1) Joking aside, there's actually something illustrative in here when he talks about "bad science".
Our challenge writing sci-fi is not in explaining nuances to the audience. Our challenge is explaining science to EXECUTIVES. The dumbed down version is often for THEM, not YOU.
Our challenge writing sci-fi is not in explaining nuances to the audience. Our challenge is explaining science to EXECUTIVES. The dumbed down version is often for THEM, not YOU.
2) Execs are often a) scientifically illiterate and b) assume the audience is dumber than they are. So you get the "this is wrong, but it's the version they'd let us do" in a lot of sci-fi.
3) Or at least you did *back in the day*. What's been fascinating is watching the rise of nerd, or science geek directors, who can protect the complexity of ideas a bit more. Because execs listen to directors. They do not listen to writers.
4) Also different in TV, where the writer is king, and you have a longer period of time as a showrunner to get to know your execs, more time sell your ideas to both the execs and to the audience, and can't be fired at will and replaced with another writer (usually).
5) This is why we must crush the rise of the showrunning TV director RUTHLESSLY -- sorry, tangent. Anyway, I am glad the culture's changed. And I won the fight about the dinosaurs. And @BadAstronomer is a mensch.
