Christopher
Posted: Jan 18 2003, 06:46 AM
Group: Moderator
Many of us here were drawn to Andromeda because it was a rarity in television, a
science fiction show that actually took the “science” part seriously. The abandonment of that science literacy and intelligence is part of the general deterioration of the show. To help get this new Sci & Tech discussion board going, I thought I’d do an overview of SFTV shows that have managed or bothered to achieve some degree of scientific literacy. I won’t cover movies, since I’m not as familiar with them.
Tom Corbett, Space Cadet: This 1950-55 kids’ show, loosely based on Robert Heinlein’s juvenile novel Space Cadet, was perhaps the first SFTV show to make an effort at plausible science, hiring famous rocket scientist Willy Ley as a consultant. Of course, like all science consultants, Ley had to try to balance good science with the writers’ desire for exciting stories, and the show’s realism was no doubt heavily limited by its budget.
Star Trek in all its forms: Gene Roddenberry believed that SF should be handled no differently than any other period piece, and that SF producers should make the same effort to portray the future authentically as the producer of a Western or a WWII drama should make to represent the past authentically. He consulted with many researchers, engineers and think tanks to try to meet this goal. Of course he had to make concessions for dramatic and budgetary reasons (whooshing spaceships, duplicate Earths), and he and his writers, being laypersons rather than scientists, didn’t always get the details right. Still, TOS was better grounded in science than most shows, and did much to inspire its viewers to learn about science. (I owe my lifelong fascination with space to TOS.)
In Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Roddenberry strove to do even better. His consultants included NASA’s Dr. Jesco von Puttkamer, Isaac Asimov, and Apollo 9 astronaut Rusty Schweickart (as a spacewalking consultant). The film had some fanciful elements, but helped to advance Trek science. Dr. Puttkamer’s technical notes included a warp drive explanation which anticipated the theoretical work of Dr. Miguel Alcubierre some 14 years later.
Subsequent TOS movies abandoned any effort at credible science. Wrath of Khan production designer Joseph R. Jennings speaks on the TWOK Director’s Edition DVD about pushing for scientifically credible approaches and being overruled by director Nicholas Meyer -- although Jennings insists that Meyer’s choice to place drama over science proved correct, given the success of the film.
With TNG, Roddenberry tried to bring good science back, and with the help of advisors such as Rick Sternbach, Michael Okuda and writer/physicist Naren Shankar achieved this goal as well as any SFTV show ever did before Andromeda, though there were still some fanciful elements left over from past Treks. After Roddenberry’s death, the effort put into scientific credibility in Trek began to diminish, as more and more fanciful concepts and imaginary particles worked their way in. DS9, focussing more on political and character stories, didn’t do too much to advance this trend, and in my opinion managed to handle the science fairly well (for instance, in the episode “One Little Ship,” they acknowledged the practical problems of shrinking people, really listening to science advisor Andre Bormanis instead of ignoring his suggestions). But VOY, in search of fresh adventure concepts, pretty much wandered into pure space fantasy. ENT is avoiding VOY’s extreme flights of fancy, but isn’t making much effort at scientific literacy.
Probe: A very short-lived show from the ‘80s, co-created by Isaac Asimov. Parker Stevenson played antisocial genius Austin James, who got dragged into using his scientific knowhow to solve various crimes and crises. Not too memorable, not entirely rigorous in the science, but one of the few shows ever to try.
SeaQuest DSV: In its first season, an unusually science-literate show (aside from the psychic stuff and the ghost story and alien story at the end of the season). And it highlighted a key problem with science literacy in SFTV -- namely, that the general public doesn’t understand what SF is. In the first season of SeaQuest, the producers said, “We’re not doing science fiction, we’re doing plausible extrapolations from known science, technology and sociology” -- which is a pretty good definition of what SF is! Then the new, second-season producers said, “Okay, now we’re going to start doing science fiction,” and they completely abandoned any attempt at credibility or intelligence.
Sliders: In its first season, an unusually science-literate show (sense a pattern?). Creator Tracy Torme demonstrated awareness of the real name for wormholes (Einstein-Rosen bridges) and the Everett “Many-Worlds” model of quantum physics (which can be loosely interpreted to permit the existence of parallel timelines), and various other scientific principles as well. Also, the stories focussed more on alternate histories than more far-out sci-fi concepts. This changed in the second season, when more fanciful concepts worked their way in; and the awful third season was written by people whose idea of science fiction was ripping off old monster movies. The final two seasons on the SciFi Channel were an improvement, moderately science-literate though still with a lot of stretches. An interesting example was a late fourth-season episode where Quinn and Maggie somehow had their minds transferred to an imaginary dimension where time flowed much faster (a fanciful concept), while their bodies rapidly aged in a much more medically credible way than the usual instant wrinkles and white hair (organ failures, jaundice, more internal effects than external).
Stargate SG-1: About a TNG level of science. Sometimes it’s pretty strong on science literacy (it’s the only show I know of other than GRA to use gravitational time dilation as a plot point), but it has its share of real groaners too, along with a full complement of SFTV cliches, and of course it’s based on a hash of scientifically ludicrous, pop- superstition concepts like ancient astronauts and Roswell greys. But it’s built a nicely consistent galactic political/historical framework out of those goofy premises, making it easier to suspend disbelief.
Andromeda: In its original conception, the most scientifically literate SFTV show ever. It gave us a whole new paradigm of SFTV world-building, abandoning decades-old cliches like tractor beams and ray guns and force-fields in favor of cutting-edge concepts like nanotech and string theory. Not only believable, but fresh and different, something we hadn’t seen a hundred times before. The limitations of credible science (like the lack of faster-than-light communication) created new obstacles which challenged the writers to find fresh approaches. (The irony was, many viewers were so used to seeing the bad- science conventions of other shows that they found GRA’s good science implausible.) It tried to move away from bumpy-headed-human aliens to more creative and credible species, though budget limitations would sabotage this attempt. It told us stories that really made us think about the concepts behind the show, that stimulated the richest, liveliest science discussions I’ve ever had online.
Once Robert Wolfe was pushed out, though, we began getting scientifically lame episodes like “Belly of the Beast” and the final version of “Dance of the Mayflies.” In the third season the show’s rules have been forgotten and the usual SF cliches have taken over. Science and technology are merely surface trappings and story conveniences with no depth to them.
The Invisible Man (SciFi): Like SG-1, an implausible premise handled in a plausible way. No other invisibility-themed show or movie has addressed the scientific problems and ramifications of invisibility in such detail. Though it didn’t help much when the second- season premiere brought Bigfoot into it....
Firefly: In general not a science-literate show at all -- it even gets confused about the difference between a solar system and a galaxy -- but it deserves honorable mention for pioneering space shots without sound effects. This is something TOS couldn’t do (though they tried) because the FX shots were relatively crude and needed sound to “sell” them, but Firefly has shown us it can work. Hopefully this will start a new trend.
Ron Moore’s Battlestar Galactica: The original BG was pure space fantasy without a trace of scientific literacy. But Moore’s comments about his reinvention of the series bode well for the science-literate viewer. Judging from them, his philosophy is the same as Roddenberry’s -- that SF should be told just as believably and authentically as any other kind of story. He sounds determined to avoid the cliches and bad science of the past. But there’s no telling if this show will make it beyond the initial miniseries, or if it does, how long it will be able to maintain that standard of credibility. History shows that series which start out trying for credibility are rarely able to maintain it.
I think the problem is that there are very few SFTV producers out there who are knowledgeable or concerned about science. And producers have a way of coming and going. If a show starts out under the guidance of science-savvy producers, a change in producers will probably cause that approach to be abandoned.
So the question is, who out there among TV producers today is concerned with scientific credibility, and/or knowledgeable enough to achieve it? Let’s see, those I can be sure of:
Robert Hewitt Wolfe
Zack Stentz & Ashley Edward Miller
Ronald D. Moore
Naren Shankar
Other TNG/DS9 producers might be on the list -- Michael Piller, Ira Behr, Rene Echevarria, Hans Beimler -- but I’m not sure. I suppose I could count SeaQuest’s Rockne S. O’Bannon and David Kemper, since they’ve proven they’re capable of it; but they’re also responsible for Farscape, which is a brilliant show but has no trace of science literacy. (Ironically physicist Shankar was on its staff for a time.)
But I guess they should go on the list, yes. Even the most science-conscious producers have usually done fantasy as well. Heck, look how many former TNG, DS9 and GRA producers are now on Dead Zone and Twilight Zone.
Maybe SG-1's Brad Wright and Jonathan Glassner (also an Invisible Man vet) could go on the list as well. And Tracy Torme.
Of course, as Farscape and the Zones prove, the ability to do science-savvy shows doesn’t guarantee that a producer will do one. And they also prove, of course, that fantasy is just as valid and potentially good a genre as hard SF. But hard SF has so rarely been done on TV, and when it’s been tried it’s rarely endured. I’m hopeful that the producers listed above will manage to bring us more science-literate SFTV in the years ahead, and give us good stuff to talk about on BBS’s like this one.
--------------------
"The difference of opinion in my community is a divine mercy" – Muhammad
======================================
Una Salus Lillius
Posted: Jan 18 2003, 07:19 AM
Valentineologist
Group: Watchdog
What about Babylon Five and JMS?
--------------------
Stupidity in a woman is...unfeminine.
=======================================
CJ AEGIS
Posted: Jan 18 2003, 08:45 AM
Warship Guru
Group: Member
SeaQuest was to me a series that had a lot of potential to be highly interesting without
ever giving up much plausibility.
Quote
Christopher: Subsequent TOS movies abandoned any effort at credible science. Wrath of
Khan production designer Joseph R. Jennings speaks on the TWOK Director’s Edition DVD about pushing for scientifically credible approaches and being overruled by director Nicholas Meyer -- although Jennings insists that Meyer’s choice to place drama over science proved correct, given the success of the film.
Khan production designer Joseph R. Jennings speaks on the TWOK Director’s Edition DVD about pushing for scientifically credible approaches and being overruled by director Nicholas Meyer -- although Jennings insists that Meyer’s choice to place drama over science proved correct, given the success of the film.
Well I can’t knock TWOK too much on the abandonment of science too much. For once in the entire history of Star Trek the Enterprise actually looked and behaved somewhat like a military vessel. That and Star Trek VI were the only times Star Trek seemed to get at least that right.
Quote
Una Salus Lillius: What about Babylon Five and JMS?
From what I can gather Babylon 5 would be a case of some good and they had some bad. They had far too much of a hang-up on the “superiority” of organic to inorganic technology. That and I think you’d have some serious issues with the design of the Omega Class destroyer besides the fact that the rotating compartment screams shoot me. I would think a round compartment would be more logical than a square one. ??? Though the Starfury Fighter and their manner of maneuvering was refreshing to see.
--------------------
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack." -- Fleet Admiral Nimitz
“Elements of 3rd Fleet reported sunk by Tokyo radio have been salvaged and are retiring in the direction of the Japanese Navy”
-Admiral Bull Halsey
=====================================
Christopher
Posted: Jan 18 2003, 09:42 AM
Quote
What about Babylon Five and JMS?
Good point -- that totally slipped my mind. JMS made a decent effort at credible science in some areas. The use of rotation for artificial gravity, for instance. B5's interior garden is the only representation of an O'Neill-type space habitat I think I've ever seen on TV. The Starfuries and other Earth vessels were rather intelligently designed, so much so that I think NASA actually studied the Starfury design for possible adoption. And the early seasons made a good effort to depict things like explosions in space realistically, though this somewhat gave way to conventional orange fireballs in later seasons.
But there were always some scientifically weaker aspects as well, especially in the medical area. I've always been particularly irritated by JMS's ideas about "life force" transference -- that life is like gas in a tank, that you can prolong or shorten someone's life just by adding to or subtracting from their "life force" reserve, or cure a terminal disease with a "life force" transfusion. Pure gibberish, and in my mind it cancels out a lot of the other smart stuff B5 did.
========================
Christopher
Posted: Jan 18 2003, 09:51 AM
Quote
(CJ AEGIS @ Jan. 18 2003,16:48)
Well I can’t knock TWOK too much on the abandonment of science too much. For once in
the entire history of Star Trek the Enterprise actually looked and behaved somewhat like a military vessel. That and Star Trek VI were the only times Star Trek seemed to get at least that right.
Well I can’t knock TWOK too much on the abandonment of science too much. For once in
the entire history of Star Trek the Enterprise actually looked and behaved somewhat like a military vessel. That and Star Trek VI were the only times Star Trek seemed to get at least that right.
The problem is, it looked and behaved like a 20th-century military vessel, but that included some implausible anachronisms. In fact, maybe the 20th is the wrong century to mention -- from what they said on the DVD, Meyer was trying to do a Horatio Hornblower movie in space, with slow-moving ships firing broadsides at each other. The shot of the dozens of crewmembers pulling up metal grates prior to loading the torpedo was meant to be analogous to rolling out the cannons on an 18th-century warship, which is all nice and stylish, but ludicrously inefficient -- in the time it takes to load one torpedo, the enemy could blow you up five times over.
=============================
DWF
Posted: Jan 18 2003, 09:58 AM
Group: Member
I also think SeaQuest took some turns into fantasy, even in it's first season.
However I do think that you can add, Space: Above And Beyond, and the three pure science sci-fi shows, that the BBC put out in the 70s and 80s, Moonbase 3, Star Cops, and Space Island One.
=============================
Una Salus Lillius
Posted: Jan 18 2003, 10:03 AM
Christopher I pretty much agree about the life essence thing in terms of reality. IIRC
JMS is not a fan of religion but he nevertheless did some significant stories involving religion and the "soul", which to me says he may not be a religion man but that he's quite spiritual.
================================
CJ AEGIS
Posted: Jan 18 2003, 10:34 AM
Quote
:Christopher: The problem is, it looked and behaved like a 20th-century military vessel,
but that included some implausible anachronisms.
but that included some implausible anachronisms.
Well to some degree you have certain constants that are going to remain. The crew responding to general quarters, “clearing” the vessel for combat, and dispatching damage control teams so they are ready for combat. So to be fair it was a fairly valid extrapolation from TOS of how they would ready the vessel in the Star Trek universe.
Quote
In fact, maybe the 20th is the wrong century to mention -- from what they said on the
DVD, Meyer was trying to do a Horatio Hornblower movie in space, with slow-moving ships firing broadsides at each other.
DVD, Meyer was trying to do a Horatio Hornblower movie in space, with slow-moving ships firing broadsides at each other.
I was referring to the internal functions of the ship and the behavior of the crew. The actual combat between the ships as you point out was a little more than ridiculous. Though the Mutara Nebula Battle would be a mix of Napoleonic era tactics with modern nuclear submarines.
Quote
The shot of the dozens of crewmembers pulling up metal grates prior to loading the
torpedo was meant to be analogous to rolling out the cannons on an 18th-century warship, which is all nice and stylish, but ludicrously inefficient -- in the time it takes to load one torpedo, the enemy could blow you up five times over.
torpedo was meant to be analogous to rolling out the cannons on an 18th-century warship, which is all nice and stylish, but ludicrously inefficient -- in the time it takes to load one torpedo, the enemy could blow you up five times over.
That sequence IIRC was well before they actually engaged the Reliant the second time. The grates over the torpedo “tracks” were probably so people could easily move around the torpedo room when the vessel wasn’t in combat. I doubt they picked up the grates and placed them back down every time they sent a torpedo through. Personally I would have gone for recessing it further in the floor or a raised “bridge” over it. As for the actual loading speed of the torpedoes on the track that was extremely slow.
Quote
DWF: However I do think that you can add, Space: Above And Beyond,
Highly trained Marine Fighter Pilots switching between flying fighters and being infantry on a regular basis…

================================
DWF
Posted: Jan 18 2003, 10:52 AM
^^^I don't have a problem with that, they are Marines after all, it's not on Stargate,
where they have Air Force officers, acting like Green Barets. I don't think we've even seen O'Neill keep up his flying time. And we are talking scienctific literacy, since most sci- fi shows are set in the future, who knows what will happen with the military.
================================
Christopher
Posted: Jan 18 2003, 01:36 PM
Quote
(DWF @ Jan. 18 2003,18:01)
I also think SeaQuest took some turns into fantasy, even in it's first season.
However I do think that you can add, Space: Above And Beyond, and the three pure science sci-fi shows, that the BBC put out in the 70s and 80s, Moonbase 3, Star Cops, and Space Island One.
I also think SeaQuest took some turns into fantasy, even in it's first season.
However I do think that you can add, Space: Above And Beyond, and the three pure science sci-fi shows, that the BBC put out in the 70s and 80s, Moonbase 3, Star Cops, and Space Island One.
If you pay attention to my parenthetical comments about SeaQuest, you'll see I did acknowledge its turns into fantasy. I consider those blots on an otherwise exceptionally credible (if not really very good otherwise) season.
I saw Moonbase 3 once and I'm inclined to agree that it was pretty credible for its day. It was the kind of SF show that wasn't about way-out weird science ideas, but was instead a realistic, character-driven drama that just happened to be in a near-future setting. The last episode did stretch things a bit, though, if I recall. I haven't seen those other British shows, so I can't comment.
From what I saw of S:AAB, I wouldn't put it in the hard-science category. I don't remember any specific bad science, but I don't remember any good science either.
============================
Uncle Sid
Posted: Jan 18 2003, 01:41 PM
I hate you, Milkman Dan
Group: Member
Quote
Firefly: In general not a science-literate show at all -- it even gets confused about the
difference between a solar system and a galaxy -- but it deserves honorable mention for pioneering space shots without sound effects.
difference between a solar system and a galaxy -- but it deserves honorable mention for pioneering space shots without sound effects.
Firefly was interesting. I'm not sure that they were science-illiterate, not completely so anyway, instead, I think they made a decision to simply not get into it. However, when they did do it, they tried to get it right.
The most glaring wierdness about the science on Firefly was the opening credits where it sounded like they were doing all of the action inside one solar system. However, they did change the opening voiceover from talking about a solar system to a galaxy later in the series.
The other thing that they did was admit that they needed oxygen to fire a projectile from one of Jayne's guns in space, and so, used a spacesuit. Aside from concerns about how a weapon could be fired accurately that way, and also why a starship doesn't have any space-ready weaponry like a rail gun aboard, it was an example of them attempting to do space literacy in bite-sized chunks that didn't subordinate the story to the technology.
As far as B5 goes, I'd have to agree with the complaints about the "life force" biology as well as the energy being issues. However, I think JMS was faced with trying to effectively portray ancient races that had extremely powerful technologies and really coming up short on realistic ideas. Want to show what a highly evolved race looks like? Make it an "energy being". Want to show super-weaponry? Make a pink cutting beam weapon or lightning bolts. Cool ships? Well make them alive and at least semi- sentient. Still, since we haven't the slightest clue what a million year old race would have in terms of tech, it seems to me that some of B5's liberties as far as science are forgiveable.

============================
Rhys
Posted: Jan 18 2003, 03:07 PM
Space Madness Victim
Group: Moderator
One of the coolest things, in this regards, on Firefly was the complete silence in space
scenes. Lots of shows have acknowledged that that's the "right" way to do things, but it's tough to do that when you're doing a lot of big space battles (it's even in the Andromeda show bible).
I think Firefly could get away with it easier because they weren't doing big space battles every week - but even the big explosion-type shots made it work really well.
I'm gonna miss that show.

Rhys
--------------------
I'll start a revolution... if I can get up in the morning.
===========================
Uncle Sid
Posted: Jan 18 2003, 04:41 PM
Quote
(Rhys @ Jan. 18 2003,23:10)
I'm gonna miss that show.
I'm gonna miss that show.
Yeah, me too. Really the only things I'm looking forward to now are finally being able to see the remaining ZackAsh episodes on Andromeda and the upcoming second season of Jeremiah.
Still, Joss and Co. apparently have something in the works, although networks are out of it at this point. There's even been talk of direct to DVD, but I don't know how realistic that is. Syndication is probably out due to the soft market and inability to maintain the network-grade production values or the actors with a syndication budget.

==========================
MuseZack
Posted: Jan 18 2003, 04:57 PM
Group: Demigod
Christopher:
You might be interested to know that we've gotten together with David Brin and come other people and are in the process of organizing a summit/workshop/conference this summer on the topic of putting the science back in science fiction television. We'll keep you all posted as it progresses (it'll probably be held at USC this summer).
Zack
===========================
Appreciate
Posted: Jan 18 2003, 05:07 PM
Coffee-holic
Group: Admin
Wow, Zack, that sounds so awesome!!!!
What a rush to work with authors like David Brin! I totally loved World Con last year, where he and a whole mess of other authors spoke about all kinds of writing and Sci Fi topics.
I look forward to hearing more about this con!
Kathy

PS This kind of dialogue is *exactly* what I was hoping would come to this section when I passed on Christopher's suggestion. Thank you all for being here!!!
--------------------
Read John Burke's great new fic Kodiak Empire!!!
Edited by Christopher, 02 March 2003 - 11:40 PM.