What irks you the most about movie space travel?

[Tex]

Okay, we've all seen the great sci-fi movies where the heroes (and villains) whiz through space, blasting lasers and blowing up planets. My question is, what do you not like about it the most?

In movies like Star Wars, everything seems remarkable unaffected by orbital mechanics or gravity, don't you think? In Gravity, the distance between certain objects in unrealistically close. So what bugs you the most?

[Ralathon]

I'm not really bothered about it. I don't mind it if Star Trek has warp drives and teleporters, it's a sci-fi universe and they use these technologies to tell a story they otherwise couldn't. What I do mind is when they aren't internally consistent about it (Teleporting through shields for example) or when they use basic physics as a plot point and they get it wrong (Falling from the moon to earth in minutes in the latest movie springs to mind).

Sure, I'll chuckle when the protagonist gets lost in space without fuel, only to land on a conveniently nearby planet with an oxygen atmosphere. Or when a ship gets damaged during an orbital fight, only to start falling towards the planet. But as long as these inconsistencies remain small and don't affect the plot too much I can live with it.

That's not to say I won't be impressed when a sci fi movie or series portrays it accurately. And I often find those works among my favorites (Apollo 13 and Planetes spring to mind)

[Mr Tegu]

when 2 or more ships meet in deep space, why are they always the same way up?

[magnemoe]

Well for future laser weapons, I'm surprised they are so inaccurate, far less accurate than common weapon systems.

For fuel, well fusion take you a long way, add gravity control and you don't have fuel issues more than planes have even for long term constant burn inside a solar system.

Why make things more complicated.

Distance cutting is accepted as space is mostly boring and empty.

My main issue is all the idiot screen writing.

[Ravenchant]

All of it, except lasers (but only if they travel at c) and short distances, because it would get boring quickly with realistic ones.

More irritating is the, as magnemoe adequately put, screen writing. Everyone is either dumb, unproffesional, agressive or incredibly stuck up, and of course it's the average joe newcomer that saves the day, and of course there must be a romance triangle complete with childish temper tantrums.

Above all- the discovery of extraterrestial life, higher forms of it in particular, or artificial structures, or a habitable planet, should evoke at least a few moments of contemplation, awe, if not a breakdown of ones view on life. Oh well...there are still some films that do it right.

[DaveofDefeat]

I really hate it when the ships have gravity, then the ship starts falling towards the planet/tilts in a different direction, AND THE DIRECTION OF GRAVITY STAYS THE SAME. So you have this nice comical effect of people falling down hallways and the such, big pet peeve. Other than that the movies would be awful boring if they were realistic. Just like how sword fights would be boring if they were realistic, how modern warfare movies would be boring if they were realistic.

[jwenting]

X people buggering me about why those movies are so bad because they don't have xxxxx

[S4qFBxkFFg]

The lasers are probably the closest out of those options. My main irritation is the presence of sound in vacuum.

[Karriz]

Most sci-fi movies seem to take place in an alternate universe, where space is filled with some kind of aether.

That explains why huge battleships act like submarines, and fighters work as if they were in atmosphere.

It would be interesting to see more realistic space battles in a movie. It wouldn't necessarily be boring.

[bombo1]

Most sci-fi movies seem to take place in an alternate universe, where space is filled with some kind of aether.

That explains why huge battleships act like submarines, and fighters work as if they were in atmosphere.

It would be interesting to see more realistic space battles in a movie. It wouldn't necessarily be boring.

There was a movie of james bond with somwhat more realistic endbattle in space.

[Idobox]

2001 space Odyssey is extremely realistic. It also very slow and contemplating, and it's a freaking masterpiece. I don't understand why nobody adapts Rama or some other hard-science stuff.

Space opera is full of conventions to make it fun, and that's okay. Dogfights and super-slow shiny lasers are to space what orcs, magicians and dragons are to the middle ages, stupidly irrealistic, and so much more fun than the real stuff.

What really pisses me off is when they try to make it more realistic, near future, and completely screw up. Gravity is the most recent offender, and made a number of mistakes that are really stupid, and not even needed for the plot. Like when she holds George Clooney's hand and he's "falling" from the ISS, they could just have made them spin, or have him loose pressure, or anything to explain the force. Or when they decided to have the shuttle 50m from ISS repairing Hubble, rather than have the shuttle 50m from ISS because it is doing something related to ISS.

You can let Flash Gordon fly on a jetski if you want, but if you have real spacecraft involved, please try to ask somebody who knows how it works.

[Comrade Jenkens]

The things I dislike the most about sci fi space ships isn't on there. I dislike the way ships either move like planes or boats through space.

[Ravyne]

Sound. Every time there's sound like lasers going pew pew and things blowing up with gigantic fireballs and vibrating explosions I die a little more inside.

[pyrosheep]

The things I dislike the most about sci fi space ships isn't on there. I dislike the way ships either move like planes or boats through space.

^^

who-ever masterminded space combat doctrine was off his nuts at the time, i mean seriously, space fighters launching off of space carriers? have fun trying dodge lasers!

The thing is i don't even understand why directors think space fighters are so amazing, there are no real size limitations in space (especially so with magic propulsion systems that exert no Gs), so i would think it would be a case of (truly, death star sized) colossal ships turning other huge ships to molten slag like early 20th century battleships, which are hardly dull.

maybe i have just read too many culture books .

[Scotius]

Distances during space battles . Here we have super-advanced space warships - capable of near instantaneous acceleration, covered by forcefields, equipped with scanners that can detect a cat sneezing on the surface of the planet. From orbit. Oh, and armed with energy weapons capable of glassing the continents from space. And yet those behemoths fight in tight formations, at distances measured in single-digits kilometers at best. Hello? Wet navy warships we have now fight from behind the horizon. Their kill ranges are measured in hundreds of kilometers. What, everyone suddenly get stupid in space?

[DonLorenzo]

Spaceship interior design. Not all movies are (as) guilty, but I cringe when I see a ship intended for zero-g operations with smooth floors and ceiling lights. Or any vessel that's super large and has lots of creature comforts yet is still billed as a pioneering frontrunner (ie. Star Trek gets away with it because they're SUPER ADVANCED, Europa report not so much- have you seen the SIZE of the thing in that...)

[Camacha]

Wet navy warships we have now fight from behind the horizon.

Yeah, space ships should hide behind the horizon! Eh, I mean, the event horizon. I mean... potato.

I can imagine ships having to get creative to hide at enormous ranges. Of course there are celestial bodies you could use, but maybe you could use relativistic effects to confuse your enemy, providing you have the technology to get up to those energy levels.

[Unimatrix1]

"Arrrh... That's impossible that can't happen". I seem to say that more often now to sci-fi films and shows, I always enjoyed star trek due to the fact they used real science theories unlike the modern star trek, even the engineering aspects of the ship seems implausible, why build a ship with huge wide open spaces, fit steel works in the middle with water rides, don't they know they are in space if their gravity fails or they fall to a planet what is going to stop the internals being ripped apart. I know they are trying to make it popular and I suppose they may encourage more people to have interested in science but a bit of common sense wouldn't be amiss.

Ah that's off my chest back to the real world and on to Duna.

[Camacha]

I must say topics like this irks me a little bit too. I really love people getting into the nitty gritty of how things work, but KSP players seem to wear it a bit too much like a badge sometimes. Even with your additional knowledge, you know nothing. Everyone should be acutely aware of that. Having a few shreds of extra information does not grant you any rights or puts you above others. On the contrary, I would say.

I would say the first rule of knowing - of science itself - is admitting you barely know anything.

[Superfluous J]

You didn't put "banking to turn around unlike a space ship or even an airplane would. More like a car" so I chose "unrealistic distances" because that's one that always bothers me.

"Jack Starblaster skidded his turboship to a halt 15 million miles outside the orbit of Jedda Prime, revving his hyperengine in challenge at the pirate ship off his port bow."

[tetryds]

What bugs me is how the ships have uber engines behiind it to make it go, yet can break when gets at desired point so easily even without any engine pointing forward.

Also, how they achieve such high accelerations whilist people are inside like nothing is happening out there (since none of them made use or mentioned alcubiere drives).

[qeveren]

Mostly the terrible, terrible writing.

[AngelLestat]

You didn't put "banking to turn around unlike a space ship or even an airplane would.

Yeah, I was looking for that in the list.

That is one of the most annoying things that you see in all movies.

[Kilmeister]

when 2 or more ships meet in deep space, why are they always the same way up?

^ this, and Star Trek Nebulas.

[brdavis]

I really love people getting into the nitty gritty of how things work, but KSP players seem to wear it a bit too much like a badge sometimes.

There does seem to be a bit of irony when we're all playing a game with a "star" that's a factor of ten off from the smallest star possible in a "solar system" where everything would pretty much fit within the orbit of Venus… and the #1 complaint on the poll currently is "unrealistic distances".