[002]
DannyM
Current Version
Changed line(s) 18 from:
n
The Lost Room: ?? Where do you place fantastic Minovskis? They\'re largely unrelated to \
to:
The Lost Room: ?? Where do you place fantastic Minovskis? They\\\'re largely unrelated to \\\"science\\\".
Hmm... the things I might want to note here:
Good or bad writing is NOT what the MohsScale is about, but the orientation of the writing\\\'s adherence to science. Bad character design and plot flow do not lower its score, nor does plot excellence raise it. We all love Star Wars- but it\\\'s scientifically weak.
Likewise, writing being groundbreaking and original does not boost its hardness over cheaper copycats pulling the same ideas.
Trope execution does matter. If you establish a rule and later ignore it completely- say establish that ships use fuel, then have a ship travel 10x longer than previous fuel-limited trips, never stop for fuel, and simply ignore that it shouldn\\\'t be possible- then you\\\'re no longer as Hard.
What I\\\'m unsure of is how the aesthetic itself bears on its Mohs score. Star Trek TNG seems absurdly \\\"clean\\\" for a functioning vessel. Star Wars\\\' visible industrial machinery SEEMS harder to me. Firefly\\\'s does that well, too. Steampunk is machine-oriented too. These are aesthetic decisions, and maybe they have no bearing on hardness. Steampunk is rarely strongly science-based.
I\\\'m gonna suggest that you can actually list tropes over a range:
ExplosionsInSpace can never score you higher than 5
RidiculouslyHumanRobots can never score you higher than 4, except maybe old \\\"classic\\\" scifi where convincing nonhuman robots were simply impractical to put on film.
I do think the principle requires reference examples to be established. Mohs scale of mineral hardness did not actually use units, only empirical examples of superior hardness. Thus the scale lacks units, is neither linear nor exponential nor any other mathematical construct, and its rise with every +1 is a very inconsistent increase; the only guarantee is that something that scratches the prototype for one data point will always scratch those of lower number, and once you find the point prototype that scratches the sample, then higher point samples will always scratch it. There is no basis for scoring anything between points, since the scale is not established, one cannot empirically measure \\\"5.3\\\" for example, only \\\"more than 5 and less than 6\\\" and \\\"more than another material I found between 5 and 6\\\" Hmm, Mohs scale of mineral hardness itself is NOT very scientific!
Notable observation: Sequels lose 1-2 pts of hardness in almost every instance where you\\\'e above, like, a four. 2010 being a rare exception. Or is it? The dead-guy-turned-god seems like it should lose 1/2 a point right there. StarWars lost no hardness because it wasn\\\'t hard enough to begin with to make it difficult to write/mass-market a sequel.
Hmm... the things I might want to note here:
Good or bad writing is NOT what the MohsScale is about, but the orientation of the writing\\\'s adherence to science. Bad character design and plot flow do not lower its score, nor does plot excellence raise it. We all love Star Wars- but it\\\'s scientifically weak.
Likewise, writing being groundbreaking and original does not boost its hardness over cheaper copycats pulling the same ideas.
Trope execution does matter. If you establish a rule and later ignore it completely- say establish that ships use fuel, then have a ship travel 10x longer than previous fuel-limited trips, never stop for fuel, and simply ignore that it shouldn\\\'t be possible- then you\\\'re no longer as Hard.
What I\\\'m unsure of is how the aesthetic itself bears on its Mohs score. Star Trek TNG seems absurdly \\\"clean\\\" for a functioning vessel. Star Wars\\\' visible industrial machinery SEEMS harder to me. Firefly\\\'s does that well, too. Steampunk is machine-oriented too. These are aesthetic decisions, and maybe they have no bearing on hardness. Steampunk is rarely strongly science-based.
I\\\'m gonna suggest that you can actually list tropes over a range:
ExplosionsInSpace can never score you higher than 5
RidiculouslyHumanRobots can never score you higher than 4, except maybe old \\\"classic\\\" scifi where convincing nonhuman robots were simply impractical to put on film.
I do think the principle requires reference examples to be established. Mohs scale of mineral hardness did not actually use units, only empirical examples of superior hardness. Thus the scale lacks units, is neither linear nor exponential nor any other mathematical construct, and its rise with every +1 is a very inconsistent increase; the only guarantee is that something that scratches the prototype for one data point will always scratch those of lower number, and once you find the point prototype that scratches the sample, then higher point samples will always scratch it. There is no basis for scoring anything between points, since the scale is not established, one cannot empirically measure \\\"5.3\\\" for example, only \\\"more than 5 and less than 6\\\" and \\\"more than another material I found between 5 and 6\\\" Hmm, Mohs scale of mineral hardness itself is NOT very scientific!
Notable observation: Sequels lose 1-2 pts of hardness in almost every instance where you\\\'e above, like, a four. 2010 being a rare exception. Or is it? The dead-guy-turned-god seems like it should lose 1/2 a point right there. StarWars lost no hardness because it wasn\\\'t hard enough to begin with to make it difficult to write/mass-market a sequel.
Changed line(s) 8 from:
n
Matrix: 5 (the philosophy was fairly coherent, but the science was silly; human bodies are not a SOURCE of electricity. Ideas of reality being an illusion of perception are scientifically relevant)
to:
Solaris: 5.5
Firefly: 5 (frequently limited by real-world machinery issues, transit time)
Matrix: 4 (the philosophy was fairly coherent, but the science was silly; human bodies are not a SOURCE of electricity. Ideas of reality being an illusion of perception are scientifically relevant. Once we start introducing underground cities the robots can\\\'t find, hoverships they couldn\\\'t build, and geothermal power than would have bypassed the machines\\\' need to farm human energy, it softens up far more)
Firefly: 5 (frequently limited by real-world machinery issues, transit time)
Matrix: 4 (the philosophy was fairly coherent, but the science was silly; human bodies are not a SOURCE of electricity. Ideas of reality being an illusion of perception are scientifically relevant. Once we start introducing underground cities the robots can\\\'t find, hoverships they couldn\\\'t build, and geothermal power than would have bypassed the machines\\\' need to farm human energy, it softens up far more)
Changed line(s) 16 from:
n
The Lost Room: ?? Where do you place fantastic Minovskis? They\'re largely unrelated to \
to:
The Lost Room: ?? Where do you place fantastic Minovskis? They\\\'re largely unrelated to \\\"science\\\".
Hmm... the things I might want to note here:
Good or bad writing is NOT what the MohsScale is about, but the orientation of the writing\\\'s adherence to science. Bad character design and plot flow do not lower its score, nor does plot excellence raise it. We all love Star Wars- but it\\\'s scientifically weak.
Likewise, writing being groundbreaking and original does not boost its hardness over cheaper copycats pulling the same ideas.
Trope execution does matter. If you establish a rule and later ignore it completely- say establish that ships use fuel, then have a ship travel 10x longer than previous fuel-limited trips, never stop for fuel, and simply ignore that it shouldn\\\'t be possible- then you\\\'re no longer as Hard.
What I\\\'m unsure of is how the aesthetic itself bears on its Mohs score. Star Trek TNG seems absurdly \\\"clean\\\" for a functioning vessel. Star Wars\\\' visible industrial machinery SEEMS harder to me. Firefly\\\'s does that well, too. Steampunk is machine-oriented too. These are aesthetic decisions, and maybe they have no bearing on hardness. Steampunk is rarely strongly science-based.
I\\\'m gonna suggest that you can actually list tropes over a range:
ExplosionsInSpace can never score you higher than 5
RidiculouslyHumanRobots can never score you higher than 4, except maybe old \\\"classic\\\" scifi where convincing nonhuman robots were simply impractical to put on film.
I do think the principle requires reference examples to be established. Mohs scale of mineral hardness did not actually use units, only empirical examples of superior hardness. Thus the scale lacks units, is neither linear nor exponential nor any other mathematical construct, and its rise with every +1 is a very inconsistent increase; the only guarantee is that something that scratches the prototype for one data point will always scratch those of lower number, and once you find the point prototype that scratches the sample, then higher point samples will always scratch it. There is no basis for scoring anything between points, since the scale is not established, one cannot empirically measure \\\"5.3\\\" for example, only \\\"more than 5 and less than 6\\\" and \\\"more than another material I found between 5 and 6\\\" Hmm, Mohs scale of mineral hardness itself is NOT very scientific!
Notable observation: Sequels lose 1-2 pts of hardness in almost every instance. 2010 being a rare exception. Or is it? The dead-guy-turned-god seems like it should lose 1/2 a point right there.
Hmm... the things I might want to note here:
Good or bad writing is NOT what the MohsScale is about, but the orientation of the writing\\\'s adherence to science. Bad character design and plot flow do not lower its score, nor does plot excellence raise it. We all love Star Wars- but it\\\'s scientifically weak.
Likewise, writing being groundbreaking and original does not boost its hardness over cheaper copycats pulling the same ideas.
Trope execution does matter. If you establish a rule and later ignore it completely- say establish that ships use fuel, then have a ship travel 10x longer than previous fuel-limited trips, never stop for fuel, and simply ignore that it shouldn\\\'t be possible- then you\\\'re no longer as Hard.
What I\\\'m unsure of is how the aesthetic itself bears on its Mohs score. Star Trek TNG seems absurdly \\\"clean\\\" for a functioning vessel. Star Wars\\\' visible industrial machinery SEEMS harder to me. Firefly\\\'s does that well, too. Steampunk is machine-oriented too. These are aesthetic decisions, and maybe they have no bearing on hardness. Steampunk is rarely strongly science-based.
I\\\'m gonna suggest that you can actually list tropes over a range:
ExplosionsInSpace can never score you higher than 5
RidiculouslyHumanRobots can never score you higher than 4, except maybe old \\\"classic\\\" scifi where convincing nonhuman robots were simply impractical to put on film.
I do think the principle requires reference examples to be established. Mohs scale of mineral hardness did not actually use units, only empirical examples of superior hardness. Thus the scale lacks units, is neither linear nor exponential nor any other mathematical construct, and its rise with every +1 is a very inconsistent increase; the only guarantee is that something that scratches the prototype for one data point will always scratch those of lower number, and once you find the point prototype that scratches the sample, then higher point samples will always scratch it. There is no basis for scoring anything between points, since the scale is not established, one cannot empirically measure \\\"5.3\\\" for example, only \\\"more than 5 and less than 6\\\" and \\\"more than another material I found between 5 and 6\\\" Hmm, Mohs scale of mineral hardness itself is NOT very scientific!
Notable observation: Sequels lose 1-2 pts of hardness in almost every instance. 2010 being a rare exception. Or is it? The dead-guy-turned-god seems like it should lose 1/2 a point right there.
