Movie Space ships compared to the real deal

[SecondGuessing]

And human existence consists much more of mundane events -- one might even say, almost entirely of them -- than of the sort of thing people watching an uncompromisingly realistic historical fiction movie expect to see.

Yes, but we don't include these in fiction because they're boring; the same is true about orbital mechanics and issues of distance with regards to target in a sci-fi film/novel.

That doesn't mean that an uncompromisingly realistic historical fiction movie must contain these events.

It seems, then, like you're dodging the question: Why do fictional realistic spaceflight movies have to have these details, whereas other kinds of realistic fiction do not?

I'm not saying they have to. In fact, I'd much rather they left it out. My point is that if you want to let the pedantry-cat out of the bag then you can't skimp on boring details. If you want to complain that a sci-fi film's centrifuge is so small that it would cause a uncomfortable pressure difference then you can't really have the on-flight routine be equivalent to that of a group of students in halls.

I'm guessing that you've never watched historical fiction with an historian. A former roommate of mine who intended to go into teaching(*) majored in history, and found almost every American Civil War movie unwatchable because they'd inevitably get the mechanical details wrong -- creating plot points to drive the plot that, given the technology of the day, would have been flat-out impossible.

(*) He ended up going into some kind of medical billing and coding instead. But teaching was his intent, and drove his college studies.

I bet he was a hoot at parties. Luckily tedious people like him don't have much of a say when it comes to literature.

Of course not. But it can incorporate realistic science without being about science.

Of course it can, but there's no reason that they should. Narrative quality has to take precedence.

Are you arguing, then, that science fiction doesn't have to be about science, but it does have to be about Romance?

And even if that's your point, why do the two have to be mutually exclusive?

No, I'm simply saying that the idea that science-fiction should be more realistic than other forms of fiction is silly, and that the reason this silliness is around is because science-fiction is simply our contemporary version of knights fighting dragons and saving princesses. When you go to the bottom of the garden and find there are no fairies it becomes difficult to write about fairies without seeming trivial and childish; science-fiction offers writes an expanding horizon where you can include what is effectively magic but in an earnest and adult way.

The important thing is internal consistency. Fiction does not have to track reality, but it must follow its own laws. No-one's saying realistic mechanics and effects shouldn't be present, but unless you're going to concede that you also must include all the tedious about reality then all you've done is moved the goal-posts from 'not very realistic' to 'ever so slightly realistic'.

I mean, what does spending 200 words writing about the space-ship's heat radiators actually do to benefit the story? Nothing. It's padding, at best.

Edited May 2, 2013 by SecondGuessing

[Nikolai]

Yes, but we don't include these in fiction because they're boring; the same is true about orbital mechanics and issues of distance with regards to target in a sci-fi film/novel.

"Presents spaceflight realistically" is not the same as "discusses orbital mechanics". There's a long distance between including orbital mechanics in the narrative of your story and neglecting the fact that orbital mechanics even exist.

My point is that if you want to let the pedantry-cat out of the bag then you can't skimp on boring details.

I disagree, only because "presents spaceflight realistically" is not the same as "presents spaceflight pedantically". You don't have to "let the pedantry-cat out of the bag" at all in order to present spaceflight realistically, in much the same way that you don't have to lecture the audience about ballistics to present guns behaving realistically.

Of course it can, but there's no reason that they should. Narrative quality has to take precedence.

Precedence, yes, but you're talking as if there's no way to respect the physics and tell a decent story. You don't have to make your story a physics lesson, but you can still have things behave as the laws of physics dictate they should (and not violate physics for a plot point).

No, I'm simply saying that the idea that science-fiction should be more realistic than other forms of fiction is silly, and that the reason this silliness is around is because science-fiction is simply our contemporary version of knights fighting dragons and saving princesses.

There are some storylines and such that lend themselves to that model pretty well, but not all sci-fi has to be this or fill this role -- nor should it.

It's not my contention that all sci-fi should obey the laws of physics; a lot of it bumps right up against fantasy, as you mention. But I'd like to see more that puts in the effort. There are ways in which some storylines can actually helped by having the characters work within limitations that are present in reality rather than having them surmount reality, since this is a struggle everyone in the audience also faces.

The important thing is internal consistency. Fiction does not have to track reality, but it must follow its own laws. No-one's saying realistic mechanics and effects shouldn't be present, but unless you're going to concede that you also must include all the tedious about reality then all you've done is moved the goal-posts from 'not very realistic' to 'ever so slightly realistic'.

I think it's possible that we've misunderstood one another. I don't mean to insist that all science fiction must be "hard". I merely wish there were more "hard" sci-fi, and that there's a very good reason to expect that so-called "science" fiction would try to pay attention to science in a way that appealing to "fiction" doesn't completely cover.

I mean, what does spending 200 words writing about the space-ship's heat radiators actually do to benefit the story? Nothing. It's padding, at best.

No one's saying that "presents science realistically" means "includes long lectures about current scientific thought", either.

[Warscribe]

I may summon a storm here, but what do you guys think about the engine used in the movie Event Horizon?

[Devo]

I don't spend any time trying to debunk how an engine or starship would or wouldnt work, I just enjoy the film

[SecondGuessing]

"Presents spaceflight realistically" is not the same as "discusses orbital mechanics". There's a long distance between including orbital mechanics in the narrative of your story and neglecting the fact that orbital mechanics even exist.

Adding orbital mechanics to you story is, again, just padding, though. It adds absolutely nothing except a pointless sense of faux-realism that will only even be noticed by people who already know orbital mechanics are a thing.

I disagree, only because "presents spaceflight realistically" is not the same as "presents spaceflight pedantically". You don't have to "let the pedantry-cat out of the bag" at all in order to present spaceflight realistically, in much the same way that you don't have to lecture the audience about ballistics to present guns behaving realistically.

If you're complaining about issues of orbital mechanics rather than focusing on the actual story then you're being a pedant. And guns are hardly ever realistically represented in films or literature.

Precedence, yes, but you're talking as if there's no way to respect the physics and tell a decent story. You don't have to make your story a physics lesson, but you can still have things behave as the laws of physics dictate they should (and not violate physics for a plot point).

I'm not at all, I just fail to see why you would want to waste space in your novel/screenplay explaining/showing things that only ten percent of your audience care about.

And to what degree do you want to adhere to the laws of physics? If you want everything to be perfect to real physics then you're going to have to use a lot of ink/film showing things that don't add anything to the narrative, and don't impress anyone except a few people who to feel that they're smarter than everyone else because they did the math and don't agree that x is possible. What does it add to the story to mention the heat radiators in order to appease the self-appointed science gurus?

There are some storylines and such that lend themselves to that model pretty well, but not all sci-fi has to be this or fill this role -- nor should it.

It's not my contention that all sci-fi should obey the laws of physics; a lot of it bumps right up against fantasy, as you mention. But I'd like to see more that puts in the effort. There are ways in which some storylines can actually helped by having the characters work within limitations that are present in reality rather than having them surmount reality, since this is a struggle everyone in the audience also faces.

The vast majority of science fiction does have the characters working within limitations, the limits are simply internally consistent rather than prescribed by reality. I simply fail to see how changing this will improve your story?

I think it's possible that we've misunderstood one another. I don't mean to insist that all science fiction must be "hard". I merely wish there were more "hard" sci-fi, and that there's a very good reason to expect that so-called "science" fiction would try to pay attention to science in a way that appealing to "fiction" doesn't completely cover.

No one's saying that "presents science realistically" means "includes long lectures about current scientific thought", either.

Perhaps, but given that the majority of points in this thread (the majority not yours, but any 'yous' I've used have been Royal) are about popular science-fiction it seems so pointless to be complaining about the lack of correct physics. I appreciate 'hard' sci-fi; I dislike it as a genre as I feel that the stories are almost always hamstrung and dull, but I do appreciate it's existence. But, as you seem to agree, it's silly to complain about the unreality of something like Star Trek, as there's no attempt to map reality closely anyway. Most science fiction is effectively magic realism, and this is for the best as far as narrative is concerned.

I appreciate that as a literature student I may be a little biased towards narrative over scientific accuracy, though.

[ThatBum]

I found Cowboy Bebop ships to be pretty realistic. When they're changing attitude you can see RCS thrusters firing.

An example.

[Warscribe]

Captain future, now this is pretty accurate.

[Vanamonde]

I think you're confusing "Stuff they spent most of their time doing" with "Stuff that constitutes the main action of the journey".

I think I am, too, but my question is rather why you think those are different.

or does he ignore protocol and do it his own way?

"Damn it Maverick! You were supposed to take 3 readings at 10am, not 4 readings at 10:05! Your ego is writing checks your navigational experience can't cash!"

What is he thinking about while he's taking the readings? What does that say about him as a character?

"Okay, so that's 21.84 degrees... It was 21.84 degrees out the day I killed my previous copilot, Frank, in that freak sextant accident. No! Must concentrate on readings or all is lost!"

Why is he specifically, and not some other character, taking the reading? Is he the most qualified to do it? If not, why him, and not someone else?

"If I hadn't killed Frank with the sextant, I could be sleeping late while he was taking these stupid readings. He was better at it than I am anyway. 'The natural sextanter,' we used to call old Frank."

What if he notices something that's different from what he's expecting?

"Holy von Braun! WE'RE ON A COLLISION COURSE WITH THE SUN! Oh, wait, that's not Sirius I'm sighting on, just a smudge on the window. Frank would not have made that mistake, but the sextant took his head clean off at the shoulder. Doc said he'd never seen anything like it."

-- What does everything the characters do say about who they are as people?

"You know, I'm really kind of incompetent and neurotic to be an astronaut, what with killing my previous co-pilot and all."

And now I'm half-tempted to actually turn that little summary into a full-fledged story itself, just to prove to you how wrong you are.

That would be an insane amount of work to put into the question, considering that I have had my tongue firmly in cheek throughout this discussion.

Guys, I'm not saying realistic space fiction has to be boring. I'm just amused by the weird side-argument about whether or not one could write a realistic story without including any of the tedious aspects of a spaceflight.

[automcdonough]

Generally, movies tend to get things very wrong. I seem to be linking to this site a lot lately...

Space fighters in particular get argued about a lot. This page (warning: TV Tropes) has a fairly comprehensive discussion of the pros and cons, but I'd say that the biggest blow against them is the fact that there's effectively no horizon in space. Your weapons are only limited by accuracy, not absolute range, and bigger ships would have the space for both bigger weapons and better targeting computers.

But yes, you're not likely ever going to see space fighters turning like airplanes in space, no matter how good the engines get. Spaceflight just works differently from atmospheric flight, to keep things short and sweet.

this link kind of pisses me off. yes some things are just fact. you can't hear explosinos in space. But you could certainly hear your own weapons firing! He's also making some huge sweeping assumptions based on our current tech. And bashing horizontal layouts? wtf? the space shuttle is laid out that way and it's real. Nobody wants a vertically laid out ship, that's a pain in the ass. And if you had a fleet of ships why WOULDN'T you use navy terms? _logistically_ speaking they are very similar in how crew, supplies, etc work. just because it's in space instead of on water doesn't mean our techniques go out the window. Screw that guy, what an opinionated ass. Just enjoy the dang movie.

[nyrath]

this link kind of pisses me off. yes some things are just fact. you can't hear explosinos in space. But you could certainly hear your own weapons firing! He's also making some huge sweeping assumptions based on our current tech. And bashing horizontal layouts? wtf? the space shuttle is laid out that way and it's real. Nobody wants a vertically laid out ship, that's a pain in the ass. And if you had a fleet of ships why WOULDN'T you use navy terms? _logistically_ speaking they are very similar in how crew, supplies, etc work. just because it's in space instead of on water doesn't mean our techniques go out the window. Screw that guy, what an opinionated ass. Just enjoy the dang movie.

Does that mean we are not friends anymore?

[Specialist290]

<witty one-liners>

That would be an insane amount of work to put into the question, considering that I have had my tongue firmly in cheek throughout this discussion.

So was mine, actually (The bit about writing the story, not the questions.)

...Although if I do write that story after all, do I have permission to use those lines you just posted? Some of them are just pure gold.

As to the "writing without including the tedious aspects": I actually did address that (or thought I did). EDIT: Checking back, it looks like I only thought I did, so I'll do it now:

You don't have to write like a travelogue and detail absolutely every single little happenstance. You can suggest the daily routine through establishing scenes by showing what the characters are doing, then "skip ahead" to the next interesting thing that happens. It's the same logic as to why movies show montages of clock hands spinning on walls and cameras of public places cranked to show things running at 100 times normal speed instead of actually forcing you to watch several hours or days of the characters in the drama doing nothing related to the plot at all. EDIT2: And also, for that matter, why KSP itself has Time Acceleration controls.

The important thing, though, is that you focus the most attention on the things that are relevant to the plot.

And while I'm editing this post for one reason, might as well address something else:

@SecondGuessing: I hold a liberal arts degree myself (B.A. in History -- no specialty, my college wasn't large enough to really diversify), so I can appreciate where you're coming from. I'll try to take a different tack in light of that.

Let's say one author writes a book -- in any genre -- where the characters were all cliched, one-dimensional stereotypes because the author couldn't be bothered to invest in characterization. Now let's say that another author writes another story, in the same genre and following the same broad outline, who writes relatable characters with complex motives and realistic interactions, to the point where you could genuinely imagine them as real people. Which book would you rather read? (EDIT2: Here's two concrete examples of what I'm talking about. Thanks again, TV Tropes!)

The whole point of this discussion is along that same train of thought, only with regard to setting instead of characterization. I'm not saying the cookie-cutter stories are necessarily bad -- some of them can even be enjoyable, until you stop and think about them -- but I am saying that, generally, some respect for and attention to realism (in all aspects of a work, not just the scientific ones) is generally better.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Specialist290

[Nobody_1707]

Ever noticed how in star wars, ships fly directly out from a planet like everyone did on their first flight in KSP? No gravity turns, just straight up. Everyone here can speak for themselves but, I think we've all done that one once.

Actually, now that I have FAR installed I find that waiting for Mün to get into place and then launching straight up is the best way to get an encounter.

Also, to be more on topic, aside from the whole magitech thing I found the Outlaw Star ships to be fairly realistic.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Nobody_1707

[Nikolai]

Adding orbital mechanics to you story is, again, just padding, though. It adds absolutely nothing except a pointless sense of faux-realism that will only even be noticed by people who already know orbital mechanics are a thing.

But that's the entire point. There's already an audience that is fiercely interested in your subject matter. If mimesis breaks for them -- if their suspension of disbelief is shattered -- they're no longer along for your ride. And that's a shame, because their deep interest means that they're the ones most likely to be loyal to your production after the novelty wears off. (Witness the countless threads in this forum asking for recommendations for fiction that depicts realistic spaceflight.) That's because we know details, so we'll be the ones to notice when someone else takes the time and makes the effort to try to get it right.

I'm not saying that you add it in just to add it in. As with the discussion about portraying every mundane detail of spaceflight, you don't have to include it if it doesn't move the plot along or reveal something important about the characters. (Again, I'm not saying you add it in just to add it in. You keep pretending that that's what I want. Stop it. ) But defying what people interested in the subject matter know to be true is actively working against realism, and that's what we want to see flouted less often, precisely because we're interested in what you're trying to say about it.

There seems to be this mindset that appealing to the broadest base possible ought to be the goal. Whether or not that's true, appealing to the broadest base possible is not exclusive to being realistic. (Enduring works of art are capable of communicating something to people with all levels of understanding. Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor appeals to someone with limited musical knowledge in one way, and to the person who understands music theory deeply in another. The techncial excellence of Bach's composition is not mere "padding"; it gives the work life to those who care enough about it to notice the care given to the structure.) Making personal attacks on people who enjoy realism (and how much fun they must be at parties) takes this mindset to the degree that it can insult people and mistake that for a logical point.

If you're complaining about issues of orbital mechanics rather than focusing on the actual story then you're being a pedant.

Sure, if that's the only thing that matters to you(*). But if you're considering how physics plays into the story as a whole, then you're being no more of a pedant than someone who examines two different elements of the story (e.g., plot points or characters) and tries to talk out their worth/realism/contribution to the narrative.

(*) And if you're not doing it for, say, the fun of the exercise alone. Believe it or not, examining the physics behind speculative or futuristic stories is fun for its own sake for some people. Don't make the mistake of thinking everyone has to enjoy the same things you enjoy in the same way that you enjoy them, or even that you know exactly why some things are fun for others.

And guns are hardly ever realistically represented in films or literature.

I know. Not my point. My point is that they can be without long explanations about how guns work.

I'm not at all, I just fail to see why you would want to waste space in your novel/screenplay explaining/showing things that only ten percent of your audience care about.

Because they're the ones who are most likely to be interested in seeing what I have to say before I even get going. The narrative has to be strong enough to keep those without that prior interest, of course; but if I write a story in ancient Persia, I can expect to sell it in part because that setting already appeals to some people. With that in mind, I'd be remiss not to learn what historical ancient Persia was like and to try to remain consistent with it.

And to what degree do you want to adhere to the laws of physics? If you want everything to be perfect to real physics then you're going to have to use a lot of ink/film showing things that don't add anything to the narrative,

That's the assertion you keep making (without basis), and it's precisely that which I mean to contest. You don't have to add detail that doesn't pertain to your story. You also don't have to defy reality in order to get your story across.

A lot of fellow space geeks I spend time with hated the movie Armageddon, for example, and I think that it was because it broke the contract it was setting up with people who enjoy the subject matter for its own sake. It started out with Charleton Heston narrating CGI depicting the K-T impact 65 million years ago that created Chicxulub Crater and wiped out the dinosaurs (and lots of other creatures). The voiceover threw out information about the timing, the size of the asteroid, and the energy released on impact(**); I think that set a lot of space geeks to think that this would be a film that would be an attempt to depict asteroid diversion and its challenges with a certain degree of realism. When it came out and actually displayed sub-comic-book-level physics, they felt as if some sort of initial promise made to them by the movie's creators had been violated.

Of course, Armageddon was a very successful movie. It's patently obvious that most people don't care about realism. But for those who already have an interest, we just want to be able to attend a movie about our interest without feeling like we're being misled or that certain things are done more for the convenience of the plot the creators wanted than because the creators respect our fascination with the general subject matter.

(**) Yeah, it was all wrong, but a theater's not exactly the place to whip out some paper and a scientific calculator to check the figures.

What does it add to the story to mention the heat radiators in order to appease the self-appointed science gurus?

That depends on the story, doesn't it? If there's no reason for that information to be in the story, there's no reason to mention it.

But no one is saying you need to add this information in without cause or context. If you need to have heat radiators in your story for whatever reason, just make sure they don't violate what we know to be true. That's all.

(Here's where movies are at a disadvantage. If a book were written about the world's greatest poet, for example, readers would feel cheated if you didn't show some of the poetry -- or, even worse, if you tried to show some of the poetry, and it really wasn't that good. If heat radiators are important to your story, and your story pays a passing nod to realism, those who know how heat works will be disappointed if you show them and they clearly violate realism.)

The vast majority of science fiction does have the characters working within limitations, the limits are simply internally consistent rather than prescribed by reality. I simply fail to see how changing this will improve your story?

Consider the parallel way in which detective fiction can make up cause-effect relationships that don't actually exist (magic tech that can pull DNA samples from a fifteen-year-old blood stain, for example) or laws that aren't actually on the books that criminals can be charged with. Most people won't care. But as for those who are already interested in real-life detective work, their mimesis is shattered and their suspension of disbelief is gone. You've lost them.

It's a question of craft, of the care that goes into a work. In a fundamental way, we all expect craft at some level, evidence that the artist has put in effort, some clue that she respects the audience she is trying to communicate to with her art. Those who can perceive the degree of craft more deeply will (or, at least, should) appreciate it more deeply.

I appreciate that as a literature student I may be a little biased towards narrative over scientific accuracy, though.

As an engineer, I think it curious that you seem to find those two things at odds with one another.

[The Error]

Sci-Fi is irrelevant when I use orbital mechanics to send a really big rock towards your planet. Due to orbital mechanics, there's no way you can stop it (as long as I'm watching). Scape combat devolves into just that, killing the enemy's planets.

Missiles and some equivalent of torpedoes will probably be the weapons of the future. minimal recoil, self-guided (mostly), difficult to evade, and we know how to make them. Plus, they attract all your heat-seeking ordinance quite nicely.

[SecondGuessing]

So much to respond to. It's time likes this I wish this forum had a more robust reply mechanism.

@SecondGuessing: I hold a liberal arts degree myself (B.A. in History -- no specialty, my college wasn't large enough to really diversify), so I can appreciate where you're coming from. I'll try to take a different tack in light of that.

Let's say one author writes a book -- in any genre -- where the characters were all cliched, one-dimensional stereotypes because the author couldn't be bothered to invest in characterization. Now let's say that another author writes another story, in the same genre and following the same broad outline, who writes relatable characters with complex motives and realistic interactions, to the point where you could genuinely imagine them as real people. Which book would you rather read? (EDIT2: Here's two concrete examples of what I'm talking about. Thanks again, TV Tropes!)

The whole point of this discussion is along that same train of thought, only with regard to setting instead of characterization. I'm not saying the cookie-cutter stories are necessarily bad -- some of them can even be enjoyable, until you stop and think about them -- but I am saying that, generally, some respect for and attention to realism (in all aspects of a work, not just the scientific ones) is generally better.

Well indeed, if you throw out realism altogether you end up with something like Finnegan's Wake. Marvelous though a world full of extraordinary Joycean gibberish would be it's really not my desired outcome. My argument is merely that there is little reason to think that science-fiction should adhere more closely to reality than almost any other genre of literature/film. Indeed, science-fiction, by definition, deals with other-worlds in a way that even fantasy realism doesn't.

But that's the entire point. There's already an audience that is fiercely interested in your subject matter. If mimesis breaks for them -- if their suspension of disbelief is shattered -- they're no longer along for your ride. And that's a shame, because their deep interest means that they're the ones most likely to be loyal to your production after the novelty wears off. (Witness the countless threads in this forum asking for recommendations for fiction that depicts realistic spaceflight.) That's because we know details, so we'll be the ones to notice when someone else takes the time and makes the effort to try to get it right.

I have no issue with hard sci-fi, but extreme realism doesn't need to be ubiquitous with science fiction. That's all.

I'm not saying that you add it in just to add it in. As with the discussion about portraying every mundane detail of spaceflight, you don't have to include it if it doesn't move the plot along or reveal something important about the characters. (Again, I'm not saying you add it in just to add it in. You keep pretending that that's what I want. Stop it. ) But defying what people interested in the subject matter know to be true is actively working against realism, and that's what we want to see flouted less often, precisely because we're interested in what you're trying to say about it.

I think there are separate issues for films and novels. In a film it's clearly very easy to have a more realistic space-ship: you simply design it in a more realistic way. This is have no issue with (cost aside, though I can't imagine it costs that much more to add the odd radiator and slightly change the angle of approach the ship uses. When it comes to novels and short stories, however, unless you're actively adopting a hard sci-fi approach I don't see why you need include any mention of these details. Of course, if you're describing the ship or mechanics in detail but getting them completely wrong then I agree, it would be best if you (the author) did some research and fixed things, but if you're leaving the fine-points to your reader's imagination then it seems to me that the reader will imagine the ship/mechanics to precisely the degree they care about.

There seems to be this mindset that appealing to the broadest base possible ought to be the goal. Whether or not that's true, appealing to the broadest base possible is not exclusive to being realistic. (Enduring works of art are capable of communicating something to people with all levels of understanding. Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor appeals to someone with limited musical knowledge in one way, and to the person who understands music theory deeply in another. The techncial excellence of Bach's composition is not mere "padding"; it gives the work life to those who care enough about it to notice the care given to the structure.) Making personal attacks on people who enjoy realism (and how much fun they must be at parties) takes this mindset to the degree that it can insult people and mistake that for a logical point.

I don't agree that reaching the broadest demographic should be the goal, but I can certainly appreciate why people do it.

And I don't care in the slightest if people find glee in the technical aspects of art; I do, myself. But in the example you gave of a history student watching a film with friends and spending the entire time picking apart historical inconsistencies I fail to see how it's anything if not boring and somewhat too close to smugness.

Sure, if that's the only thing that matters to you(*). But if you're considering how physics plays into the story as a whole, then you're being no more of a pedant than someone who examines two different elements of the story (e.g., plot points or characters) and tries to talk out their worth/realism/contribution to the narrative.

(*) And if you're not doing it for, say, the fun of the exercise alone. Believe it or not, examining the physics behind speculative or futuristic stories is fun for its own sake for some people. Don't make the mistake of thinking everyone has to enjoy the same things you enjoy in the same way that you enjoy them, or even that you know exactly why some things are fun for others.

Indeed not, but the difference is the application of that knowledge. Without being arrogant I can say I know more than most people about literature, but that doesn't mean that every time a friend tells me she just finished reading a novel I need to explain to them the issue with the use of pathetic fallacy on page 23. I enjoy those technical aspects of literature in much the same way I imagine a military historian enjoys the technical aspects of command structure, or a fan of a fantastic game about space exploration enjoys the intricacies of that adventure; but much like you say, we need to realise that different people enjoy different things, and try not to force unnecessary technical aspects into Summer popcorn movies and bedside novels.

Because they're the ones who are most likely to be interested in seeing what I have to say before I even get going. The narrative has to be strong enough to keep those without that prior interest, of course; but if I write a story in ancient Persia, I can expect to sell it in part because that setting already appeals to some people. With that in mind, I'd be remiss not to learn what historical ancient Persia was like and to try to remain consistent with it.

The issue comes in how consistent you need be. If you're writing a story about 7th century Iran then it's of course rather important to place the story in a context of civil turmoil (following the Islamic occupation) and use appropriate technology and philosophy and the like. But the details need not be 100% unless you're trying to appeal to an especially historically literate audience. There's no issue with doing so, in fact it's fantastic, but there's no reason why we should expect all filmmakers and novelists/publisher to produce such work.

That's the assertion you keep making (without basis), and it's precisely that which I mean to contest. You don't have to add detail that doesn't pertain to your story. You also don't have to defy reality in order to get your story across.

You do if it's a novel. With films I agree, as it's so easy to add something visually, but in writing you can't add detail without adding to the word-count, and it's difficult to add obscure detail that would please people such as your good self without alienating many others.

A lot of fellow space geeks I spend time with hated the movie Armageddon, for example, and I think that it was because it broke the contract it was setting up with people who enjoy the subject matter for its own sake. It started out with Charleton Heston narrating CGI depicting the K-T impact 65 million years ago that created Chicxulub Crater and wiped out the dinosaurs (and lots of other creatures). The voiceover threw out information about the timing, the size of the asteroid, and the energy released on impact(**); I think that set a lot of space geeks to think that this would be a film that would be an attempt to depict asteroid diversion and its challenges with a certain degree of realism. When it came out and actually displayed sub-comic-book-level physics, they felt as if some sort of initial promise made to them by the movie's creators had been violated.

The main issue with Armageddon (and there are many) is that it breaks even its own logic and physics, and breaks suspension of disbelief for even those who have no knowledge of physics/astronomy whatsoever. I mean, it's a little odd that all the little meteor fragments appeared to have GPS navigation: the amount of tourist photos they must have ruined is unimaginable.

Of course, Armageddon was a very successful movie. It's patently obvious that most people don't care about realism. But for those who already have an interest, we just want to be able to attend a movie about our interest without feeling like we're being misled or that certain things are done more for the convenience of the plot the creators wanted than because the creators respect our fascination with the general subject matter.

But there are quite a lot of movie that do appeal to a more scientifically literate audience. Deep Impact, A Space Odyssey, almost all of the literature of Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke (to a lesser extent). Alien isn't awful at being realistic either; Jurassic Park is good except when talking about the genetic viability of fossils; Contact is superbly scientific, etc. Note that these films are some of the classics of the genre, and the authors are almost universally considered to be its best. You seem to be classing yourself as an oppressed minority, when in fact the majority of films and novels try to be at least somewhat above the pop-science grade. Yes, cheesy summer blockbusters like Star Wars and Armageddon get almost everything wrong, but no-one takes these films seriously as science based movies.

That depends on the story, doesn't it? If there's no reason for that information to be in the story, there's no reason to mention it.

But no one is saying you need to add this information in without cause or context. If you need to have heat radiators in your story for whatever reason, just make sure they don't violate what we know to be true. That's all.

I don't have any issue with this.

Consider the parallel way in which detective fiction can make up cause-effect relationships that don't actually exist (magic tech that can pull DNA samples from a fifteen-year-old blood stain, for example) or laws that aren't actually on the books that criminals can be charged with. Most people won't care. But as for those who are already interested in real-life detective work, their mimesis is shattered and their suspension of disbelief is gone. You've lost them.

Great literature and movies can rise above this issue. Sherlock Holmes is effectively magical, and yet nobody would question that it is fantastic detective fiction. So long as what you doing is something not unimaginable then it's fine, providing you aren't making some claim to realism.

To take your blood-stain example: if it helps the story to have a magic device that can do that then by all means you should be doing it. If the alternative is to end your detective story with 'The case ran cold, though, so we left it.' then I daresay your audience is going to feel terrifically underwhelmed. If you're going into details on the mechanics of the device and get it wrong then I agree that there's an issue, but we're not talking about films that aspire to any resemblance of reality in the way.

As an engineer, I think it curious that you seem to find those two things at odds with one another.

They aren't at odds, they simply colour one's expectations in different ways.

[Nikolai]

I think there are separate issues for films and novels. In a film it's clearly very easy to have a more realistic space-ship: you simply design it in a more realistic way.

You think moviemakers too incurious to care about depicting spaceflight realistically are going to worry about depicting realistic spacecraft design? Interesting.

When it comes to novels and short stories, however, unless you're actively adopting a hard sci-fi approach I don't see why you need include any mention of these details.

I think we agree that these details should only be included only insofar as they assist the narrative.

if you're leaving the fine-points to your reader's imagination then it seems to me that the reader will imagine the ship/mechanics to precisely the degree they care about.

Sure. I think we both agree that there's a lot of room in between simply leaving details out and getting details you bother to mention wrong.

And I don't care in the slightest if people find glee in the technical aspects of art; I do, myself. But in the example you gave of a history student watching a film with friends and spending the entire time picking apart historical inconsistencies I fail to see how it's anything if not boring and somewhat too close to smugness.

To get there, you kind of had to wait and dig a little. It was his way of sharing his passion, and you'd have to let him talk for a bit before you realized why the things he thought were nifty were interesting. He may not have gone about it in the best way, but all of our personalities have rough edges.

it's difficult to add obscure detail that would please people such as your good self without alienating many others.

Oh, yeah, agreed -- it's a lot more difficult. Which is why it's all the more rewarding when you see a story/movie that does it well.

You seem to be classing yourself as an oppressed minority,

Oppressed? Good heavens, no. Just wishing there were more things up my particular alley. Of course, in that, I probably share feelings common to all humans.

when in fact the majority of films and novels try to be at least somewhat above the pop-science grade.

You think? I mean, I don't have access to numbers, but that would surprise me.

Yes, cheesy summer blockbusters like Star Wars and Armageddon get almost everything wrong, but no-one takes these films seriously as science based movies.

You've obviously never gotten into a debate with a hardcore Star Trek fan about how closely their particular favored franchise follows physics.

But seriously, I find rather frequently that when I encounter someone with bad ideas about space travel, their misconceptions exist because they expect spaceflight to be like it is depicted in some movie.

Great literature and movies can rise above this issue. Sherlock Holmes is effectively magical, and yet nobody would question that it is fantastic detective fiction. So long as what you doing is something not unimaginable then it's fine, providing you aren't making some claim to realism.

"Not unimaginable" is a bit difficult to quantify, but I follow your point.

If the alternative is to end your detective story with 'The case ran cold, though, so we left it.' then I daresay your audience is going to feel terrifically underwhelmed.

I strongly suspect that that is not a story that would get published or filmed. If plausibility was important to them, the creators would look for some other way to tell their story.

They aren't at odds, they simply colour one's expectations in different ways.

Right, but you seem to be putting those expectations into some kind of artificial tension with one another. That's what I'm finding curious.