam wrote: "Bill wrote: "A recesive gene on the X chromosome would affect a male but not a female (usually) eg Haemophilia A. So I am not sure what the error is? "

Can't remember. Maybe it was a genetic defect on the Y chromosome carried by the mother. Anyway, the book is Defending Jacob, by William Landay.

Bill wrote: "Katrinasam wrote: "Bill wrote: "A recesive gene on the X chromosome would affect a male but not a female (usually) eg Haemophilia A. So I am not sure what the error is? "

Can't remember. Maybe it ..."

Thanks that is great. I just checked and they have it at my local library.

Katrinasam wrote: "Thanks that is great. I just checked and they have it at my local library."

Let me know if you find something I missed in it.

Katrinasam wrote: "Bill wrote: "Katrinasam wrote: "Bill wrote: "A recesive gene on the X chromosome would affect a male but not a female (usually) eg Haemophilia A. So I am not sure what the error is?"

I may have mi..."

for a woman to have haemophilia she has to have both recessive genes on her two x chromosomes , a man only needs one on his x chromosome. thus woman can carry the gene if it is only one one x chromosome.

Kateb wrote: "Katrinasam wrote: "Bill wrote: "Katrinasam wrote: "Bill wrote: "A recesive gene on the X chromosome would affect a male but not a female (usually) eg Haemophilia A. So I am not sure what the error ..."

Yes but there is also something called extreme lyonization where females carriers exhibit symptoms due to inactivation of X chromosome. Genetics are never simple!

no but I was answering the comment that men don't get it

Kateb wrote: "men don't get it "

True for a lot of things...

Bill wrote: "Kateb wrote: "men don't get it "

True for a lot of things..."

laugh out loud moment

Trike wrote: "I believe one of the main reasons JJ Abrams' version of Star Trek offends hardcore fans is because they break too many long-established rules of the universe..."

Exactly. Communicators suddenly become FTL communication devices with unlimited range when in the past they were devices that couldn't communicate through electrical storms or through layers of thick rock. Transporters suddenly don't need a whole room of equipment to work, can beam you across light years of space, and can be carried in-hand, thus negating the need for space ships altogether.

F you JJ.

Kateb wrote: "Bill wrote: "Kateb wrote: "men don't get it "

True for a lot of things..."

laugh out loud moment"

?? I don't get it.

You guys are probably right about Star Trek. I enjoyed it, but I was never a big fan of the show. I'd seen it, sure, but I couldn't tell you any details beyond red shirts always dying haha.

My brother on the other hand is a giant fan of the show. He saw the movie and wasn't as crazy about it. "It was a total bastardization of the show. It was entertaining, I guess, if I let my knowledge of the show go, but that just makes it an entertaining bastardization." Something along those lines were his review of the movie.

If you haven't already rage-quit watching "Bones" several seasons back, this is an excellent blog written by a bioarchaeologist, discussing what they got right and wrong:

http://www.poweredbyosteons.org/

She also writes about other cool things too.

I love Trek and I love the latest movies. I can't remember specifically if or how some of the inconsistencies got explained away. I could eventually forgive the destruction of Vulcan and accepted that this is essentially a 'what if' story.
But there are other redeeming features. It was great to see Star Trek at a cracking pace. It also looks amazing. The actors are well cast. They get the essence of each role and still make each role their own thing. It was fun (like TOS). So I think yes, they did take massive liberties, but they did freshen up the franchise.

Micah wrote: "?? I don't get it."

DOH! You're obvisously a man, too.

John wrote: "I love Trek and I love the latest movies. I can't remember specifically if or how some of the inconsistencies got explained away. I could eventually forgive the destruction of Vulcan and accepted t..."

I also really like the new movies, though I wouldn't say I'm a hardcore fan of the Original Series. More TNG and DS9 and Voyager...

That said, it's not like the series ever had plot holes, inconsistencies, or technologies that got used once and then got forgotten about because we couldn't keep having dead people brought back via transporter...

Bill wrote: "Micah wrote: "?? I don't get it."

DOH! You're obvisously a man, too."

;D I'm DUH man!

John wrote: "It also looks amazing."

Huh.

Two words: Goddamned lens flares.

John wrote: "They get the essence of each role and still make each role their own thing."

Shame that every other character was acting in a different movie. Is it a spoof or is it a serious drama? No one knows because neither Abrams nor the cast can decide.

Stupid-Jokey: Kirk, Scotty, Chekov, Bones
Serious-Grumpy: Spock, Uhura, Sulu, whoever the old guy is

Star Trek was just a godawful mess. It's loud and dumb. I'm not a fan of Trek so I don't care about the continuity, but even if you take the movies on their own they're just relentlessly idiotic.

Peggy wrote: "If you haven't already rage-quit watching "Bones" several seasons back, this is an excellent blog written by a bioarchaeologist, discussing what they got right and wrong:."

I rage quit this season. I kept hoping it would get better that it would again be fun. Nope.