Ponderables - SF movie/series division

[Jeeves]

Do you disagree with the logic in post 25?

Only in that it doesn't apply. Certainly, if doors clenched like two fists, they might stop a punch better than two palms. But the interlocking as illustrated by Michael isn't any more protective against a fist than flat palms. I translated the "punch" in scale as a battering-ram, which you agreed wouldn't be used in a spaceship. A phaser, which might be used in a spaceship, wouldn't care if it burned through straight edges or toothy edges or solid walls.

I didn't say 'generic'.

No, but you implied a similarity of all spaceship-y-ness.

I meant spaceship-y as opposed to crew-comfort-y things. i.e. crew comfort take a back seat to spaceship functionality.

What I'm objecting to are
1. non-functionality
2. inconsistency with the stated purpose of the vessel
3. unnecessary complication which would add to the operating cost and detract from the safety of any vessel.

With illogical assumptions, you will, for example, expect crew-centric doors.

I didn't. Crew comfort was very low on my priorities.
You brought up life-and-death situations in which a fast-closing mechanical door makes sense. I do not see the practicality of putting vault-like doors on living quarters. They add a huge amount of weight to the ship without adding to structural strength. From a purely engineering pov, a skinny perspex sheet that slides over a wall, rather than into it makes more sense than making two fat pockets inside the wall on either side of an opening. If you wanted extra strength, have two layers, inside and outside the cabin, so that the door forms an envelope over the wall, instead of the other way around. Less piercing of bulkheads the better, no?
I brought up one situation in which a manually operated door would make sense. I briefly mentioned another: energy saving. Like when you're running so low on power that you turn off life-support to all but one deck - in which case, either all doors are sealed shut or stuck open. How's that logical?
The logic of a war-ship is different from the logic of a freighter is different from the logic of an orbiting repair station.

I can't really speak to specific examples unless we present them here for analysis. We've been speaking in general terms.

I mentioned particulars. Was always into specifics.

[how fiction and suspension of disbelief works] You can't assume your assumptions are fact and then accuse the show of not being faithful to your assumptions.

Stating my opinion as the interested audience.

And if he wants to remind you that you're on a spaceship or station, and not in a villa on Earth, the dressings should look like the primary function of the craft is to survive space and do action-y, tension-y things - not to make the crew comfortable.

When did I mention comfort? I did say people are supposed to be living on exploration ships and space stations. The next generation Enterprise certainly does look spacious (wastefully so) and comfortable, with no stupid doors. I'm okay with that.
I did say that, functionally, bedrooms and offices don't need to be outfitted like tanks or bank-vaults, and that doors on anything should have a manual option - if only in case of a slow leak of something.

 

[Michael 345]

Crew comfort was very low on my priorities

Check out Red Dwarf

Most exotic item in the two bed bunk for Dave and Rimmer is the talking toaster

 

[Jeeves]

Check out Red Dwarf

Most exotic item in the two bed bunk for Dave and Rimmer is the talking toaster

Yeh, but the only sci-fi series made on a smaller budget was the original Doctor Who*
(*I'm happy they kept the plungers and egg-beaters in the mega-budget series.)

 

[Michael 345]

Yeh, but the only sci-fi series made on a smaller budget was the original Doctor Who*
(*I'm happy they kept the plungers and egg-beaters in the mega-budget series.)

Now there is a Spacecraft (?) with a very economical use of doors

 

[DaveC426913]

Only in that it doesn't apply. Certainly, if doors clenched like two fists, they might stop a punch better than two palms. But the interlocking as illustrated by Michael isn't any more protective against a fist than flat palms. I translated the "punch" in scale as a battering-ram, which you agreed wouldn't be used in a spaceship. A phaser, which might be used in a spaceship, wouldn't care if it burned through straight edges or toothy edges or solid walls.

I think part of the issue we're facing here is where the onus belongs in terms of plausibility.

In my view, since we are only guessing at tech and design and function, we are obliged to give as much benefit of the doubt as possible. As long as we say 'well, I can make a case for X', we have met the burden of plausibility.

I get the feeling that, in your view, it's the opposite. That the show must make its case sufficient to our liking - and if something doesn't look right to us, that's the show's shortcoming.

Both you an Michael are looking for the worst case, not the best case. i.e if not presented with a solution that you can't refute, you assume it's not a good enough answer.

I guess my "hands" analogy, above, was too clumsy .

Here's better: doors with teeth are (often) indeed stronger:

 

[Jeeves]

Now there is a Spacecraft (?) with a very economical use of doors

A latch-key... ? Hey, that could work!

 

[Jeeves]

I think part of the issue we're facing here is where the onus belongs in terms of plausibility.

Yes. I find that anything jarringly silly or implausible distracts me from the story they're trying to tell. Again, just as loyal audience, I'm asking the producers to respect my intelligence, as well as to show me a picture consistent with the narrative.

In my view, since we are only guessing at tech and design and function, we are obliged to give as much benefit of the doubt as possible.

No, we're not. They are obliged to present a fiction with which we can engage.

As long as we say 'well, I can make a case for X', we have met the burden of plausibility.

Only, I don't think you have entirely made that case. I can just about buy the teeth - should some improbable force ever push against the center of a door that didn't need two parts in the first place. (Always assuming that the spaceship doors also have those over-under flanges. Because, if the teeth butt up against each other's flat edge, pushing at the central two teeth would be more - not less - effective than pushing against a straight-edged door.)

That the show must make its case sufficient to our liking - and if something doesn't look right to us, that's the show's shortcoming.

Obviously. I'm the one suffering through hours of car/hotel/shampoo ads, or shelling out $150 for the DVD's

Both you an Michael are looking for the worst case, not the best case. i.e if not presented with a solution that you can't refute, you assume it's not a good enough answer.

Not really. That is, I didn't go out of my way to find fault - I love B5 and DS9, Doctor Who (some DW's) Star Trek, Voyager, and Galaxy Quest... practically everything since War of the Worlds I (1950's - first sf movie I ever saw... in Technicolor!!)
Just mentioned, for fun, something that irked me... when I was just sitting there, innocently vegging out in front of my screen, bothering nobody.

 

[DaveC426913]

OK. I gave it my best shot. You're not convinced. And that's OK.

 

[Jeeves]

Happy Transported Prisoner Day!

 

[Sarkus]

Yeh, but the only sci-fi series made on a smaller budget was the original Doctor Who*
(*I'm happy they kept the plungers and egg-beaters in the mega-budget series.)

I think you’re missing out on a lot of low-budget stuff if you think that is the case, the obvious one being Blake’s 7... classic BBC sci-fi fare.

 

[Jeeves]

I think you’re missing out on a lot of low-budget stuff if you think that is the case, the obvious one being Blake’s 7... classic BBC sci-fi fare.

There's a limited amount of old BBC stuff available in Canada. Even if I were looking for it, which I haven't. Whatever gets washed up on the shores of the daytime wasteland when I have lunch is what I watch. These days, it's crazy English couples renovating French chateaux. (Whoda thunk there are so many sitting empty!)

 

[sideshowbob]

These days, it's crazy English couples renovating French chateaux. (Whoda thunk there are so many sitting empty!)

 

[Michael 345]

I think you’re missing out on a lot of low-budget stuff if you think that is the case, the obvious one being Blake’s 7... classic BBC sci-fi fare.

Remember the title

No idea or memory of anything else about the series although I am sure have seen some episodes

Seen episode one of Avenue 5. Seems OK and will watch a few more to see how it develops