Random thoughts, observations and questions on SCI FI entertainment

[YJ02]

Starting this thread because I don't really see anywhere else to put the question I will use to start it.

use the thread to make those comments,questions and observations about things you have seen in a certain show or movie, or those same things repeated often, near tropes maybe.
-----------------------
ok, making up a term here, i think, but it should be fairly self explanatory- why so much 'equatorial parallelism?

what i mean by this is, why in nearly every show or movie, we see ships, orbiting stations, approaching meteors-anything from space, positioned to the planet it is approaching on a course or a stationary position where the path of the course or the orbit, is on a parallel to the planet's equator?

with EARTH, why do we always see a ship or a platform parallel with the equator? Why not approach the planet at one of its poles? Why not come in towards the planet in a way that would appear upside down? (that would be a ship's top facing towards the south pole and not the north. Or on an angle?

There is no up or down in space.

Is it just for appearances, a view that is more easily accepted by the brain? Or is it a type of creative laziness?

and, in space, why do we always see opposing ships facing one another on an even 'altitude'? Why not approach from a direction that is perpendicular to the other ship? Come down on to it, or up at it? Why is every space battle portrayed as if it were a symmetrical, lined up formation battle on the ground?

I'd make a graphic but I have no idea how to do that hopefully you can understand what I am asking.

 

[Joelist]

I suspect it is partly for familiarity.

As to space combat, I believe you are referring to the shows not displaying vectored movement (the way it would really occur in space). I think it is partly budgetary and partly again familiarity. That said, The Expanse has been an exception to this rule as it has shown Earth from different aspects and both the space movement and combat have employed the vectored approach. So did the series premiere space battle of The Orville.

 

[Jim of WVa]

They tried having the spacecraft come at each other at oblique angles on Stargate Atlantis, but it just looked odd.

 

[Overmind One]

Starting this thread because I don't really see anywhere else to put the question I will use to start it.

use the thread to make those comments,questions and observations about things you have seen in a certain show or movie, or those same things repeated often, near tropes maybe.
-----------------------
ok, making up a term here, i think, but it should be fairly self explanatory- why so much 'equatorial parallelism?

what i mean by this is, why in nearly every show or movie, we see ships, orbiting stations, approaching meteors-anything from space, positioned to the planet it is approaching on a course or a stationary position where the path of the course or the orbit, is on a parallel to the planet's equator?

Because it looks best that way. Generally speaking, a ship's approach to a planet is not a major event or plot point, so the equatorial orbit shot is the best way to see most of the planet and get a sense that the ship is orbiting or preparing to land there.

with EARTH, why do we always see a ship or a platform parallel with the equator? Why not approach the planet at one of its poles? Why not come in towards the planet in a way that would appear upside down? (that would be a ship's top facing towards the south pole and not the north. Or on an angle?

There is no up or down in space.

Again, like Joelist said, it is a matter of familiarity. If it jumps out because of it being unfamiliar, and it distracts from the moment this is being shown in, then doing it just for the sake of doing something different is not a good thing.

Is it just for appearances, a view that is more easily accepted by the brain? Or is it a type of creative laziness?

Appearances, I would say. Being "creative" with such small things and for no particular reason is not really a wise move IMO.

and, in space, why do we always see opposing ships facing one another on an even 'altitude'? Why not approach from a direction that is perpendicular to the other ship? Come down on to it, or up at it? Why is every space battle portrayed as if it were a symmetrical, lined up formation battle on the ground?

I'd make a graphic but I have no idea how to do that hopefully you can understand what I am asking.

I am not seeing that. A classic example is the battle between the Reliant and the Enterprise in Wrath of Kahn, when we saw the ships at different altitudes in the nebula, as well as different vectors. To just show ships at weird vectors and angles is not much different than the dutch angles used in Discovery Season 1. Why do it if it adds nothing?

 

[YJ02]

I suspect it is partly for familiarity.

As to space combat, I believe you are referring to the shows not displaying vectored movement (the way it would really occur in space). I think it is partly budgetary and partly again familiarity. That said, The Expanse has been an exception to this rule as it has shown Earth from different aspects and both the space movement and combat have employed the vectored approach. So did the series premiere space battle of The Orville.

yes, EXPANSE is one of the few shows that has done this

--------------
IDK, showing things the same 'safe' way that everyone else does just strikes me as ppl having a lack of creativity and it really doesn't show things as they would be (as you say with the vectoring)

look at this vid, clip from DS9 (no, i am not picking on trek, just watching it now, so its what comes to mind first), the way they show both fleets approaching one another in a classic linear formation...like a 20th century tank battle
now what if the FED fleet had come in on the dominion fleet at a approach that was perpendicular to their course?

or from the front, top and bottom? I think that would be a more realistic portrayal

any trained commander would use all methods at their disposal.. not just 'line up and knock each other down'

so much of current real world warfare is now asymmetrical, why wouldn't it be that ,and more, in space in the future (presuming we go to space and there are space battles of course )?

 

[Overmind One]

yes, EXPANSE is one of the few shows that has done this

--------------
IDK, showing things the same 'safe' way that everyone else does just strikes me as ppl having a lack of creativity and it really doesn't show things as they would be (as you say with the vectoring)

look at this vid, clip from DS9 (no, i am not picking on trek, just watching it now, so its what comes to mind first), the way they show both fleets approaching one another in a classic linear formation...like a 20th century tank battle
now what if the FED fleet had come in on the dominion fleet at a approach that was perpendicular to their course?

or from the front, top and bottom? I think that would be a more realistic portrayal

any trained commander would use all methods at their disposal.. not just 'line up and knock each other down'

so much of current real world warfare is now asymmetrical, why wouldn't it be that ,and more, in space in the future (presuming we go to space and there are space battles of course )?

The question to you would then be, how would that enhance the story being told? In a movie ABOUT space battles, of course this would be important. But if you have a story about two warring factions who are fighting to gain an objective target or control of a region, and you have the dramatic buildup of first engagement in the battle, then the vectors of the ship attacks and the mechanics of the battle are not really relevant, are they?

 

[YJ02]

then the vectors of the ship attacks and the mechanics of the battle are not really relevant, are they?

the point, my friend is, that not even in today's world is combat carried out like this

so why would it be like this in the distant future?

today tanks do not line up on opposing sides and slug it out with each other in neat rows

battleships (note lower case 'b') do not line up and exchange broadsides

infantry does not march in formation across an open battlefield to meet the enemy

it only makes sense that the 'evolution of warfare' would continue on along this them and carry into space and not revert back to 19th century tactics

--------------
and, it would just look a lot better

 

[YJ02]

in sci fi we see many desert planets, many without a ocean. Vulcan has small seas, IN REALITY, are they big enough to support life outside of the water?

how do they support their populations, especially those with large, highly advanced ones?

Vulcan would be one advanced planet. Tatooine and Jakku would be examples of sparsely populated desert planets.
Arakis is another

 

[Overmind One]

in sci fi we see many desert planets, many without a ocean. Vulcan has small seas, IN REALITY, are they big enough to support life outside of the water?

how do they support their populations, especially those with large, highly advanced ones?

Vulcan would be one advanced planet. Tatooine and Jakku would be examples of sparsely populated desert planets.
Arakis is another

NO. You are right, such civilizations would not be able to form or be maintained even if they did form. The biological need for water in land dwelling creatures is almost universal. I am certain that when life is found on exo planets, they will be composed of mostly water like it is here on earth. If not water, than some other liquid medium such as liquid nitrogen or methane. Arrakis was shown to have water, even if underground. A major industry on Tatooine was moisture farming. There must be water somewhere on Jakku, considering Rey's advanced swimming skills.

 

[YJ02]

with vulcan, was the planet once greener? was it damaged during the wars of the awakening (is that what it was called?)or was it always as dry as it is?

either way, since they are so technologically advanced, does vulcan have some kind of global apparatus that artificially produces oxygen and other elements of atmosphere that are normally produced by vegetation?

 

[YJ02]

why do so many sci fi shows/films NOT explain how their artificial gravity systems work for their ships?

something like 2001, DS9 and B5 were obvious -well only if you have learned enough in school to know the basics that a spinning motion should create art gravity that is- they were clearly shown spinning or had spinning sections

THE 100 did this too with the space stations (but not the ships). others as well, but the majority of shows DO NOT even cover it

ex- i dont recall any star wars, star trek, BSG, Andromeda, sg1/sga/sgsucks and many others ever showing or discussing this issue

 

[YJ02]

and when inertia dampeners go offline- why dont we see ppl flying at warp speed, into the walls of the ships?

most ppl know when you are in a moving vehicle, if it stops suddenly, and you are not buckled in, your body keeps moving at the former speed of the vehicle. so when the ID's go out, isn't that the same as if a car stopped suddenly and you go through the windshield?

*remember, my purpose in this thread is not to bash or extol or otherwise malign or praise any particular show or movie, just to discuss those things we notice that never seem to get addressed in show

 

[Overmind One]

and when inertia dampeners go offline- why dont we see ppl flying at warp speed, into the walls of the ships?

most ppl know when you are in a moving vehicle, if it stops suddenly, and you are not buckled in, your body keeps moving at the former speed of the vehicle. so when the ID's go out, isn't that the same as if a car stopped suddenly and you go through the windshield?

*remember, my purpose in this thread is not to bash or extol or otherwise malign or praise any particular show or movie, just to discuss those things we notice that never seem to get addressed in show

It is not possible to "stop" in space, even with the concept of inertial dampeners. For some reason, much of scifi treats inertial dampeners as though they stop motion. All they do is negate motion, and that is also not possible without some sort of negative motion to neutralize motion. You can't just "subtract" motion with a device. You have to counter it.

 

[Lord Ba'al]

why do so many sci fi shows/films NOT explain how their artificial gravity systems work for their ships?

something like 2001, DS9 and B5 were obvious -well only if you have learned enough in school to know the basics that a spinning motion should create art gravity that is- they were clearly shown spinning or had spinning sections

THE 100 did this too with the space stations (but not the ships). others as well, but the majority of shows DO NOT even cover it

ex- i dont recall any star wars, star trek, BSG, Andromeda, sg1/sga/sgsucks and many others ever showing or discussing this issue

It's because gravity is a force of nature which can't be generated artificially. At least not with our current level of understanding of such things. We can only come up with ways to use the force of nature to our benefit, such as using spinning motion, but we can't cause a force of nature to come out of nowhere and exist in a way or place it normally wouldn't. So all shows where you see people walking around as if they were on earth in some space based environment which isn't in a spinning motion are essentially bull shit. But of course, we still like our scifi shows, so we are happy to take that with some suspension of disbelief.

 

[Overmind One]

It's because gravity is a force of nature which can't be generated artificially. At least not with our current level of understanding of such things. We can only come up with ways to use the force of nature to our benefit, such as using spinning motion, but we can't cause a force of nature to come out of nowhere and exist in a way or place it normally wouldn't. So all shows where you see people walking around as if they were on earth in some space based environment which isn't in a spinning motion are essentially bull shit. But of course, we still like our scifi shows, so we are happy to take that with some suspension of disbelief.

Bingo (the bolded). Same thing with "stopping" in space. It can't really be done. You can't even mark a "stop" because everything is moving. Inertia can only be dampened by friction or inertial force in the opposite direction. And yeah, you can't generate "artificial gravity" without spinning motion. There may be a way to do it using a different type of spinning motion that acts on the subatomic level, but we are nowhere near being able to understand how that might work yet.

 

[YJ02]

are essentially bull shit. But of course, we still like our scifi shows, so we are happy to take that with some suspension of disbelief.

ok, but that explanation would apply to a lot of what is on screen

i thought the general 'rule' of sci fi was that it had to show processes that were based in current or theoretical science

we cant 'warp' or 'jump' through space or slip into hyperdrive either. nor can we 'transport' or go into subspace or build jumpgates, or, etc,etc,etc

but for these things, in most shows we do get at least a brief explanation of how they work-even if it is bs

 

[YJ02]

but we are nowhere near being able to understand how that might work yet

shouldn't that be where the 'fiction' part comes in?

the writers make something up that is loosely based on the scientifically possible when they collaborate with their science advisors?

 

[Lord Ba'al]

ok, but that explanation would apply to a lot of what is on screen

i thought the general 'rule' of sci fi was that it had to show processes that were based in current or theoretical science

we cant 'warp' or 'jump' through space or slip into hyperdrive either. nor can we 'transport' or go into subspace or build jumpgates, or, etc,etc,etc

but for these things, in most shows we do get at least a brief explanation of how they work-even if it is bs

Yes it does, hence why it's fiction. If it were at all possible, it wouldn't be fiction, it would be fact. The thing is, us humans have this wonderful capacity to imagine things, and we want things, but this doesn't mean we can have what we want. If we don't allow writers to give us random bull shit, we'll be stuck with boring stories. But we want interesting stories. We like to imagine about what lies beyond the boundaries which constrain us. Science fiction lies at the very apex or epitome (or whatever the appropriate word is) of that. If you want stories which stick to reality and what's possible, those stories had better be confined to earth. Because at the moment, that is where our possibilities lie. We are only dipping our toes into the pond as far as outside of earth is concerned. Science fiction writers give us something which is extremely loosely based on the things we currently know and far out visions of where things might lead. It is all very interesting, but it is nowhere near reality. Still, it is our capacity for imagining such things which inspires people to come up with new things and brings progress. We have advanced more in the past few decades than was ever dreamed possible for people in the years before those decades, with some extreme visionaries taken as exceptions. Warp drive is bull shit. Artificial gravity is bull shit. Inertial dampeners are bull shit. Those are all just things/concepts people have come up with to negate problems presented by people with realistic visions. Nevertheless, science fiction has led to progress in real life, because we now have things which were never imagined possible before, which were posited in science fiction long ago. People made these things a reality through hard work. But not everything in science fiction can be made a reality. Some things are just writer's aides and will always remain so. Look to real life people who live and experiment on the boundaries of reality for what is possible and what might come next, like Elon Musk and his vision for example. Not that he is the smartest man on earth, not at all, but he has a vision, and he has the balls and means to go for it. What he is about to do, will bring progress to mankind in ways that are currently indescribable.

 

[YJ02]

i agree, but due to the arguments posted here and there in threads at GF's, I had thought that there was some delineation in sci fi from the orthodox, 'hard' sci fi, from the fantasy laced BS sci fi (like ST vs SG for example)?

there are theories out there-as posted here, on things like the Albucierre (sp?) drive and other tech's that are approaching what warp would be. then there are the things from sci fi shows, once thought bs/fantasy, that are now realities- like wearable communication devices

to me, that is far different from time travel or stargate travel. things like those drive systems seem to be far more attainable then either of those