Speed of Plot
Jan. 22nd, 2014 01:07 pmThe spaceship is racing across the galaxy to prevent the plague spreading off-planet. Will it get there in time...?
My objection is not, "is the speed of the spaceship scientifically accurate?". Nor even, "is it consistent from episode to episode?" That would be nice, but isn't necessary to tell a good story -- look at something like the Simpsons.
If the story doesn't say, but makes it clear that they're cutting it fine, but any one delay will be dangerous and two are disaster, that's fine.
My objection is, when the story doesn't make it clear.
The original StarTrek fudged distance all the time, but normally stayed consistent for the duration of one journey. The reboot oscillated widely where a journey would be months, and then a few minutes later, only take minutes. That meant there was never a sense of urgency except from people screaming: however urgent the next crisis was, there was never a suggestion that getting there in time had anything whatsoever to do with where it was.
Sherlock is really quite consistent 80% of the time. But 20% of the time, (normally to do with electronics) the rules suddenly change completely and become fuelled by magic wishing juice.
Sherlock: $Thing1 is impossible (even though it's possible in the real world).
Sherlock: $Thing2 is possible (even though it's impossible in the real world).
Sherlock: $Thing3 is impossible (even though it's possible in the real world) and $badthing is going to happen unless we do it! Oh no, $badthing! Oh, it turned out it was possible after all. Hahahahahaha, why were you so stupid as to believe that, don't you know it's possible in the real world?[1] Why are you not more emotionally engaged by our escape from inevitable $badthing?
In Captain Vortpatril's Alliance, there are two plot points that were supposedly necessary, but don't really make any sense to me. (Details in forthcoming post.) I don't care about the plot consistency. But it makes a significant difference to the character arcs, which were mostly excellent, whether the characters (a) did something really dangerous and pointless because they're emotionally biased and got rewarded for it or (b) bravely made the least-bad decision in a difficult situation and got through it. It makes a difference whether the stupidity is in the character (someone who gambles people's lives on a stupid idea is really quite awful) or the plotbuilding (someone who comes up with a good plan in the book is doing the right thing, regardless whether the science would work in the real world). But that means I can't engage emotionally as much as I'd like, because I don't know which.
[1] Really.
My objection is not, "is the speed of the spaceship scientifically accurate?". Nor even, "is it consistent from episode to episode?" That would be nice, but isn't necessary to tell a good story -- look at something like the Simpsons.
If the story doesn't say, but makes it clear that they're cutting it fine, but any one delay will be dangerous and two are disaster, that's fine.
My objection is, when the story doesn't make it clear.
The original StarTrek fudged distance all the time, but normally stayed consistent for the duration of one journey. The reboot oscillated widely where a journey would be months, and then a few minutes later, only take minutes. That meant there was never a sense of urgency except from people screaming: however urgent the next crisis was, there was never a suggestion that getting there in time had anything whatsoever to do with where it was.
Sherlock is really quite consistent 80% of the time. But 20% of the time, (normally to do with electronics) the rules suddenly change completely and become fuelled by magic wishing juice.
Sherlock: $Thing1 is impossible (even though it's possible in the real world).
Sherlock: $Thing2 is possible (even though it's impossible in the real world).
Sherlock: $Thing3 is impossible (even though it's possible in the real world) and $badthing is going to happen unless we do it! Oh no, $badthing! Oh, it turned out it was possible after all. Hahahahahaha, why were you so stupid as to believe that, don't you know it's possible in the real world?[1] Why are you not more emotionally engaged by our escape from inevitable $badthing?
In Captain Vortpatril's Alliance, there are two plot points that were supposedly necessary, but don't really make any sense to me. (Details in forthcoming post.) I don't care about the plot consistency. But it makes a significant difference to the character arcs, which were mostly excellent, whether the characters (a) did something really dangerous and pointless because they're emotionally biased and got rewarded for it or (b) bravely made the least-bad decision in a difficult situation and got through it. It makes a difference whether the stupidity is in the character (someone who gambles people's lives on a stupid idea is really quite awful) or the plotbuilding (someone who comes up with a good plan in the book is doing the right thing, regardless whether the science would work in the real world). But that means I can't engage emotionally as much as I'd like, because I don't know which.
[1] Really.