I think you’ve misunderstood John’s point.

It’s not that you don’t need to figure out how stuff works – that WOULD be lazy writing, and I agree that “Because they’re aliens, whatever!” is oftena bad sign.

However, Jurassic Park doesn’t need to explain molecular biology, errors in DNA replication as sources of mutation, gene therapy through foreign vectors, and spell out the genome of both the dinosaurs and frogs involved, in order to have you understand what’s going on. I think that’s closer to what John’s getting at.

You’re right, we do care how a given [whatever] works. I think John would agree. But we only care insofar as it goes with the story. That doesn’t mean that the [whatever] only needs to cover story functions (a la Flux Capacitor) – you can make detailed, researched, plausible [whatever] (a la Sunshine), but we only need to know some of those details.

Plotholes are just that – plotholes. They are apparent, and annoying, because they disturb the plot. Horror movies are the most frequent victim of these expository plotholes: In THE EYE (remake and original), we’re never told why the cornea transplants which allow the heroine to see ghosts also lets her hear and talk to them. Because the entire movie is about this premise, it’s a plothole. Because all of E.T. is about him escaping The Cold-Hearted Scientists, the fact that his abilities to escape them are inconsistent, is another.

The details of Jurassic Park’s genetics, isn’t (even though they don’t stand up to even the most basic genetic analysis).

I think audiences do care how it works. If you don’t show them or intimate it, the story world becomes unbelievable. But then you will find films that are wholly ridiculous, such as the upcoming ‘Speed Racer’ where it seems that anything goes. So I guess some people like to switch their brains off.

Maybe it’s ultimately one of those decisions you make as a writer or film maker that determines the sort of film maker you’re going to be, one that stays within the story world or one that breaks it.

You mention that the audience doesn’t care how a device works, but with the trend for shows like CSI, surely there is a trend where the audience is expecting to have the science of the hunt explained to them?

The Jurassic Park snippet is a great example. The film-makers HAD to explain how it was possible for dinosaurs to exist in the modern day, because the audience truly cared. If the audience didn’t care, they could have skipped the entire scene. (And I was bothered that it didn’t explain how they had prehistoric extinct plants as well … when the main character had just commented on how it was impossible to have those plants a few moments earlier!)

Perhaps this is a golden opportunity for film marketers, who are struggling trying to get the web to tie in with the rest of their marketing efforts. The film makers can have websites for the geeks who truly care about the technology to have happy, long-winded debates .. a great opportunity for cross-platform media.

Perhaps Arthur C Clarke’s death truly means the death of hard sci-fi. He was famous for including orbital calculations with one of his stories (Jupiter Five) to demonstrate how it was technically plausible.

A webpage is the perfect place for those orbital calculations …

Mac

Andre, I also write for a living. I’ve been in this industry 20 years. I’ve seen a lot. But this isn’t a cock waving exercise. I’ve got no wish to correspond with you. We have a difference of opinion, obviously and come from different perspectives. Let’s leave it at that.

Which ‘two’?

I mentioned DVD, Cable, TV sales in the piece, explictly, as well as Airline sales (you forgot that one). I mean, the thing has been up and printed for months already. It’s not like I could go back and amend it with each new ‘point’ you bring up! Like most self important, nightmarishly amateur mouthpieces who can’t grasp the simple mechanics of making an argument you didn’t read the article properly and then make your witless points on things that I had already explained in the piece. I plainly explained WHY I chose to focus on box office in the first instance, idiot. Did you just choose to ignore that as well or are you just hoping to fire off enough arrows to see if any hit? If your experiences with the UK industry are different then fantastic. Mine are as stated. I’ve worked in this industry in one form or another for over a decade. I’ve written about what I’ve observed and how I feel about it. I pitched it to the editor and he printed it. What the hell is wrong with that? Many others I’ve talked to feel the same. Many don’t. What rational people do not do is stamp their feet like some feckless child, raising unsubstantiated and/or unsupported objections as though what they are really afraid of is washing the dirty linen in public. What is typical of your type is that if someone else independently comes to a similiar conclusion you seek to catergorize them in the same way. Funny that. Only you can be right, huh? You seem determinded to cast me as a bitter man, rejection letters bowing the floor of my attic, firing off attack pieces in all directions, conveniently ignoring the other article I linked to about a completely unrelated subject within film. If it works for your ego then cool and don’t let the fact that I was also paid for that one, and many others, impact on that at all, ok?

Notwithstanding, I have integrity enough to place a question mark above the funding for ‘Sunshine’. It is quite possible I missed a portion of foreign investment. I will check it aagin. But while I’m at it, let me give you a newsflash, superstar, it’s not people like you that will create a successful industry it will be those same tabloid readers you’re so keen to insult who go to the cinema in their millions every weekend, spending their money watching, all too often, everything but the UK films offered to them by the industry.