Science Report Card on Sci-Fi Movies
There is a certain amount of suspension of disbelief that we have to endure to enjoy Science Fiction movies. I mean, that is why they are called Science Fiction, not Science Fact. It is the fantastical that make them so wonderfully captivating to watch and what makes these things so desirable in the first place. That most of it cannot happen really doesn’t matter. Its the story and worlds around it.
However, io9.com has put together a little report card on some of the major SciFi movies and took a look at how “real” the science is in science fiction.
The categories of mistakes in our report card should be pretty self-explanatory, but just in case, I’ll expand on them a little bit:
* There’s no sound in space
* Not all planets have Earth gravity
* Planets should have diverse climates, instead of one unified climate across a “desert planet” or “forest planet.”
* It shouldn’t be too easy to communicate with alien creatures, without some kind of high-technology “translator” explanation.
* And it definitely shouldn’t be too easy for humans to interbreed with aliens.
* Humans exposed to vacuum without a spacesuit shouldn’t explode or shatter. And a “hull breach” where the ship’s crew is exposed to vacuum should kill everyone instantly.
* You can’t have fires in space, unless there’s oxygen leaking out somehow.
* Asteroids or other objects shouldn’t be able to float close together without falling into each other’s gravity
* People shouldn’t be able to dodge lasers and other speed-of-light weapons
* And there’s no reason why someone would move in slow-motion in zero gravity.
* Faster-than-light travel is probably not ever going to be possible.
Imagine if your favourite Sci-Fi hit was to remain scientifically accurate. There would be no gravity in space faring vessels. Ships the size of a Mack Truck wouldn’t be capable of leaving orbit (or leaving the solar system in one lifetime) Attacking someone with a laser gun would be an instant kill. Always.
I found it interesting that my favourite Sci-Fi ever (Star Wars) fared the worst on this list. However later in the article they admit that Star Trek was omitted from the list because it fails on every qualification in their report card and many more that are not even listed.
Take that Trekkies. My Star Wars is less scientifically offensive than your Star Trek!! What inaccuracies do you willingly endure for the sake of your fandom?
Go to io9.com to see the chart listing the good and bad.
27 Comments, Comment or Ping
DON
eh both star wars and star trek are bad.
Mar 15th, 2008
AjaxLou
Why are you surprised Rodney? SW is not SF its fantasy.
Mar 15th, 2008
AjaxLou
Also - let’s clarify io9s rather specious, ie completely arbitrary, criteria for omitting ST -
‘By the way, we left out Star Trek because there’s so much of it, even if you just include the movies, and if you look hard enough you can find places where it violates almost all of these rules’
A tad different that the spin you put on it.
Mar 15th, 2008
Rodney
Star Wars is Sci-Fi. Fantasy is the category that covers traditional medieval movies. Anything set futuristic and in space is automatically sci-fi.
And I didn’t “spin” a different reason for them omitting Star Trek. They admit that Trek violates everything on their criteria list in some way in some episode.
Mar 15th, 2008
Stephen
The actual definition of SciFi vs Fantasy is roughly “Science fiction consists of improbable possibilities, fantasy of plausible impossibilities”
Though Star Wars has some impossibilities in it (the Force) it most certainly falls into the grouping of Science Fiction.
Mar 15th, 2008
WolfMarauder
Rodney, from an academic standpoint, you are incorrect. Star Wars is very much considered fantasy. I don’t know what led you to decide that “fantasy” referred to solely to medieval fiction, but it does not. Fantasy is one of the three main arms of “speculative fiction”, which is why there is so much confusion between fantasy and sci-fi (sci-fi is another form of speculative fiction). The strongest facet of the fantasy genre is the presence of magic, which is intrinsic to Star Wars as “the Force”. Most fantasy stories are set in a world resembling Earth past, but it is not a necessary constraint of the genre. Science-Fiction, on the other hand, is reliant on the presence of technological upheaval, and is based in a universe that is grounded to our own in one sense or another - Star Wars is not. Just because a film has spaceships doesn’t make it science fiction. One day people will learn.
Mar 15th, 2008
Rodney
“Science-Fiction, on the other hand, is reliant on the presence of technological upheaval, and is based in a universe that is grounded to our own in one sense or another”
Star Wars has technological advances and takes place “a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away”.
That grounds earth as a reference point to this franchise. In one way or another earth exists in the Star Wars Universe. This is also illustrated by the mention of earthly creatures such as ducks in Star Wars. Ducks are native to earth.
The fantasy element within star wars does not exclude it from being Science Fiction. Star Wars is more SciFi than Fantasy, though the argument can be made that it simply bridges both definitions and can therefore be considered both.
Mar 15th, 2008
WolfMarauder
Many of the most detailed analases of the films believe “a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away” refers not to a physical time or location, but an imaginary one, like a fairy tale. When your mother tells you the story of Rumepstilzkin, do you believe it is meant to take place in the actual universe just because it involves gold? It is certainly open for debate, but it is perfectly plausible to assume that these stories are meant to be fair tales, or bard songs - the kind of things are are told under the guise of being real, but are not.
I recommend you take a look at some interesting books and journals published on speculative fiction and fantasy/sci-fi, many of which have entire sections on Star Wars. A good place to start is with “Science Fiction” by Adam Roberts, or various journal articles by Lee Easton and David J. Hogan. Jackie Cassada has also written a very good piece on science-fiction and fantasy in the Library Journal in just December of last year.
Mar 15th, 2008
WolfMarauder
Wow, I butchered “Rumpelstilzkin”. Sorry if the word was unclear in my previous post.
Mar 15th, 2008
AjaxLou
SF is the literature of plausible extensions of reality based on projections of social and technological trends.
SW violates that plausibility at the outset with the words - A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. There is no plausible, scientific explanation for the Force - it is magic, plain and simple. SW may drape itself in space opera SF dressings but that is the extent of its SF pedigree.
It is very much fantasy and has forever muddied the waters of what true SF is with the general public.
Referencing a speculative piece of work to earth in no way makes it plausible and therefore SF. If true, then by that criteria LOTR is SF too.
Mar 15th, 2008
Orren Jensen
Fantasy: Fiction (Myth, Legend)
the forming of mental images, esp. wondrous or strange fancies; imaginative conceptualizing.
Science Fiction: Technology + Fantasy
a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation in its plot, setting, theme, etc.
Epics: Action + Adventure + (Fantasy)
noting or pertaining to a long poetic composition, usually centered upon a hero, in which a series of great achievements or events is narrated in elevated style
Mar 16th, 2008
Orren Jensen
Fantasy: imaginative fiction featuring especially strange settings and grotesque characters.
Science Fiction: fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component.
Epics: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of an epic
Mar 16th, 2008
Orren Jensen
Fantasy:In literature and entertainment, a genre of fiction in which entirely different laws of physics and/or psychics operate, allowing people, creatures, and their surroundings to exhibit behavior not possible in reality.
Science Fiction:An elaborate, suspenseful, and sometimes well-written fairy tale that typically focuses on paranormal events, aliens, technology, futuristic visions, space exploration, multiple dimensions, genetics, and other themes which require a good use of logic and scientific theories/facts.
Mar 16th, 2008
Naven
Um…I think Lucas moved the force from being magic to science fiction when he introduced midi-chlorians. And as much as I cringed at the concept in Episode 1 that provides a “scientific explanation” of the force.
Mar 16th, 2008
AjaxLou
No Naven. The Force as a concept is still Fantasy. There is no scientific evidence or extrapolation that it exists.
Oren SF is not Technology + Fantasy. Its Technology + Fiction.
Mar 16th, 2008
Walter L. Johnson
You are mostly right, but very little Science Fiction has ever been about science we actually knew how to do. You are also technically wrong about never going faster than light. One theoretical scientist has calculated the energy necessary to fold space. He just doubts that we will every have that kind of energy to use for that purpose. Besides no one would read a book if it took centuries to get between planets.
A lot of scientists were inspired to become scientists by science fiction. I know my oldest son, who is working on his Ph.D. in physics was inspired. Indeed he was disappointed when he learned enough science to see how slowly real science makes progress, so now he reads Science Fantasy instead of Science Fiction, as the errors he knows about annoy him, but not when everythign is far fetched as in fantasy.
I do dispute your assertion that people would move at normal speeds in zero gravity, rather than more slowly. Our astronauts don’t even do that. Because you don’t have gravity as a guide or a brake, motions have to be more controlled and careful to avoid damaging equipment or yourself, since simple momentum can do a lot of damage. Space ships aren’t built today at least for the astronauts to simply bounce around the ship care free.
Mar 16th, 2008
Rodney
Darth, Lord of the Rings is not SciFi at all and makes NO reference to its location in regards to earth. Middle Earth is the continent on the planet Arda. Earth as we know it does not exist.
At least in Star Wars there is a reference.
Science Fiction has some sort of scientific explanation as to the functionality of the far fetched technology they use. The Force is mystical, but explained as the byproduct of the symbiotic Medichlorians. So there is a scientific (though implausible) explanation.
Mar 16th, 2008
WolfMarauder
http://hubpages.com/hub/Star-Wars-is-not-Science-Fiction
There is a not-so-academic, but well argued, discussion about Star Wars’ true genre. It brings up all of the fantasy elements in the film, and debunks every misconception that Star Wars is actually science fiction. As a result, it’s a lot more interesting to read, and easier to find than the books and articles I mentioned yesterday.
I’d like to personally address this stupid “midichlorian” misconception too. Science fiction refers to science that actually has a basis in reality. Even if it is technically impossible (such as traveling at the speed of light with plasma engines alone like in Star Trek), the concept uses terms and ideas that are REAL, even if they’re not realistic. Thus, sci-fi is dependent on the intrinsic presence of scientific principles that are based on real science.
Fake science, which is just FANTASY science, like midichlorians, are not science. Magic isn’t magic anymore just because there is an explanation to how it works. For example, many fantasy very much go into detail about how magic in their world works to the point of scientific understanding (I myself am writing a film that deals with this subject). Does that makes it any less fantasy? No. Does that make it anymore science fiction? No. In ever genre class, genre based article, genre based book, etc, the sections detailing science fiction ALWAYS guide you through the biggest misconceptions of the genre - most professors, academic writers, etc, will tell you flat out that fantasy science is not science fiction - it’s still fantasy.
Mar 16th, 2008
darren j seeley
“This is also illustrated by the mention of earthly creatures such as ducks in Star Wars. Ducks are native to earth.”
Wow. And I thought I was the only person alive who remembered Luke’s ‘What’s a duck?” line. The proof of the existence of the dialog is in the original paperback printing of Star Wars (before it was known officially as A New Hope) and I still swear to this day that I saw the scene in live action when I first saw Star Wars (A New Hope) as a kid. That was at a drive-in no less. It seems to have been edited out since, as if too deny the existence. But it remains…in the original paperback novelization. I know that…because I still have it , even if it’s not the best of conditions.
I’m surprised Trek didn’t make it- the early Trek anyway. Before the real world had cell phones (and walkie talkies before that)…the OS Star Trek gave us communicators. Right?
****
There was a few items here which are debatable. Here they are:
“Planets should have diverse climates, instead of one unified climate across a “desert planet” or “forest planet.”
Far be it from me to argue with science fact. But from what we know about Mars…wouldn’t that be considered a unified climate?
“And it definitely shouldn’t be too easy for humans to interbreed with aliens.”
Y’know what, I would like to know how that was scientifically proven either by observation or demonstration. Second thought, I don’t want to know. Neither should you. (I’m not sure where the interbreeding in the Alien films comes in…I’m lost there)
On thier list, one got my attention.
STARGATE.
They should check themselves. It is-and should be- an exception on thier list. In Stargate (the movie, not the series) the inhabitants of that world were not “aliens” and the communication was not “alien” in nature. It was clearly established that this was an offshoot of a tribe of humans with an ancient language taught to them by aliens and the language stayed in Ancient Egypt. Still, the communication was not always understood (the awful chicken joke, for example) in addition, the lost tribe are “still” human beings. So they “would” be able to reproduce with visiting humans from the Stargate.
The world, as we find out is very close to Earth- same gravity, about the same oxygen. As to if there are other climates on that planet- the audience was only treated to one general locale.
I’m glad to see Right Stuff and Apollo 13 getting a clean slate, but those two films aren’t science fiction or fantasy, and I cry foul.
Mar 16th, 2008
Rodney
Ducks were also mentioned in the movies and officially are considered to be native to the planet Naboo for one reason:
According to the Star Wars official Databank, “during Queen Amidala’s escape from Naboo, Captain Panaka was heard to lament the likelihood of their being hit by Trade Federation cannonades. He likened their position to being “sitting ducks.” ”
Just sayin.
Mar 16th, 2008
bjon86
It funny, Rodney. You are getting all these people disagreeing with you because a lot of the stuff you are saying are not actual facts, but opinions. Nobody knows if “faster than the speed of light travel” will ever be possible or not. That would be like living in a universe of darkness, having never seen light, and trying to say what it would be like without darkness. You have no clue. Our space flight at this point in time on this planet is actually pretty pathetic. Anyways, opinions, opinions, opinions. We gotta know when the shit we say is opinion or fact before trynna lay down a law of some sort.
Mar 17th, 2008
Jeremy Helbert
With the Lord of The Rings isn’t the world in a parallel universe to Earth?
Mar 17th, 2008
Gary
The Lord of The Rings is based around Celtic mythology and mirrors Earth’s history.
Mar 17th, 2008
WolfMarauder
bjon86,
People are always free to have their opinions. But there is very much an academic definition of science fiction, and Star Wars does not fit into it. That, my friend, is a fact. If somebody wants to use their own definition of what they think should be considered science fiction, they should feel free - but they will often be disagreed with by those of us who study the genre.
Mar 17th, 2008
Rodney
Gary, simply because something written by an earthling that is inspired by nonscientific mythology does not give it a metaplot connection to earth. There is no science earth or otherwise in Lord of the Rings.
Lord of the Rings is undoubtedly Fantasy Genre.
Mar 17th, 2008
Rodney
bjon86, It is funny that you insist I get my facts and opinions straight while insisting that I was the one who stated faster than light travel was impossible. I didn’t say that,nor did I defend it.
Firstly, The blockquoted portion of the article is not my writing and is credited accordingly.
Secondly, the quote does say “Faster-than-light travel is probably not ever going to be possible.”
PROBABLY. Doesn’t say it is impossible. Improbable.
Mar 17th, 2008
xgdfalcon
A real scientist examines the IO9.com list.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/03/16/bad-bad-movie-physics/
Mar 17th, 2008
Reply to “Science Report Card on Sci-Fi Movies”