Is there an intelligence test TV writers have to fail?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Just heard, "The entire civilization was decimated by a mysterious plague. There was no one left." OK, so what killed the other 90%? "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

Join the game, post your favorite "are they really that stupid" moments from movies and TV.

--Pete

[Chesspiece_face]

Well I did just see the new Starbucks commercial which equates their instant coffee to an STD.

I'd love to know who thought that would be a brilliant idea.

[NuurAbSaal]

Translations are an endless source of amusement. The one I liked best (or the one that I can remember at the moment ) was from some "South America Revolution Movie".

"We have to protect the airstrip!"

Which turned into:

"Wir müssen den Luftstreifen verteidigen!"

"Airstrip" translated to -> Strip of Air. Ouch.

take care
Tarabulus

P.S.: Oh yeah, Holodeck Nazis on StarTrek: Voyager.

[kandrathe]

Join the game, post your favorite "are they really that stupid" moments from movies and TV.

"I'm just a girl, standing in front of a boy, asking him to love her." Notting Hill

That line defines why he should have refused to become undumped for the 2nd (or was it the third?) time.

[Taelas]

"Decimate" can mean "destroying a large proportion of a group" and not just "kill every tenth person in a group", which is falling out of use. (It's still utterly inaccurate to use in a situation where everyone is gone.)

On topic, anytime the myth that "people only use 10% of their brain" comes up, I have to facepalm. It just... urgh.

[Kevin]

"Decimate" can mean "destroying a large proportion of a group" and not just "kill every tenth person in a group", which is falling out of use. (It's still utterly inaccurate to use in a situation where everyone is gone.)

On topic, anytime the myth that "people only use 10% of their brain" comes up, I have to facepalm. It just... urgh.

You know I actually had to hit a dictionary to figure out what Pete was talking about with the 90% because I didn't realize that was the original meaning of the word. I should have, but I didn't. My Webster's dictionary pretty much matched dictionary.com and the first definition makes it kinda work in his quote. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decimated heck they even pretty much use that as an example, minus the second sentence.

But I had never heard the word used to mean to select by lot and kill every tenth person of. which as you note in the link is the 2nd definition now and not only at dictionary.com, but in my printed dictionary too.

So even with it meaning a great number the sentence isn't completely nonsensical. A plague decimated the entire civilization, meaning that it wasn't just a few cities or just a segment, it was everyone that was subject. Assuming they are using the great number that could mean the plague killed 90% of the population not just 10%, the word is no longer specific. Now the next sentence of "There was no one left" does cause issues, because the plague didn't kill everyone, but it could have messed things up enough that other factors wiped them out.

So this brings up the whole topic of languages evolving. Words meaning change through usage. This has always been the case. Trace the history of the word fag or faggot as some obvious examples it's a cigarette, a male homosexual, a bundle of wood, a bundle of iron.

So the word decimate has changed, mostly through ignorant usage and because it has a "powerful" sound to the syllables, the hard consonants and going from a short to long vowel. Which probably lent to the meaning becoming broader.

Of course I know much less about this subject than I would like, but it's always been a bit of a passing fancy for me.

I do agree that the statement Pete posted is poorly written, but not quite for the reasons he stated.

[Lissa]

On topic, anytime the myth that "people only use 10% of their brain" comes up, I have to facepalm. It just... urgh.

Well, there is plenty of proof out there that there are people that don't even use 1%.

[--Pete]

Hi,

You know I actually had to hit a dictionary to figure out what Pete was talking about with the 90% because I didn't realize that was the original meaning of the word. I should have, but I didn't. My Webster's dictionary pretty much matched dictionary.com and the first definition makes it kinda work in his quote. heck they even pretty much use that as an example, minus the second sentence.

But it is exactly the second sentence that pushed my button. Clearly, the original meaning of 'to punish a group by killing one in ten selected by lot' is of little use today. So, to extend the meaning to 'killing a significant portion of a group' is understandable. Perhaps even to ' . . . most of a group'. But here is a perfectly fine, common word, for eradicating a group -- it's 'exterminate'. Actually, that sentence has two

So the word decimate has changed, mostly through ignorant usage and because it has a "powerful" sound to the syllables, the hard consonants and going from a short to long vowel. Which probably lent to the meaning becoming broader.

This is true. The meaning of words change, sometimes by misuse, sometimes by clever use. But we are not speaking of uneducated people here. The person who wrote this is a professional writer. Language is his tool, his material. By misusing words, he shows himself to be a poor workman, incompetent in his profession. Of course, it could have been a good writer keeping a character in persona. However, those sentences were uttered by Dr. Daniel Jackson in an episode of SG-1. A mistake like that, in the mouth of the world's greatest linguist, is probably not done intentionally to develop the character.

--Pete

---

Hi,

Well, there is plenty of proof out there that there are people that don't even use 1%.

We call them 'brain donors'. They are the kind souls who, having no personal use for a brain, try to preserve it in pristine condition for the recipient of the transplant.

--Pete

PS Another pet peeve: "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear"

[LavCat]

But it is exactly the second sentence that pushed my button. Clearly, the original meaning of 'to punish a group by killing one in ten selected by lot' is of little use today. So, to extend the meaning to 'killing a significant portion of a group' is understandable. Perhaps even to ' . . . most of a group'. But here is a perfectly fine, common word, for eradicating a group -- it's 'exterminate'. Actually, that sentence has two

How 'bout "extirpate"? Fewer syllables.

[--Pete]

Hi,

How 'bout "extirpate"? Fewer syllables.

Yes, but I don't think it is as commonly used as 'exterminate'. If I have a vermin infestation, I don't think of calling an 'extirpator'.

--Pete

[vor_lord]

Season One finale of Heroes. My objection isn't "the writers are stupid." It's not even so much that "the writers really think their audience is that dumb." My objection is that... they were right -- people really are that dumb.

[Jester]

Season One finale of Heroes. My objection isn't "the writers are stupid." It's not even so much that "the writers really think their audience is that dumb." My objection is that... they were right -- people really are that dumb.

What specifically about it was stupid? I've got plenty of complaints about Heroes, but they mostly start after season one.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Season One finale of Heroes. My objection isn't "the writers are stupid." It's not even so much that "the writers really think their audience is that dumb." My objection is that... they were right -- people really are that dumb.

What specifically about it was stupid? I've got plenty of complaints about Heroes, but they mostly start after season one.

Me, too. On both counts.

--Pete

[vor_lord]

What specifically about it was stupid? I've got plenty of complaints about Heroes, but they mostly start after season one.

I'm talking mostly about big brother (was it Nathan?) coming in to sacrifice himself to save the day by picking up Peter and flying off before he detonates... despite the fact that Peter could have simply flown away himself, then regenerated, no harm done. So what was supposed to be a heroic sacrifice really was a pointless suicide.

I can't find it now, but one of the people in charge (producer?) in an interview shortly thereafter countered this argument by essentially saying: "Well you're not supposed to think about that. We just wanted Nathan to save the day!"

That let the steam out of the series for me... when season two started so lamely I quickly lost interest. It was a shame because I enjoyed most of season one.

[Taelas]

What specifically about it was stupid? I've got plenty of complaints about Heroes, but they mostly start after season one.

I'm talking mostly about big brother (was it Nathan?) coming in to sacrifice himself to save the day by picking up Peter and flying off before he detonates... despite the fact that Peter could have simply flown away himself, then regenerated, no harm done. So what was supposed to be a heroic sacrifice really was a pointless suicide.

I can't find it now, but one of the people in charge (producer?) in an interview shortly thereafter countered this argument by essentially saying: "Well you're not supposed to think about that. We just wanted Nathan to save the day!"

That let the steam out of the series for me... when season two started so lamely I quickly lost interest. It was a shame because I enjoyed most of season one.

Eh, they explained that pretty well. Peter was trying everything he could to control the ability that would cause him to explode, which meant he couldn't use any of his other abilities.

I hadn't heard the other "explanation", though I fully agree that it is utterly ridiculous.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Eh, they explained that pretty well. Peter was trying everything he could to control the ability that would cause him to explode, which meant he couldn't use any of his other abilities.

Yeah, it was pretty obvious what was happening if you watched that final episode. Never did figure out why Nathan didn't just fly him to a great altitude (or even into orbit?) and release him. Peter could have blown up then and not harmed Nathan.

The second season started the -- 'we need a problem that can't be addressed by any capability' -- 'we need an ability to address that problem' -- spiral. Between the constantly changing rules of the game, the constantly changing alliances, and the inconsistency of the characterizations between one episode and the next, I found that I no longer cared what happened to anyone in that series. We started missing episodes and pretty soon, we were out of it.

But it was a good season 1.

--Pete

[LennyLen]

The person who wrote this is a professional writer. Language is his tool, his material. By misusing words, he shows himself to be a poor workman, incompetent in his profession. Of course, it could have been a good writer keeping a character in persona. However, those sentences were uttered by Dr. Daniel Jackson in an episode of SG-1. A mistake like that, in the mouth of the world's greatest linguist, is probably not done intentionally to develop the character.

Writers do also have to take their target audience into account (I often had to dumb things down when I was writing for community newspapers). Though in this case, I think you're probably correct in assuming the writer just did a bad job.

I don't really think exterminate would have been better however. It has too many connotations of being a deliberate act (even though its definition doesn't state this). If a tree fell over and killed an entire family, I don't think anyone would say that the tree had exterminated the family. Eradicated definitely would have been better, or even "wiped out."

[Jester]

I hadn't heard the other "explanation", though I fully agree that it is utterly ridiculous.

Tim Kring did confirm that the "Peter was unable to use his other powers because he was too caught up in not exploding" explanation is the correct solution. What I think he meant, though, was that we're supposed to be looking at this from a dramatic angle, rather than being analytical about it.

The more serious hole, I think, is why Claire didn't just shoot him. Peter asked her to, and she knew full well he had her power, which she also knows works after "death". So, barring some extremely unexpected interactions, that should have worked fine.

I guess I'm willing to overlook that, since they seem relatively minor points in a generally strong season. After that, it just goes haywire. Superman syndrome several times over - and the number of "why didn't he just"s goes to infinity.

-Jester

[Rhydderch Hael]

... But we are not speaking of uneducated people here. The person who wrote this is a professional writer. Language is his tool, his material. By misusing words, he shows himself to be a poor workman, incompetent in his profession. Of course, it could have been a good writer keeping a character in persona. However, those sentences were uttered by Dr. Daniel Jackson in an episode of SG-1. A mistake like that, in the mouth of the world's greatest linguist, is probably not done intentionally to develop the character.

--Pete

Stargate is a target-rich environment for this game. There's the scene where Col. O'Neill makes fun of a Russian commando having a gun that was made in Yugoslavia, not Russia. In of itself, it's a smarmy line, but you really shouldn't say such things after showing the guy your own weapon, which came from Belgium.

When the Prometheus had to eject its faulty hyperdrive power core, the captain of the ship ordered the crew to pull away from the exploding device at full military power. Which does explain why they took damage from the energy wave, I guess.

Then there was the destruction of the aforementioned Prometheus: in order to save the ship, you need to bypass a battle-damaged circuit and tie in an auxiliary power source so the ship can escape. Do you instruct a damage control team that is already stationed nearby? No, you waste several minutes watching Sam Carter and a redshirt climb down some ladders before they reach the repair point.




The F-302s take the title, though. When the prototype was first introduced, Carter said it had four propulsion systems: a experimental hyperdrive, two air-breathing scramjets, a center-mounted rocket engine, and (wait for it) aerospike engines for high-altitude flight.

As the series progresses, the twin "scramjets" suddenly become the fighter's primary motor system, even in space. To be honest, it is consistent with the story's progress, though: by that time, Earth had bartered for ion drive technology from an alien race, and you can assume the 302's scramjets were replaced by ion drives for all-around propulsion.

But, be it a scramjet or an alien drive, there's no clear reason for a backseater on one of these birds to cry out "We've lost a turbine!" when they take a hit during the battle over Antarctica.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Writers do also have to take their target audience into account (I often had to dumb things down when I was writing for community newspapers). Though in this case, I think you're probably correct in assuming the writer just did a bad job.

Yes, I know. I took journalism in high school and worked on the school paper. As a photographer, but I still had to turn in the occasional article. Given that 'exterminate' and 'decimate' are both complex Latinate words, either would be red penciled and replaced with 'wiped out' (as you suggest below).

I don't really think exterminate would have been better however. It has too many connotations of being a deliberate act . . .

Thus making it even more appropriate in this context. The plague was intentionally started as an act of war. It was, indeed, an intentional extermination.

--Pete