View original post
I keep seeing the trailer for Mortal Engines, and it really grinds my gears.* The concept of whole cities going mobile to attack each other sets off alarm bells in my scientific brain. It's just so wrong, from every perspective. We know how conquering works: you just send your armies to kill your enemies and take their stuff. You don't bring your hospitals, your churches, your grandparents, your grade schools, etc. So I completely reject the premise, and I know that this will ruin the story for me, the same way I couldn't stand The Matrix (and let me tell you - that was a lonely opinion until the first sequel was released).

But I don't have this problem accepting far more or equally fantastical premises for entertainment purposes: Tolkien, Marvel, Rowling, Early Lucas, Roddenberry, etc. I think the reason why is that they are so much further out on the sci-fi 'hardness' scale (towards 'soft' sci-fi). I can buy into a story with a fantastic premise (what if magic or what if future tech plus faster-than-light travel or what if superheroes) and then whether I enjoy the movie will depend on the quality of the movie.

Meanwhile, 'harder' sci-fi like The Martian, Contact, Primer, Firefly, or Moon is also something I can accept, and again my enjoyment of the product depends only on how well it's put together and presented to me.

So I know there is almost no chance I will like Mortal Engines for the same reasons I didn't like The Matrix.

*If any young people are present at this site, this is how middle-aged and older people say they're triggered.