2 ms·
>>Now, any biologists worth their salt would cringe at many scenes [in Jurassic World]. Jurassic World is science-fiction, which makes it a hell of a lot easie
by enraged_camel 10y ago
>>Now, any biologists worth their salt would cringe at many scenes [in Jurassic World].
Jurassic World is science-fiction, which makes it a hell of a lot easier for subject matter experts in the audience to suspend their disbelief when it comes to the technical parts. Furthermore, said technical parts take up maybe a few minutes of the film at most, keeping the need for the suspension of disbelief to a minimum.
Mr. Robot, on the other hand, is drama, and the main character is a hacker who hangs out with other hackers. In order for it to be viable as a show, it needs to be technically accurate.
- anigbrowl 10y agoI wholly agree. My point is that you'll still see crappy characterizations of hacker-as-trope to serve the needs of different stories, contrary to the claim of the MIT article. It's not because it's sci-fi vs. drama - all writing takes place in a genre, even if that genre is 'suburban contemporary'. (Mind, I'm being very literary theory here, rather than using entertainment industry shorthand. From this standpoint Law & Order is a restorative comedy despite the grim subject matter and lack of humor, because in a restorative comedy everything goes back to normal at the end. The show revolves around the lives of the cops, not the perps and victims, who are simply props for the police officers to relate to in each episode. If a recurring character dies or two cops go from being friends to enemies, that individual episode is a tragedy. But if the cops end an episode with equal or stronger bonds than they began it, then the episode is a comedy even if the subject matter was horrific.)