Moff's Law, Genre Expectations, an the MST3K Mantra, Part II
‘If you're wondering how he eats and breathes / And other science facts / Then repeat to yourself “It's just a show, / I should really just relax.”’
-MysteryScience Theater 3000 theme song
‘First of all, when we analyze art, when we look for deeper meaning in it, we are enjoying it for what it is. Because that is one of the things about art, be it highbrow, lowbrow, mainstream, or avant-garde: Some sort of thought went into its making — even if the thought was, “I’m going to do this as thoughtlessly as possible”! — and as a result, some sort of thought can be gotten from its reception.’-Excerpted from the glorious rant which spawned Moff’s Law
(Yes, I reposted the quotes up top for easy access)
The other day, I saw a cranky review of the new Star Trek movie (which I highly recommend, by the way), which took issue with the unrealistic science goings-on in the movie. My very first 'gut' reaction was 'lighten up! It's Star Trek!'. Now, as someone who does pick on sci-fi stories for sloppy science research, and goes nuts on historical fiction stories which get things wrong, this is admittedly a bit hypocritical. But here's my justification-- Star Trek is it's own self-referential universe, and as I explained in my last post, there's some genre expectations which go along with that. It's A Thing in the world of Star Trek that faster-than-light travel exists, and I accept that as part of the fictional universe. My accuracy peeves are generally about stories which try or claim to represent real-world science, and get it wrong.
That's the key point. Stories always have some interaction with reality, whether decisions about what behaviours or values are 'good' or 'bad', or the subtleties of how characters of different genders or abilities or races are portrayed. Warp drive is something that we accept because it makes the plot go and is one of the built-in features of the Star Trek universe, and discussing whether or not it's 'scientific' is basically an exercise in dismantling suspension of disbelief. However, in areas where the story interacts with the real world-- either by in-universe material or in a more 'meta' way, such as casting decisions-- discussion is totally worthwhile. Stories transmit so much information, whether consciously intended by the creators or not, and we need to think critically about the information we're absorbing.
-MysteryScience Theater 3000 theme song
‘First of all, when we analyze art, when we look for deeper meaning in it, we are enjoying it for what it is. Because that is one of the things about art, be it highbrow, lowbrow, mainstream, or avant-garde: Some sort of thought went into its making — even if the thought was, “I’m going to do this as thoughtlessly as possible”! — and as a result, some sort of thought can be gotten from its reception.’-Excerpted from the glorious rant which spawned Moff’s Law
(Yes, I reposted the quotes up top for easy access)
The other day, I saw a cranky review of the new Star Trek movie (which I highly recommend, by the way), which took issue with the unrealistic science goings-on in the movie. My very first 'gut' reaction was 'lighten up! It's Star Trek!'. Now, as someone who does pick on sci-fi stories for sloppy science research, and goes nuts on historical fiction stories which get things wrong, this is admittedly a bit hypocritical. But here's my justification-- Star Trek is it's own self-referential universe, and as I explained in my last post, there's some genre expectations which go along with that. It's A Thing in the world of Star Trek that faster-than-light travel exists, and I accept that as part of the fictional universe. My accuracy peeves are generally about stories which try or claim to represent real-world science, and get it wrong.
That's the key point. Stories always have some interaction with reality, whether decisions about what behaviours or values are 'good' or 'bad', or the subtleties of how characters of different genders or abilities or races are portrayed. Warp drive is something that we accept because it makes the plot go and is one of the built-in features of the Star Trek universe, and discussing whether or not it's 'scientific' is basically an exercise in dismantling suspension of disbelief. However, in areas where the story interacts with the real world-- either by in-universe material or in a more 'meta' way, such as casting decisions-- discussion is totally worthwhile. Stories transmit so much information, whether consciously intended by the creators or not, and we need to think critically about the information we're absorbing.
No comments have been added yet.
