Hollywood has a message for scientists: If you want something that's 100% accurate in every way, go watch a documentary. The thing is, when it comes to movies, narrative wins. The writer's job is to get the characters right, not the science, says Tse, who cowrote Watchmen, one of last year's most-anticipated superhero films. It annoys him, too, when things don't make sense. He spent a lot of time and energy trying to find a fix for a logical problem in Watchmen—that one character, Dan, uses a completely obvious password to hack into the computer of Adrian, who is supremely intelligent. But for practical reasons, that kind of problem often just can't be fixed. Maybe it would take too long, in an already long movie, or distract too much from the narrative, or cost too much to shoot. Writers have faced similar problems with the TV show Heroes. The series follows a group of characters that have acquired superpowers: one is invisible, and one can walk through walls. One little boy can control electronics with his mind, which is "completely scientifically crazy," says Joe Pokaski, a writer who has worked on every one of the show's 76 episodes. But scientific sense isn't necessarily the point. As long as things make sense to the viewer, that's good enough, and it can leave the show open to carry out its real business: exploring the characters' struggle to figure out how to use their powers. And don't even get Heroes writer Aron Coleite started on invisibility. In a scene from the first season of the show, two invisible men walked down a Manhattan street, bumping into people and things as they went. Coleite says, "We spend hours in a smelly room arguing about invisibility." Questions such as: Does invisibility extend to clothes? Should the guys be walking down the street naked? "We're demonstrating it visually. We don't bother people with saying, 'It's an invisible field around them that blocks light, and that's why Claude is wearing clothes'," Coleite says. All of this makes sense when you consider that most of these writers don't have Ph.D.s in astrophysics (天体物理学). "You asked if we had a science background," said Pokaski, "No, we have a science fiction background. The more you try to explain, the sillier it sounds."
单选题 What do we know about Hollywood documentaries?
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】解析:原文该句提到了纪录片在各个方面是100% accurate的,而从该段不断提到的scientists、science等词可以推断纪录片应该是在“科学性”方面100% accurate,因此,B正确。
单选题 According to Tse, "practical reasons" often make it difficult to _______.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】解析:原文该句提到出于现实的原因,使得“这类问题”难以解决,而结合上两句可知“这类问题”是指logicalproblem,而根据第1段前三句可推断,logical problem是指“与科学有关的问题”,由此可见,出于现实的原因,难以做到让电影在科学性上100%正确,因此,本题应选A。
单选题 Heroes is written in the way that the audience will take superpowers as _______.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】解析:原文该句中的make sense to the viewer表明《英雄》的作者在创作该节目的内容时,以观众的理解为标准,只要观众“能理解”就行了,因此,本题应选D。
单选题 After the discussion on invisibility, writers of Heroes decide to _______.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】解析:第3段第4、5句提到的两个问题都与“衣服是否隐形”有关,而根据该段最后一句可推断,《英雄》的作者们决定衣服和角色一起隐形,只是为什么衣服也可以隐形,作者们没有详细解释,由此可见,“衣服也隐形”是一定的了,因此,本题应选A。
单选题 Watchman and Heroes are similar in that they are both _______.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】解析:根据第1段可以知道《守望者》面临的问题是有些场景不符合逻辑,缺乏科学性,第2段第1句表明《守望者》和《英雄》面临同样的问题,由此可见,它们两者的相似之处在于它们在某些方面都缺乏科学逻辑,因此,本题应选C。