Write On! :: Comments :: Making Science and Technology Writing Believable

I think that the crux of the problem lies with the fact that most authors believe that because they are creating a fictional work, which is bound to contain some incredible elements, then it is not necessary for them to adhere to the the world of reality in every aspect. This is more prevalent in short media, such as movies and television, but it is true in many cases.

For instance, think of The Matrix. Here, we are presented with a purely unrealistic concept -- that the world around you does not truly exist -- and the writers are content for the story to exist in that realm of fantasy. However, when trying to explain how this could happen, they stay do not travel out of that realm, but rather use the impossible "human energy source" device to fall back on. Physically, it's not even in the realm of possibility to absorb a substantial amount of energy from the human body, but the Wachowski brothers seemed to accept it anyway, simply because the movie was already grounded in fantasy.

The second problem lies in the fact that most writers are lazy individuals (myself included). The old adage is to "write what you know," and people tend to stick to that. However, instead of doing hours of research in order to better understand technology or a philosophy that your writing is dependent upon, you tend to rely on what information you might already know and fudge the details on the rest.

Tom Clancy is one of the hardest working writers alive today. He spends months doing research for each of his books, making sure that each detail is an accurate portrayal of the exact practices of the military or espionage groups. Chuck Palahniuk (the author of Fight Club), is also known for a similar amount of research, although his tends to lean towards quirky information such as ways to create napalm, or methods of removing bloodstains.

Will we ever see the movie writers go to these same lengths to produce their screenplays? Probably not, considering that they cannot even be bothered to completely research events when making a movie "based on a true story" such as JFK. In that example, there were two sources referenced, and no opposing views were even considered. That's not to say that I didn't enjoy Oliver Stone's film, just that I realize it is not an accurate portrayal of the truth, like so many other movies (and various other writings).

-- The world is quiet here.

The "Matrix" is heavily based on the ideas of Descartes, a 17th century philosopher who raised some very important questions regarding knowledge, existence and reality. He was most famous for the phrase "Cogito, ergo sum", or "I think therefore I am", but more importantly, he was heavily into solipsism -- the belief that one's self is the only person in the universe. He argued -- very well, actually -- that the differences between dreams and reality are insignificant. According to Descartes, there is no way to definitively know whether what you are experiencing at a specific moment is a dream or reality.

I'm not trying to defend the film -- honestly, I could give a flying faq -- but the idea that the world (as we perceive it) is not real is not a new one, and (depending on your personal philosophy) not necessarily "out there". I may not buy into the idea of "human batteries" as a feasable foundation for the Matrix, but I thoroughly enjoyed the philosophy behind it. I'll also be the first to agree that the dialog was about as interesting and moving as a dead slug, but it *was* a movie that made people think. If you ask me, I'd rather see more half-assed-but-thought-provoking movies like the Matrix than the typical crap Hollywood puts out.

[ Parent ]

From a philosophical standpoint, The Matrix and its successors are excellent movies. There are few other mainstream films that can provoke quite so much thought out of its viewers. Movies tend to go for blind emotion rather than intelligent thought processes.

I was just using this as an example to point out the technological flaw, that it isn't physically possible to syphon energy out of human bodies. When Morpheus explains this to Neo, he's trying to reach out and grab a little bit of reality for the viewer to tie himself to, but even that is shaky ground.

I, too, enjoy more thought-provoking movies. But then again, I can really get into an occasional stupid comedy. Sometimes we need to laugh for no reason.

-- The world is quiet here.
[ Parent ]

Perhaps, but it doesn't amount to more than some comments over a few too many beers.

I do agree, though, that the dialogue in the movies were wooden. Nah, I'm lying, they are the worst ever commited to film, wooden doesn't cut it.

I'd also like to defend Hollywood; there are movies just as, or even more, thought provoking, way better dialogue and not least also realistic. At this point I should list some movies, so that you all can axe me for my poor taste in movies and daring to call them thought provoking at that:

Oh Brother, Were Art Thou - Ok, perhaps not realistic, but good acting and it made me, and others, think.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest - Actually, not all adaptions made by Hollywood are that bad. How Hollywood this movie was I don't know; I was hardly out of diapers by it's release year.

Se7en - Surprise selection here, it is a movie which I often return to. Morgan Freeman is one of my Fav actors, btw, together with the late Jessica Tandy (both appeared in Driving Miss Daisy).

Well, there are a lot of just as good, and often better movies, out of France, but that ain't Hollywood, and Japan (ain't Hollywood either).

My main point is that I really, really, despise the Matrix movies, they have the most wooden "acting" seen outside abmysal action flicks by action stars (I'd almost go as far as saying something nice about Jan Claude van Damme, Steven Segal or another hopeless action star (I actually like the guy from Rocky and Schwartznegger in a few Philip K. Dick adaptions) whoops, almost forgot a closing bracket, there it is), the dialogue is non-existant; most of the characters preach, they lack any form of humour or self-irony, there aren't any redeeming features of these movies except their special effects, which were waaay dated by the second movie. Ah, ok, there are a few cool costumes in there; no, not the trench coats, and the opening titles of the first movie (the Matrix trade mark green scrolling glyphs) where cool the first time, since we didn't have a clue of what was going to happen.

And I need to tell everyone who has positive stuff to say about the movies, especially about their philsophical bend, that I don't agree, that I strongly disagree. Just to spite everyone I will say that a movie like...Battlefield Earth is better in all respects (philosophy, acting, plot, music, etc), though I haven't seen it. (And if you haven't seen it, don't go see it, spend your money on something better.)

--
When in doubt,
turn around,
cry and shout

spdyvkng - my homepage
[ Parent ]

Even hinting to someone who might be choosing what to watch that Battlefield Earth is a better movie than any of the Matrix films is some kind of a war crime in any fair universe.

Oh, and you should check out the Animatrix. Lightyears better than its parents.
_ "Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light" - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Make a new account