Memeish: Lets talk about bad Fantasy or Sci Fi ideas

[roseembolism]

This discussion is about the conflict between logic and rationality.  It's about the situation where the writer or artist comes up with something really cute, and suddenly the logical part of one's brain says "Hey, wait a minute: did you really think this through?" Let's talk about those lovely ideas where the creator obviously didn't think about the consequences.

Here's my favorite example of "Did not think things through": Winged Cats:



Thank you M. Pena.

Aww, what could be cuter and more fantastical than putting wings on your favorite fuzzface! Wouldn't it wonderful to see them flying around!

But wait a minute, says the left side of my brain: even leaving aside bone and muscular issues, consider what giving wings to a cat would really mean. Cat's are voracious and very effective predators; consider what it would mean for the ecology if all of a sudden birds and other animals couldn't hide their young from cats. That's right- the extinction of most birds and other tree dwelling creatures! Ecological catastrophe!

So, good idea in concept, really bad idea in implementation. Now, what ideas have you stumbled across where the creator didn't consider the consequences? Anybody?

Comments

[mithriltabby]

Winged cats do have their place in cryptozoology. And I think I recall some one-panel cartoon from 20–30 years ago with a couple of scientists, one holding a winged kitten and the other saying, “You realize, if they get out, they’ll devastate the local bird population.”

[jadecat9.livejournal.com]

http://boingboing.net/2008/08/28/winged-cats-discover.html

[seawasp]

The birds wouldn't go extinct; they'd just evolve behaviors appropriate. Such as becoming PIRHANAS OF THE AIR!!!! Some smaller flock birds actually do this; I've watched them chase a hawk that outmassed any six of them and harry it until it flew far, far away to escape.

[roseembolism.livejournal.com]

Well, assuming that they'd have time enough to evolve, I think that falls into the "solution is worse than the problem" category.

[digitalsidhe.livejournal.com]

Star Trek's transporter is one of the best examples I can think of for "idea whose creator didn't think through the consequences". Gene Roddenberry invented the thing because Trek was supposed to be a fast-paced, action-adventure series; he wanted to keep things moving, and not get bogged down in "then we have to show them taking a shuttlecraft down to the surface... and then, crap, we've wasted how many minutes of airtime?"

But it famously opened up huge numbers of complications, none of which were ever adequately explored. You can cure any disease, including aging. You can cure any injury... up to and including total disintegration; just reconstitute the person from their last transporter record. Scarcity goes out the window; you can duplicate anything. (Sure, Trek did occasionally make noises about having done away with money... but it showed people buying things, with any medium ranging from "credits" to "gold-pressed latinum" far more often. The more we saw of commerce in Federation-controlled space, the more it looked like commerce has always looked in our scarcity-driven economies.)

The thing is, the "problem" Roddenberry was trying to solve didn't even exist. His example was that with the transporter, you'd simply have Kirk say, "Spock, Chekov, come with me. We're beaming down to the planet." Then HARD CUT to the transporter room where we show the three stepping onto the transporter platform, Kirk says, "Energize, Scotty", they disappear in a bunch of sparkles, and then we HARD CUT again to the surface of the planet to see them appear.

But if you have shuttlecraft, you just do the same sequence with slightly different details. You start with a HARD CUT to the hangar bay, where Kirk and the others are stepping into the shuttlecraft. If Kirk needs to say anything to Scotty, this is the time for it: "If you don't hear from us in three hours, call Starfleet Command," or whatever. Then cut to a standard shot of the shuttle flying away from the Enterprise; that takes about the same time as the transporter sparkle shot. Then show us the three heroes stepping out of the shuttle on the planet's surface.

If the audience can adjust to understanding that the crewmembers have teleported down to the planet's surface with only 15 seconds' worth of visual exposition (because after all, they do this every week), they can just as easily accept that the crewmembers have flown a shuttlecraft down to the surface with only 15 seconds' worth of visual exposition. (After all, they do do this every week.)

I think Roddenberry screwed up in even thinking that there was a problem that required the transporter to solve it in the first place. But Roddenberry had more experience producing TV shows than I do. Maybe he knew something I don't?

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

There's also that even with a transporter, the problems only come from how the transporter is described as working. If it's just a teleport, or wormhole shunt like the Culture's Displacers, or even a sufficiently quantum waveform thingy, none of the usual problems arise. Of course, neither do the dumber malfunctions.

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

My favorite is prosaic: long hair. This shouldn't be rocket science, as long hair actually EXISTS, in this universe, in today's world. But the people who write it have obviously never had it. (Ditto for female attributes, depending on size of same and laziness of author.)

Also, yeah, I do roll my eyes at four-legged creatures who also have wings. I've studied evolutionary biology, yo. And mammalian and avian anatomy. Tell me how these things all go together and I'll suspend my disbelief; otherwise, I'll perceive the writer as lazy and my eyes will start with the rolling.