From: seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com   
      
   On 3/7/17 1:12 PM, Doc O'Leary wrote:   
   > For your reference, records indicate that   
   > "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"  wrote:   
   >   
   >> 	Consistency was not what you (or I) were discussing.   
   >   
   > Yes, it is.  It’s the only thing *worth* discussing in a SF context.   
   > It’s what I asserted to be keeping your infinities in check.  You can’t   
   > claim that anything is possible, and then turn around and say it must   
   > be consistent.  If you don’t see that inconsistency in your own   
   > thinking, it makes me wonder if you’re able to see other   
   > inconsistencies in your own world building.   
   >   
   >> But you weren't saying "Look at   
   >> King Kong, they said he could do X and Y and Z, which implies A, but   
   >> then they showed not-A, which is inconsistent", you were saying "look at   
   >> this impossible thing which they failed to explain in real-world terms"   
   >> which isn't "consistency".   
   >   
   > No, I was indeed doing the former.   
      
   	No, you're demanding them spend time on things that really, honestly   
   don't matter to the kind of story they're telling, and demanding it   
   because you have a real-world issue with the kind of story they're telling.   
      
   	If they DID make an attempt to explain it and were inconsistent about   
   that explanation, that would be doing the former. You're doing the   
   latter, saying "I see this real-world problem that I think you should be   
   addressing in your movie" rather than "Okay, Giant Monster is a   
   postulate for the world, moving on".   
      
   	I get that you think it would be *more interesting* to see someone   
   carefully and scientifically explain how a 100-foot-tall ape could   
   exist, and eat, and so on, but that's not the point of the story and it   
   would utterly waste time for them to be doing so, just like spending   
   time explaining where the bathrooms on the Enterprise would be   
   pointless; we assume that the humans go to the bathroom SOMEWHERE but   
   where and how is irrelevant unless the plot demands we know.   
      
   	If a movie or show *CLAIMS* to be hard-SF, then yes, you have a right   
   to demand that they explain anything that appears to be violating known   
   science in an egregious fashion, but no Kaiju (giant monster) movie that   
   I know of has ever made such a claim overtly or even via implication.   
      
      
      
   --   
                         Sea Wasp   
                           /^\   
                           ;;;	   
   Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com  Blog:   
   http://seawasp.livejournal.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)