Skip to main content
Topic: How good is the Science in Science Fiction films? (Read 2863 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

How good is the Science in Science Fiction films?

I am a Science Fiction fanatic and have been for most of my life. I am also trying to become a Science Fiction author, as I transition out of teaching. But I am getting quite frustrated about how little the laws of the Universe as we know them get into Science Fiction films. I am wondering, in fact, if many deserve the label 'Science Fiction' at all.

Plenty of things in recent times have annoyed me, from Carlton's drafting policies to the incredible stupidity of some of our former top politicians, but this one hurts me where I live, if you will. As my teaching career is slowing down and I head towards 'retirement', I have felt the urge to air some of my frustrations. Whether that is good or not, I can't really tell, but my feelings are heart-felt and they are supported by by knowledge as a teacher of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics.
When it comes to recruiting, I am an amateur who is not privy to all the information available. In this topic, I am a professional with 38 years experience.

What got a bee in my bonnet? After many years, I finally watched the remake of 'Total Recall' in full. I am not quite sure how I managed to watch it all, to be honest. It was that bad.
It wasn't the special effects: they've come a long way since Arnie's version of 'Total Recall'. It wasn't the acting, although I have read some complaints about that over the years. It was the plot. The plot to the original was not its strong point, but this version was a shocker.
Taking the colony on Mars out of the picture was a serious error. Having a society that is so technically advanced not being able to detoxify the planet, but able to travel through the core regularly is laughable. There was no obvious protective barrier between the 'no-zone' and the inhabitable parts of the planet. That was a shocker. The behaviour of the their gadget that goes through the core was laughable. A year 11 Physics student could tell them about the mistakes they made. That a pressure similar to that on the surface of our sun didn't squish them defies belief.
The basic premise is too stupid to work. It lacks the ability to believe it.
There were other plot elements that didn't make sense. For example, I cannot recall any time the the chief executive of a nation would physically lead an invasion on another state. Generals haven't done that for centuries, Presidents or PM's never have.

Honestly, had I plotted a story so ridiculous, it would deserve every rejection it got.

The original film used material from Phil Dick, an author who died in the 1960's. He was never good at Physics: he was a writer of the 'New Wave' where scientific accuracy was not as important as literary style. Even so, he produced a story that was reasonable, a story of a state seeking independence from another which was repressing it.
The Arnold Schwarzeneggar vehicle of 1990, directed by Paul Verhoeven, had its problems, but it wasn't the Physics so much. In fact, it had the best Mars effects of any film to that time. The only real problem it had on that level was the gravity: they couldn't afford or didn't think it important enough to worry about the way people moved and, especially, fall in 37% gravity.
The end was also a major problem: creating an atmosphere for Mars in a couple of minutes of screen time would have come close to shattering the planet. The force of the atmosphere escaping would have been like a jet engine, moving the entire planet out of orbit. Every person on the planet would have died in the shock wave, not use the breaking of a few windows.
Also, Arnie should die: once his body has experienced as much damage due to the lack of pressure on the surface of Mars, he would be in real trouble. He would, at least, need serious hospitalization.

I find I simply cannot list all of the Physics errors in the 2012 version. But the gadget to take people through the core was the Pièce de Résistance. The technology required to build such a thing would be incredible. It's behaviour while it is travelling through the planet, is mindboggling. There simply was nothing remotely believable about any of it

Now, I know I am picking on some of the worst cases here, but there is so much about modern SF that appears to be ignoring simple Newtonian Physics.
For example, one of my favourites of the recent SF is 'the Expanse'. It is a 6 season long saga based on a series of books, and it covers them a lot more closely than 'Game of Thrones' did after that 1st season. (For the record, I also loved Game of Throne and did before it came to TV). The characters feel their ships accelerating, for example. But even that plays fast and loose with something as simple as how long it takes to get from one planet to another. At least, it makes an attempt to address orbital mechanics. So many don't.
The last couple of Alien films, for example,  don't even try. About the only thing they get right is the heat of entering the atmosphere.

Probably my all time favourite for getting the Physics right is '2001: A Space Odyssey'. I still show the scene where Dave enters the ship without his space helmet in class. It is brilliant. (I don't have to say that not taking his helmet is one of the stupidest things I can imagine. No sane astronaut would consider such a thing.) Since 1968, when 2001 was made, there has never been a scene that shows better the effect of being in vacuum for a short time.
So why has basic Physics being ignored so badly in film, where the film makers must know better?
Live Long and Prosper!

Re: How good is the Science in Science Fiction films?

Reply #1
You should watch Big Bang Theory, Crash, as it has many debates over the accuracy of science fiction and which superhero would win battles in certain circumstances!

I think you've answered your own question though. There are different types of science fiction and respecting scientific accuracy isn't crucial in many of them.

Star Trek has been credited with respecting scientific principles and even foreshadowing many scientific developments. The communicator in the original version is basically a mobile phone. Before the iPad, DS9 had Personal Access Display Devices, PADDs that pretended to do what iPads ended up doing for real. Voice recognition software was also a thing way back in the 60s as was having a translator that was even better than Google Translate. But much of this was driven by narrative and cost considerations. The transporter wasn't so much a prediction of how we'd get around in centuries to come: it was driven by the desire to avoid the costs of filming scenes of a spaceship landing on a planet. Not only would filming realistic landing and take-off scenes be expensive but also filming actors entering and leaving the parked spaceship would require fairly large sets. So the creatives devised a cheap special effect which also became a plot driver.

But although Star Trek has enough science to entrance geeks, it was more about people and moral dilemmas. The original Star Trek was 3 mates in space (and some think Kirk, Spock & Bones were actually just 3 aspects of 1 person: the bold adventurer, the intellectual and the humanist). As a science fiction show, it got away with morality tales about racism, the Cold War, eugenics & the like. It was always a lot more cerebral and personality-driven.

Then you have the more action-packed science-fiction like the Netflix reincarnation of Lost in Space or Star Wars. In particular, the Lost in Space storylines were so crammed with plot twists and gadgets that it's a bit like a cross between listening to a comic machine-gunning one-liners and a Bond film: there's never much time to think about how ridiculous most of it is. Star Wars ends up with nonsense like guys dressed as if they escaped from a Nativity play while wielding light sabres rather than guns or phasers. And all of "the Force" stuff just introduces a religious or mystical angle that probably plays well to spiritual Americans.

Hostile alien/monster stories like Alien and The War of the Worlds end up being "realistic" genres as they're pretty much gaming out the sorts of challenges that might play out in such unlikely scenarios. Creating attackers which are much more advanced or powerful than us while leaving them with credible Achilles' heels helps keep the plots a bit more anchored to reality. Android/AI plots also have a lot of scope for creating storylines which explore issues with AI that have real resonance: Ex Machina is a fine example.

Perhaps the genre which most clearly respects scientific accuracy is fictional space travel and exploration of other worlds. The Martian is a good example of that, but there are countless TV series which deal with sending astronauts to Mars to establish colonies.

Re: How good is the Science in Science Fiction films?

Reply #2
Probably my all time favourite for getting the Physics right is '2001: A Space Odyssey'. I still show the scene where Dave enters the ship without his space helmet in class. It is brilliant. (I don't have to say that not taking his helmet is one of the stupidest things I can imagine. No sane astronaut would consider such a thing.) Since 1968, when 2001 was made, there has never been a scene that shows better the effect of being in vacuum for a short time.
So why has basic Physics being ignored so badly in film, where the film makers must know better?

Unquestionably the best sci fi film of its time.  The station docking sequence is spot on.

I can't deal with Star Wars at all, but a huge fan of Star Trek (at least post the original series) simply for the brilliance of the writers.  The remakes?  Nup.

Re: How good is the Science in Science Fiction films?

Reply #3
Not a film, but the series The Expanse is by far the most accurate for getting the physics of space correct when it's applied by the directors.
The Force Awakens!

Re: How good is the Science in Science Fiction films?

Reply #4
When it comes to bad science in TV & film science fiction, loud explosions on distant objects in space would have to be right up there. But how unsettling (and unimpressive) would it be to watch battles being fought in space in complete silence? It is possible to be too realistic!

Re: How good is the Science in Science Fiction films?

Reply #5
When it comes to bad science in TV & film science fiction, loud explosions on distant objects in space would have to be right up there. But how unsettling (and unimpressive) would it be to watch battles being fought in space in complete silence? It is possible to be too realistic!
Agreed, it's entertainment first and foremost! Fake gravity and sound is essential to turn an action scene into something interesting.

It requires a suspension of disbelief to function.
The Force Awakens!

Re: How good is the Science in Science Fiction films?

Reply #6
Realism vs entertainment.

The thing is, the accuracy of the  science isn't important because as our ability to do things evolves things might be seemingly impossible but by that same token they could happen.

I rate a movie on its watchable factor.  If I'm unable to tear myself away then thats the important part.

Regarding the Arnie total recall thing, I haven't seen it since high school but my memory tells me that the film ends with you not knowing if it was a real experience or a story adventure entertainment that he had purchased.  Never watched the second.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: How good is the Science in Science Fiction films?

Reply #7
When it comes to bad science in TV & film science fiction, loud explosions on distant objects in space would have to be right up there. But how unsettling (and unimpressive) would it be to watch battles being fought in space in complete silence? It is possible to be too realistic!

In one of the newer Star Wars films there is a huge explosion in space.....you can see it, but you can't hear anything until the shock wave comes to you.
When this was first played in America, they would get multiple complaints about the sound dropping out at that point.
It was in fact the most realistic space explosion that probably ever been on film, yet people complained because.....well....they don't understand physics. Hollywood has taught them 'new laws'.

@crash...
I watched the magnetic monster the other day. A 50's B+W sci fi film where the 'magnetic monster' was like a black hole that was feeding and getting bigger.
Completely implausible, but the characters were scientists and they analysed it and worked through it in a more scientific way than anything you'll see in modern movies. People in movies were smarter back then and todays movies are dumbed down to maximise ticket sales

I was putting off the new total recall for years and years. I finally got bored enough to put it on....i don't think i got through more than 15-20 minutes before turning it off (and i watch a LOT of crap movies that i sit through) and i've never gone back to it.

Re: How good is the Science in Science Fiction films?

Reply #8
If you wanna watch a blinder sci fi, get "Life" from 2017.  Accurate and damned frightening.  Jake Gildenhall


Re: How good is the Science in Science Fiction films?

Reply #9
This thread… 🤣🤦🏼‍♂️
I get what you’re all saying and I agree.
To me it’s about “buying in” and suspending belief, I tried with that godawful defacement of “The Dark Tower” and after 30 seconds of one of those truly horrendous F&F movies I was laughing so hard (cringing) my then gf now wife moved seats…
Let’s go BIG !

Re: How good is the Science in Science Fiction films?

Reply #10
In one of the newer Star Wars films there is a huge explosion in space.....you can see it, but you can't hear anything until the shock wave comes to you.
When this was first played in America, they would get multiple complaints about the sound dropping out at that point.
It was in fact the most realistic space explosion that probably ever been on film, yet people complained because.....well....they don't understand physics. Hollywood has taught them 'new laws'.
I have a dim memory that there was a time when Aussie filmmakers were warned off using the sound of the Kookaburra as Hollywood had hijacked it as a stock sound in jungle settings (e.g. Tarzan). The fear was that audiences would be wondering how Toucans ended up in Australia.

Re: How good is the Science in Science Fiction films?

Reply #11
As another SF fan, I share the dismay with many regarding more recent offerings. If I never see another SF with the astronauts being woken up early from suspended animation, it'll be too soon. I've gotten to about the 15 minutes mark of a number of SFs recently and simply switched off. But I think most of the contributors here are more your thinking audience and can't be conned with a 'leap of faith' that is simply illogical or without some scientific credibility.

I confess to enjoying SFs with a human or even spiritual message. A splash of social justice comment also doesn't go astray. Loved the work of Rod Serling. He commented in an interview that his social justice/morality scripts just didn't get legs in Hollywood until he set them in SF. I have the original boxed sets of The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits - I grew up with these and love them still to this day. In the non-SF genre, Rod's movie from 1956, Patterns, is a brilliant commentary on corporates that still holds up today.

But, yep, to state the bleeding obvious, most SFs today are more about special effects than story (and underpinned with credible science) and so formulaic to satisfy one need only - bums on seats/downloads. However, you'd think there'd be a viable market for the thinking SF fan/nerd.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: How good is the Science in Science Fiction films?

Reply #12
Baggers, Star Trek was also a more conventional show that was shoehorned into SF. Its studio pitch was that it would be "Wagon Train to the Stars". Wagon Train was a popular western series with 1 hour episodes where the main cast moved with the wagon train and each new 1 hour episode involved a new place and new guest stars with some drama to resolve. The space program obviously provided an interesting new backdrop (and John F. Kennedy wasn't a bad role model for James T. Kirk). Both the western and SF formats allowed scriptwriters to deal with topical issues without being seen to be directly critical of contemporary politics. More recently, shows like West Wing and Law & Order have been able to rip stories out of the news headlines.

No doubt Star Trek hit a nerve in the US with its optimistic vision of its future as the country confronted fears of nuclear war in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis together with the Vietnam War and Civil Rights battles.

Re: How good is the Science in Science Fiction films?

Reply #13
If anyone's looking for a slow-burn, cerebral sort of show, Midnight Mass on Netflix is worth a look. It's not really SF; it's in the horror/supernatural genre. But it has great character development and touches on topics like how good people can be persuaded to do bad things, coping with regrets and grief, and the meaning of life and death. It features some impressive work from the lead actors, especially those who play Father Paul & Bev. In the end, though, it's a horror series rather than a philosophical one.

Re: How good is the Science in Science Fiction films?

Reply #14
Baggers, Star Trek was also a more conventional show that was shoehorned into SF. Its studio pitch was that it would be "Wagon Train to the Stars". Wagon Train was a popular western series with 1 hour episodes where the main cast moved with the wagon train and each new 1 hour episode involved a new place and new guest stars with some drama to resolve. The space program obviously provided an interesting new backdrop (and John F. Kennedy wasn't a bad role model for James T. Kirk). Both the western and SF formats allowed scriptwriters to deal with topical issues without being seen to be directly critical of contemporary politics. More recently, shows like West Wing and Law & Order have been able to rip stories out of the news headlines.

No doubt Star Trek hit a nerve in the US with its optimistic vision of its future as the country confronted fears of nuclear war in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis together with the Vietnam War and Civil Rights battles.

Spot on... and no other genre would have allowed Kirk and Nyota to kiss! Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea was another fave, until it lost its way catering to colour TV with ridiculous monsters.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17