Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

In Praise of the Sci-fi Corridor

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the getting-there-is-half-the-fun dept.

Movies 171

brumgrunt writes "Technically a corridor in a science-fiction movie should just be a means of getting from one big expensive set to the next, and yet Den Of Geek writes lovingly of the detailed conduits in films such as Alien, Outland, Solaris and even this year's Moon by Duncan Jones."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How to do a much shorter article next time (2, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300025)

They should do the next article on technology in scifi movies that DOESN'T go horribly wrong or lead to some nightmarish dystopia.

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (2)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300091)

Without drama and conflict there's no story. Would you pay to see a story about a guy who went about his day in the future and didnt have any problems or anything interesting happen to him?

Perhaps someone can combine twitter with scifi:

futureguy: I am using my future toilet
futureguy: I am driving my futurecar
futureguy: I am sleeping in my futurebed

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (2, Informative)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300429)

I don't know. I thought the Jetsons had a pretty long run.

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300557)

So did the Teletubbies and Barney the Dinosaur. But then kids shows tend to be held to a different standard when it comes to drama and conflict.

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#29302607)

Future tech caused huge drama in the Jetsons' universe. Do you not remember the ongoing epic battle between Cogsley's Cogs and Spacely's Sprockets?

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29302825)

I don't know. I thought the Jetsons had a pretty long run.

Unless you were watching a different version than I, you would have seen a program 'chalk full' of drama, technology that has gone horribly wrong, and may interesting things happening to the main characters.

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (3, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300455)

Yeah, but there are also tired cliches (like the robot/computer that goes nuts and starts mercilessly killing humans). One of the reasons I liked the recent Moon [wikipedia.org] is because it subverted that tired cliche.

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (3, Interesting)

tecnico.hitos (1490201) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300465)

Idiocracy may reach extreme levels and an AI born from the technological singularity may control everything.

People may even have a total lack of privacy.

As long as everyone is confortable (lack of privacy is not uncomfortable by itself, it's the negative reactions of the other people and your broken expectations that do it.) and entertained, nobody will care.

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (2, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | more than 5 years ago | (#29302483)

As long as everyone is confortable and entertained, nobody will care.

Until some dickhead wearing mirror shades and a black trenchcoat came around and wrecked everything. That part would really suck.

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (3, Insightful)

LitelySalted (1348425) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300499)

He's not saying the future shouldn't have conflict, he's saying that future doesn't need to always emphasize how horrible EVERYTHING will turn out to be.

That's why people like Star Trek movies, they have conflict, but at the same time, they point out that the future can be bright, technology can be helpful, people can be happy and life is worth living.

Back to the main topic, corridors - they are cheap for filming. That probably influenced the reason to use them more than a necessity in "Sci-Fi" films. I recommend Cube if you'd like to see the minimalist set (hint: it's a cube and not a corridor).

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#29302715)

Cube was entertaining in several regards. I dug the fact that the set was, as you mentioned, a couple of cubes. I dug the underlying premise of the government project gone awry. But for a lot of the smaller details, you really had to turn your brain off.

Still it's certainly unique enough to be included in a discussion on sci-fi corridors. The corridors were square holes leading to an identical cube. How cool is that?

Not sci-fi, but Closet Land also ranks on minimal set design. Basically it's 2 people in an interrogation room. The only break from that that I can remember were a couple of flash-back scenes in a closet. Significantly less set than even Clerks.

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300553)

I might watch it if Ken Loach directed it

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300581)

>>>Would you pay to see a story about a guy who went about his day in the future and didnt have any problems

No but that doesn't mean you have to go extreme either. I thought the best Science Stories were those that took ordinary genres, but set them in the future:

- Elijah Baley - a detective solving a murder in the year ~3,000

- Tekwar - a detective solving crimes in ~2020

- The Road Must Roll - a worker strike in the year ~2050

- I Robot - a collection of short stories where a household appliance (robot) goes haywire, and the engineer's attempt to find why the problem happened.

And so on. Science stories are best when they are tied to reality. It doesn't have to be some "nightmarish reality" to quote the grandparent..

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (2, Informative)

Noren (605012) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301699)

I must quibble- although Heinlein's short story "The Roads Must Roll"(1940) did not specify a setting date in its text, it was set in the same continuity in and occured prior to "The Man who Sold the Moon"(1949), which was set in the then-future of 1978. So, the strike (and associated terrorist activity) was to have been in the then-future 1960s or 1970s, not in 2050.

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300787)

Well, 2001: A Space Odyssey [imdb.com] did have nothing but flashing lights that everyone stared at for what seemed like hours.

At least it seemed to take that long, and I wasn't even stoned!

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (1, Flamebait)

Whorhay (1319089) | more than 5 years ago | (#29302311)

That was easily one of the worst movies I have ever forced myself to sit down and watch. I still remember the twenty minute scene where the spaceship/rocket is landing on the moon or something. I kept waiting for it to explode or for something to go wrong. Pretty much anything to happen except for it to slowly, slowly, slowly descend and have a completely uneventful landing. It wasn't even like the landing sequence was complicated and interesting to watch.

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (2, Insightful)

onionman (975962) | more than 5 years ago | (#29302679)

Really? I thought 2001 was one of the best movies I had ever seen, and I watched it in 1992. Whereas far too many sci-fi films focus on explosions and space-battles that look like WWII dog fights, 2001 seemed clean and plot-driven to me.

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (3, Interesting)

alexhard (778254) | more than 5 years ago | (#29302797)

I'm sorry but I'm having a very hard time comprehending your post. Did you actually call Kubric's 2001 one of the worst movies you have ever seen?

DOES NOT COMPUTE

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301357)

Seinfeld 2049?

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (1)

FlopEJoe (784551) | more than 5 years ago | (#29302519)

What's the deal these new walkers?

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 5 years ago | (#29302589)

Or, for Canadian viewers, "The Beachcombers 2049".

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 5 years ago | (#29302439)

Would you pay to see a story about a guy who went about his day in the future and didnt have any problems or anything interesting happen to him?

Yes.

I've watched documentaries. I've watched Seinfeld, I've been through the disneyworld ride where you see the appliances of the future many times. I'm a geek, this is our custom.

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (2, Funny)

Maniacal (12626) | more than 5 years ago | (#29302595)

futureguy: I am using my future toilet
futureguy: I am driving my futurecar
futureguy: I am sleeping in my futurebed

Oh great. They're still using Twitter in the future? Shoot me now.

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (1)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 5 years ago | (#29302823)

Even worse: in the future, Twitter will be via telepathy.

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300861)

Actually, this is one of my major complaints about a lot of popular sci-fi.

The plot can usually be summarized as:

mainstream science does something stupid, endangers the [city|nation|world|universe] only to be saved by the maverick genius scientist who no one believed

or

Scientist(s) create a [virus|bacteria|nanomachine|etc] which [escapes|is released] and now threatens everything. The day is saved by some competent and very smart guy with no training.

It seems to me that a lot of science fiction has an anti-science bent.

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (3, Insightful)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301401)

I think that's because some much sci fi (as distinct from space opera) invariably invokes our fears and anxiety to make compelling stories, rather than developing sophisticated drama. If it's just a story about something sciency, then something must go wrong somewhere in order for there to be conflict; it writes itself. Contrast that to Star Wars and Star Trek, where the science involved is a tool - starships and lasers and space stations - but the conflict comes from personal, character driven scenarios which require forethought and pathos.

I don't think that catastrophe sci fi is anti-science, I just think it's easier - it's the 'disaster movie' equivalent.

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (3, Funny)

hitnrunrambler (1401521) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301361)

At this point in human development we've got a name for fiction based around a non-dystopian future... it's called fantasy.

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#29302159)

I love many dystopian stories (they're entertaining and often enlightening), but the idea that dystopia is historically inevitable is foolish. Everyone ALWAYS thinks the end is at hand. And yet humanity keeps on progressing in spite of it all. Sure there have been some setbacks, but we've made it through tens of thousands of years now and we're still here, doing better than we've ever done before. You can find the guy walking through any era in known history who's carrying the "The End is Nigh" sign. And it's easy to think up a million "Chick Little" scenarios where "We all gonna die!" But it never happens. Humans survive, humans adapt, humans keep on trucking. Dystopia is not only NOT inevitable, it's probably not even likely.

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#29302421)

The problem with your idea is that we are running out of certain natural resources. It will however be interesting to see (assuming I'm reincarnated enough times or something) what happens with the upcoming ice age.

Re:How to do a much shorter article next time (1)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301751)

I was about to list a bunch of movies, but I then realized that the movies in which tech goes horribly wrong tends to be in the minority so an article on such things would be rather boring. However, a article on genetic engineering viewed in a good light in movies...now there would be a hard find.

Star Wars Gets "More Later"? Really? (3, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300041)

What's mostly wrong with the corridors in Stanley Donen's Saturn 3 (1980) is that the floor-surfaces resemble the base floor of a movie studio, something which had plagued the corridors in the medium-budget Star Wars three years earlier (more on Star Wars corridors in a moment).

The movie that has an opening fight sequence in a corridor and later corridor after corridor on the death star followed by another fight sequence in a prison block corridor only leading up to the-equivalent-of-Jesus getting lightsabered in half in a corridor adjacent to a docking bay .... and you say "more on Star Wars corridors in a moment."

And the second movie? Hoth ice corridors. IV, V & VI are so dependent on corridor shots.

Did you mean to say "The Corridors of Star Wars article will be out later today with a 58 page thesis on the strength of corridor running and combat between rebels and imperials in the Star Wars cinema"?

Re:Star Wars Gets "More Later"? Really? (5, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300139)

A friend of mine who films his own movies has a corriodor in his basement. He says that corridor is one of his primary sets.

The same was true with Trek. If they weren't on the bridge, they were in some damn corridor. One of the things I liked about DS9 and Babylon 5 was that they had lots of "open" sets, and tried to avoid corridors as much as possible.

Re:Star Wars Gets "More Later"? Really? (5, Interesting)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300605)

You can't really fault Trek for having so many corridors when most of the shots occur on the ship. If the space ships of Star Trek are anything like U.S. naval vessels, then they are mostly corridors connecting rooms. The rooms will be cargo, berthing, galleys, a few work shops, engineering, and the bridge. If the ship supports fly ops, it will have a hanger and flight deck.

The important thing is that there will be no "open" decks. Everything will be enclosed, much like a modern submarine. Space will be at a premium due to life support considerations, so rooms will be small and packed together. Plus, depending on how long it takes to get around, there is the matter of food and water storage, recycling systems.

In ST:TOS, the Enterprise would often be "three weeks out" from the starbase of the week. It had a crew of about 1,000. So, the ship had to have enough food, water, and air for 1,000 people for three weeks. Even with the "replicators", there would need to be source matter to create the food from. Let us not forget waste handling. Ejecting it from the ship means loss of material, water, and air. Storing requires voids. Recycling it requires space for the recycling equipment.

Also, a ship moves through space so it must have engines and fuel. The bigger the rooms, the bigger the ship, the more mass the ship has, the bigger the engines and the more fuel it needs.

Most people forget many of the details required for life because those details are taken for granted on a planet.

Corridors are the natural result of building large space ships with large crew compliments. Even a large cargo vessel will be some huge empty spaces for the cargo and a large space for engineering both connected to a small crew section which will be mostly small rooms off of corridors.

Re:Star Wars Gets "More Later"? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29300949)

the more mass the ship has, the bigger the engines and the more fuel it needs

In space? Really?

Re:Star Wars Gets "More Later"? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29301041)

the more mass the ship has, the bigger the engines and the more fuel it needs

In space? Really?

Hint: if you have multiple destinations, you're going to have to accelerate occasionally.

Re:Star Wars Gets "More Later"? Really? (1, Offtopic)

dissy (172727) | more than 5 years ago | (#29302367)

the more mass the ship has, the bigger the engines and the more fuel it needs

In space? Really?

Yes really.

Mass != Weight

In fact, current understanding states that mass is what causes gravity. The more mass, the more gravity.

The sun is massive, and has a lot of gravitational pull, for example.

Just because you move yourself far enough away from another massive object to influence you via gravity (or to NOT influence you in this case), does not mean you magically lose mass all over the place.

Re:Star Wars Gets "More Later"? Really? (4, Funny)

moose_hp (179683) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300967)

[...] Even with the "replicators", there would need to be source matter to create the food from. Let us not forget waste handling. [...]

You just solved both problems with the same solution.

Re:Star Wars Gets "More Later"? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29301321)

[...] Even with the "replicators", there would need to be source matter to create the food from. Let us not forget waste handling. [...]

You just solved both problems with the same solution.

do you really want to save on space for plumbing by crapping in the same place where you get your food?

Re:Star Wars Gets "More Later"? Really? (1)

Denial93 (773403) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301101)

I disagree. The whole ship could be remote controlled by FTL subspace communication, which is available in that universe. But even if you accept the presence of a large number of meat-bodied crew, they wouldn't need to be housed in such an inefficient fashion, let alone to cross those unneccessary distances on foot.

Of course this makes no sense because Star Trek wasn't made with realism in mind. But that is also true of your reasoning about how it is "natural" there would be corridors.

All in all, the corridor is popular simply because it is a single, cheap, permanent set that can easily be turned into any corridor going from anywhere to anywhere on the ship. And that's all.

Re:Star Wars Gets "More Later"? Really? (2, Funny)

tecnico.hitos (1490201) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301115)

In ST:TOS, the Enterprise would often be "three weeks out" from the starbase of the week. It had a crew of about 1,000. So, the ship had to have enough food, water, and air for 1,000 people for three weeks. Even with the "replicators", there would need to be source matter to create the food from. Let us not forget waste handling. Ejecting it from the ship means loss of material, water, and air. Storing requires voids. Recycling it requires space for the recycling equipment.

This problem is solved.

Re:Star Wars Gets "More Later"? Really? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301505)

In Trek only two things really seem to take up any significant space: power generation and long-term/reliable data storage. Unfortunately, they haven't figured out how to run their consoles on light in the future, so people are always getting zapped on the deck. (Cars from the 1960s used fiberoptics to centralize light sources, and today we can retrieve information back from that channel... what're all these conductors doing on the bridge?) Oh, and of course, warp drives.

On the other hand, trek spaceships seem to be at least partially monocoque (yes, an inherent contradiction, but it is the convention) as naval vessels are by necessity, and for at least superficially similar reasons.

When we build large buildings, they have a lot of corridors, especially back in the days when people had offices.

Re:Star Wars Gets "More Later"? Really? (2, Informative)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301521)

In ST:TOS, the Enterprise would often be "three weeks out" from the starbase of the week. It had a crew of about 1,000.

No, it was usually somewhat more than 400, IIRC.

Re:Star Wars Gets "More Later"? Really? (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 5 years ago | (#29302345)

Corridors and hallways are symptoms of bad design, actually. You put them in places where you don't want to bother figuring out how to arrange the rooms so you don't need them. But they're a waste of space and building materials if there aren't factors built into the design which necessarily require hallways (many same-sized rooms, for instance): They're rooms that have no function other than to connect other rooms.

Now, the place where corridors have a great place is literature where they provide a visual impression of the plot progressing (cribbed from an episode of house of all places).

Creepiest sci-fi corridor (2, Interesting)

BigHungryJoe (737554) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300093)

Event Horizon! Can you imagine trying to walk down that hall with the walls spinning around you?

Of course, maybe Event Horizon doesn't actually qualify as science fiction.

Re:Creepiest sci-fi corridor (1)

Icegryphon (715550) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300257)

god, I still love that movie,
"You don't need Eyes where your going."
"Liberate tu te me ex inferis"
He did a pretty good job of stringing up the guys in the medlab without eyes.

http://www.best-horror-movies.com/image-files/event-horizon-tube.jpg [best-horror-movies.com]

Re:Creepiest sci-fi corridor (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300401)

Does the suspension bridge in Black Hole count as a corridor?

Re:Creepiest sci-fi corridor (1)

ettlz (639203) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300987)

Now come on, any film with the word "tensor" in the script counts as sci-fi.

Re:Creepiest sci-fi corridor (1)

raddan (519638) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301727)

We used to watch that film in college to intentionally scare the crap out of us. It was the one movie that didn't seem to lose its creepiness on repeat viewings.

But there was one part that's always bugged me-- and it's the same thing that bugs me about Sunshine-- and that's the open pools of fluid (water? coolant? whatever?). What kind of asshole engineer has open pools of fluid on a spaceship? Sure, in both of those movies, there's artificial gravity (eh, such a cop-out, but OK), but, hey, artificial gravity must be supplied by a machine somehow, and machines break. When that happens, all your shit goes flying around. When you look at the lengths that real space vehicles go to to contain fluids, I just find this really irritating.

I guess artificial gravity bugs me too. Star Trek... OK, we're in the 23rd century or something, but Event Horizon is in the near future. I think artificial gravity is at least on par with interstellar drive, but it doesn't even get a mention... I'd love to see a [good] film version of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, because creative use of gravity is a major plot device in the book.

SyFy? (5, Funny)

ONOIML8 (23262) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300105)

Don't you mean a syfy corridor?

Re:SyFy? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300631)

No I'm not really into "siffy", whatever that's supposed to be. I prefer science stories.

Sci-Fi (4, Funny)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300161)

Cause in the future we don't have cable management or flimsy plastic plates to cover up sensitive equipment and sharp corners.

Re:Sci-Fi (5, Informative)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300405)

Have you seen the ISS? The future is looking pretty organized. http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/177653main_UTBI1.jpg [nasa.gov]

Re:Sci-Fi (1)

LordAndrewSama (1216602) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300661)

Maybe they think being able to easily and quickly access something to fix it is more important than organization. especially on the ISS where I imagine most things are important, if not mission critical. you don't want to spend 30 mins getting the floor board off to fix the fresh air system, sort of thing.

Re:Sci-Fi (4, Insightful)

egburr (141740) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300665)

Well, once you invent artificial gravity, you're back to having to have dedicated floor space for walking, standing, sitting, etc. And when your habitat expands beyond just a six person capacity with everyone knowing everything, to a large community where people have specialized tasks, you will probably not want to have everything just sitting out in the open like that for people who don't know what they are doing to accidentally bump things on their way by and not know how to correct it. And when your habitat grows beyond just a few small rooms, you will have to have dedicated travel (dare I say it?) corridors, that are just that, corridors.

When your entire environment is very small and contains a very few smart, well-trained people, you can make use of every available space like they do on the ISS.

Re:Sci-Fi (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301429)

Holy Jebus. I knew all those Sci-Fi shots of people sailing gracefully through corridors in zero-G was a myth. I always thought people would just bump into stuff, but now I know that it's because you'd most certainly get an arm or a leg caught in something.

Re:Sci-Fi (1)

raddan (519638) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301747)

How'd you get that picture of my office?

Re:Sci-Fi (2, Funny)

Spad (470073) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300677)

And we have an entire infrastructure of pipes dedicated to moving steam around every ship or building complex, for some reason.

Re:Sci-Fi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29301617)

And we have an entire infrastructure of pipes dedicated to moving steam around every ship or building complex, for some reason.

Well, um... those aren't steam pipes, they are just really well armored cable conduits!;)

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29300263)

That was the most vapid article I've ever read.

The author says he'll get to star wars 'later' but never does. It's no surprise that the author couldn't be bothered proof reading. If I was about to do a huge turd in public, I wouldn't look before I flushed either.

Tune in next week... (4, Funny)

bigmaddog (184845) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300319)

...for the space toilet special. An interview with George Lucas will explore the challenges of sci fi pooping, creating believable multi-species lavatories that account for physical as well as cultural differences, whether Jedi excrement has any force abilities, and the problems traditionally associated with merchandising this under-developed aspect of cinema.

Re:Tune in next week... (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301149)

Literally LOL.

That post gave me the image of a constipated Luke Skywalker sitting on the john and straining, when Obi Wan's voice comes to him from beyond saying "Luke! Use the Force! Let go!"

Followed shortly by a cut away to this [st-v-sw.net]

I never liked Sci Fi corridors. (0)

Mondoz (672060) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300321)

It never made any sense to have these huge waste-of-space tunnels in space craft.
When you have to carry your atmosphere with you, why create so many empty spaces that you have to then fill with air?
Use that space for something! Put labs there! Crew quarters! Something!

Re:I never liked Sci Fi corridors. (0)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300673)

I always disliked the fact that they almost always walk down these corridors as if subject to exactly 1g. I hate the "we invented artificial gravity" crutch they always use. Unless they have some large space station rotating to simulate 1g at the perimeter, artificial gravity should be banned from scifi. Of course, that just means no more scifi, since it's pretty expensive to film on a movie on a vomit comet. So forget my idea.

Re:I never liked Sci Fi corridors. (1)

dissy (172727) | more than 5 years ago | (#29302403)

I hate the "we invented artificial gravity" crutch they always use.

It was that or "A wizard did it!"

Re:I never liked Sci Fi corridors. (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300707)

Corridors in ships serve the same purpose as hallways in homes - to move from one room to another.

The corridors in the original Star Trek were practical. In the Next Generation it was an example of how "soft" the Federation had become, and Q said as much during his forced encounter with the Borg. Enterprise-D was almost like a luxury liner (see season 1's final episode where a guy compares the ship to the QE2).

Re:I never liked Sci Fi corridors. (4, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300715)

You have never been on a submarine have you? Space ships have a lot in common with submarines.

Use that space for something! Put labs there!

Yes, because no one would mind people walking through their work space. Who cares if one get's jostled by someone passing through while one is performing a delicate and/or dangerous step in a procedure or experiment?

Crew quarters!

Yes, because no one would mind people walking through their living and sleeping space at all hours of the day and night. I am sure those people on night watch won't mind have their sleep disturbed ever few minutes.

Those corridors connect rooms together. They are hallways. No corridors, and you end up with one huge room which will result in no privacy, a huge waste of air, and is wonderful vulnerability because it takes just a hole or two to kill everyone on the ship.

Re:I never liked Sci Fi corridors. (1)

raddan (519638) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301797)

The ISS has no corridors. It's just a bunch of modules linked together. One of the advantages of zero-g, I suppose.

Re:I never liked Sci Fi corridors. (1)

Pulse_Instance (698417) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300811)

Having a bunch of extra could be useful to give you time to fix your air processor when it breaks down.

Uh oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29300337)

Why do I have a horrible feeling we're going to see a lot of goatse replies to this topic?

Re:Uh oh (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300433)

Probably, but they deserve to be modded up if they can find a goatse in the style of HR Giger.

Re:Uh oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29302143)

Corridor sized?

I'm damburger, and I'm a corridorholic (2, Insightful)

damburger (981828) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300357)

Dear god, I thought I was alone.

Corridors are the unappreciated bedrock of science fiction. I guess the original reason is because they could be repeatedly used for different parts of a ship/space station/alien planet, but they've taken on a life of their own.

I've always said it (0, Offtopic)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300485)

Flash Gordon is indeed far superior to A New Hope [ducks, covers]

Re:I've always said it (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29300543)

Any movie with a soundtrack by Queen is automatically one of the best movies ever made.

Re:I've always said it (0, Redundant)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301023)

hear hear

No Event Horizon "meat grinder" corridor? (1)

Vrallis (33290) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300507)

I would think the "meat grinder"-like "containment corridor" from Event Horizon would be a great example for that article, but it's a no-show.

Non standar ones (2, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300513)

Like the ones in Cube (and se/pre quels) that separate one room from another, short, high, but usually was enough to give a hint on what is forward, or at least see the fate to the first one that went in. Or the one in Coraline (ok, is no sci-fi, but probably qualifies as a "special" corridor).

I hate corridors in series (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300641)

Am i the only one that doesn't want to see people walking around for 10mins of a 50min show! The worst offence is opening a scene showing somebody silently walking into a room from a corridor, in a 2/3hr film this isn't too bad as it can be used to set the scene (i'd still rather they didn't), but if you add up the time people walk about in a series like Stargate SG-1 it's got to be about a 1/5 of the show!!! I distinctly remember the lack of corridors on firefly as one of the reasons i loved the show!

Re:I hate corridors in series (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29301897)

So you weren't a fan of West Wing?

Re:I hate corridors in series (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 5 years ago | (#29302533)

What about that corridor heading up to the bridge, with the two bunks on either side?

Re:I hate corridors in series (1)

pjfry3000 (1620951) | more than 5 years ago | (#29302677)

Wasn't there always a lot of dialogue or plot progression taken care of during corridor scenes in SG-1? Would you rather they be standing still in a room or next to a console instead? (since they do so much of the latter, it could get pretty boring having even fewer scene changes.)

Blakes 7 had the best corridors!!! (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 5 years ago | (#29300867)

The liberator had corridors of POWER( and cardboard)!!! They were all lit up and meant business!!!!

Re:Blakes 7 had the best corridors!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29300975)

But they still had compartments under the decking that they could hide in.

Re:Blakes 7 had the best corridors!!! (2, Interesting)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301011)

When a Sci-Fi corridor is mentioned I instantly think of old series Dr. Who. They were all flimsy and cheap, but they were interesting to look at and it always seemed like half the story involved the Doctor and/or an assistant running through them.

Re:Blakes 7 had the best corridors!!! (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301341)

The very earliest Dr. Who serials, on occasion, dedicated an entire half hour episode to cutting back and forth between the Dr. + companion, and another group, both walking through corridors or caves on the way to meet up. Sometimes they wouldn't even be talking, just a 5 minute shot of them walking and stepping over debris.

Re:Blakes 7 had the best corridors!!! (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301567)

I'll bet you're a big fan of 'The Invasion of Time.'

Moon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29300869)

Man I am so sick and tired of hearing about this Moon movie. It is allegedly the best sci-fi movie to come out in a while, and yet everyone but me on the Internets seems to be able to watch it. No theaters are showing it, it's not available on Netflix, USENET, or Best Buy. And yet you people can't shut up about it.

Where the fuck are all these people seeing this alleged movie that seems to not exist? Is it all a big hoax? I'd love to see it but it all appears to be a giant April Fool's joke in the Summer.

holy freudian psychology batman (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301047)

lonely asocial men, obsessed with the appreciation of dark tubes where magical things happen

sometimes a corridor is just a corridor?

Doctor Who and Mickey Mouse (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301157)

It is interesting that the subject of corridor brought these two things to mind.

The first place i read about the sci fi corridor was in a set of books written using Walt Disney characters in a a space setting. IIRC, they were written at a high level for the demographic, and one of the favorite words was corridor. It took me a while to determine what a corridor was. The character were always going up and down corridors.

I really enjoyed many of the corridors in Dr. Who. Not so much the tardis, but the other places they went. What I found interesting was one set of commentary where one of the companions talked about the types of corridor acting they had to master. Perhaps they were joking, but it does seem that acting while in or walking down a corridor is different from acting in a larger space.

I wonder how many corridors we see are caused by budget constraints. For instance, it is said that Buffy only had one or two corridors that were redressed for the Sunnydale High School.

Best corridor(s) from the classic 2001 (4, Interesting)

wisebabo (638845) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301185)

The best corridors were from the movie 2001. In it we have:

- The long corridor connecting the crew module from the propulsion system on the Discovery. Note it was octagonal in section and had no up or down as it was only to be accessed in zero-g.
- The short corridor/connector in the shuttle to the moon where the mod space stewardess walks in and, thanks to the tricks of a rotating set and fixed camera, travels up the wall onto the "ceiling" and exits. (She is supposedly held on by her velcro shoes).
- The short connector on the Discovery which is where the non-rotating main part of the space-craft meets the rotating part of the crew module. The astronauts must float down it and then clamber down a spinning opening to the part of the spacecraft that has artificial gravity. This is also another great "corridor", here Stanley Kubrik built basically an enclosed ferris wheel and in some memorable shots, had his astronauts jogging all around the "wheel".

Amazing what you can do with a script that isn't pseudo science and a director who cares (and has a good budget!).

Re:Best corridor(s) from the classic 2001 (1)

Whorhay (1319089) | more than 5 years ago | (#29302605)

Amazing, how horribly bad a movie can be despite all that. I really liked the book but the movie was just rediculously bad.

Re:Best corridor(s) from the classic 2001 (1)

bughunter (10093) | more than 5 years ago | (#29302953)

While I can appreciate the aesthetic behind your choice of corridors, my favorite corridor is still the Laser Corridor [tvtropes.org] from Resident Evil [wikipedia.org] ... it even has a sense of humor [suntimes.com] .

Satellite of Love (2, Insightful)

Vohar (1344259) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301269)

I'd have to say my favorite Sci-Fi corridor is always going to be MST3K's during the transitions between sketch and movie.

"Oh no we've got MOVIE SIIIIIIIIGN!"

The lost art of gypsum drywall (3, Interesting)

Biff Stu (654099) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301335)

Just as people currently endeavor to recreate the manufacturing methods for medieval stained glass or the great pyramids, the people of the future will be awestruck at the ability of 20th and 21st people to make such smooth walls out of the mysterious and amazing material known as drywall.

Re:The lost art of gypsum drywall (1)

macbeth66 (204889) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301793)

I am already amazed!

Re:The lost art of gypsum drywall (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 5 years ago | (#29302067)

Heretic! Everyone knows that sin was abolished after the paneling wars.

Re: (2, Funny)

clint999 (1277046) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301697)

Probably, but they deserve to be modded up if they can find a goatse in the style of HR Giger.

Outstanding (2, Insightful)

P. Legba (172072) | more than 5 years ago | (#29301971)

...the only thing I've read better than this article today have been the Slashdot responses.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?