Scientific accuracy in sci-fi show

[Zaku]

On the subject of scientific accuracy on sci-fi show Gerry Anderson (creator of sci-fi shows like UFO or Space: 1999) had to say:

Regarding scientific accuracy and a critical review of Space: 1999 by Isaac Asimov, Gerry Anderson commented: ‘I think that a show that is absolutely scientifically correct can be as dull as ditch-water. But I think the point he was making was that, if you are going deep into the universe, then you can say whatever you like and that’s fine; but if you’re dealing with subjects that we have up-to-date knowledge on, like the Moon, then you ought to be correct. I think that was a reasonable criticism. But I think the problem with scientific advisors is that if you had a scientific advisor in 1820 he would have told you that it was impossible to fly and to travel beyond the speed of sound. And today they’re telling us that it’s impossible to travel beyond the speed of light. I think, therefore, they are inhibiting to a production, and since the heading is science fiction – underline the word fiction – I don’t really think there’s any place for them.’

So, what's your take on the subject..? Too much scientific accuracy can be detrimental for a sci-fi show...?

Edit: if anyone is interested, this is the original article about Space: 1999 by Isac Asimov

An Expert's Verdict: 'Trek' Wins

 

[CorporalClegg]

Like most things, I think scientific accuracy should work at the speed of the plot.

If it beneficial to the story to be accurate, then so be it. If fudging with Newton's laws adds a bit of suspense and drama, go for it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Depends on the show.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

On the subject of scientific accuracy on sci-fi show Gerry Anderson (creator of sci-fi shows like UFO or Space: 1999) had to say:

Regarding scientific accuracy and a critical review of Space: 1999 by Isaac Asimov, Gerry Anderson commented: ‘I think that a show that is absolutely scientifically correct can be as dull as ditch-water. But I think the point he was making was that, if you are going deep into the universe, then you can say whatever you like and that’s fine; but if you’re dealing with subjects that we have up-to-date knowledge on, like the Moon, then you ought to be correct. I think that was a reasonable criticism. But I think the problem with scientific advisors is that if you had a scientific advisor in 1820 he would have told you that it was impossible to fly and to travel beyond the speed of sound. And today they’re telling us that it’s impossible to travel beyond the speed of light. I think, therefore, they are inhibiting to a production, and since the heading is science fiction – underline the word fiction – I don’t really think there’s any place for them.’

So, what's your take on the subject..? Too much scientific accuracy can be detrimental for a sci-fi show...?

Edit: if anyone is interested, this is the original article about Space: 1999 by Isac Asimov

An Expert's Verdict: 'Trek' Wins

Scientific accuracy worked well with Interstellar. That being said, we are talking about science fiction so I think accuracy should be a guiding principle, but it doesn't need to be perfect.

 

[Marc]

They are probably a hard sell hence hard sci-fi/scientifically accurate tv shows are few and far between

Two that come to mind are Star Cops and Space Island One - neither was a brillant sucess.

Though Asmiov was very right about the bad science in Space:1999 (esp S2).

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

They are probably a hard sell hence hard sci-fi/scientifically accurate tv shows are few and far between

Two that come to mind are Star Cops and Space Island One - neither was a brillant sucess.

Though Asmiov was very right about the bad science in Space:1999 (esp S2).

BSG, while not scientifically accurate, had good space battles that were close, (ie. No sound and very little oxygen when it came to explosions).

 

[Shawnster]

I'm rewatching Space 1999. The only thing keeping me watching is nostalgia. That show is baaaaddddd and not in the good way. Season one was awful and season two is proving far worse. I think you need to at least get the basic science right or have a good reason for what you are fudging. At least get your terminology right. Understand what a galaxy is as opposed to a star system.

I've read some very entertaining hard SciFi novels. Adhering to known science while postulating along scientific lines is possible. Other types of fiction adhere to science and reality without forsaking drama and storytelling.

Yes', for production sake you might need to have artificial gravity. For artistic sake you might want to have sound in space or visible lasers. You can still adhere to realism where possible. A star is a star, planets are planets. A galaxy is a huge place and not the same as a star system. Planets are thousands or millions of miles apart.

And figure of a better way to move the moon week after week than just a nuclear explosion.
Example. In TOS BSG, the Galactica is emerging from an asteroid dust cloud. Apollo explains to Boxey that once they clear the asteroids, they are going to be in a new star system. He acts like this is a big deal.

No kidding Apollo! Of course you will be in a whole new star system! Or, did you mean a whole new galaxy? That would be a big deal.

 

[Greg Cox]

Depends on the show.

Exactly, and what kind of story you're trying to tell.

If you're aspiring to hard sf, sure. If you're going for Twilight Zone type allegories, probably not so much.

 

[Kor]

very little oxygen when it came to explosions

When I was about nine years old, I had a friend who thought ST:TNG was better than TOS because "the explosions looked cooler" (i.e., they were more fiery and lasted longer). He thought it was cheesy that on TOS, a ship would just go "poof" when it exploded.

I tried to explain that the lingering conflagrations in the vacuum of space were scientifically inaccurate, but he didn't care.

Kor

 

[Zaku]

Depends on the show.

Exactly, and what kind of story you're trying to tell.

If you're aspiring to hard sf, sure. If you're going for Twilight Zone type allegories, probably not so much.

Absolutely.

The problem is that, for example, Star Wars, a fairy tale with a sci-fi coating, was still more scientific accurate than Space: 1999, a show with a "serious" undertone. E.g., they acknowledged the difference between a planet and a star or that you need some kind of FTL technology to go from a star system to another....

Edit:

But I think the problem with scientific advisors is that if you had a scientific advisor in 1820 he would have told you that it was impossible to fly and to travel beyond the speed of sound.

Do you think that a physicist in the 19th century could have said something similar? There were a lot of human made objects that breaked the sound barrier, for example whips.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Even in real Science Fiction, science and technology are extrapolated beyond what is known. In any fiction, internal consistency is more important than realism. And verisimilitude is also important: That's why I can buy everything that happens in the Indiana Jones movies except the falling life raft staying upright.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The problem with scientific advisers is that they are advisers.

Science Adviser: This scene violates all known laws of physics.

Movie Maker: It's too cool to lose. It stays.

Science Adviser: Why am I here?

Movie Maker: So we can say we had a science adviser in promotional materials.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

The problem with scientific advisers is that they are advisers.

Science Adviser: This scene violates all known laws of physics.

Movie Maker: It's too cool to lose. It stays.

Science Adviser: Why am I here?

Movie Maker: So we can say we had a science adviser in promotional materials.

Amusing script.

To be honest, sci-fantasy / sci-fi films & TV of the past 40+ years wasted their time trying to appeal to geek and/or journalistic bias after the celebrated projections / sort-of accurate projections of 2001. After that, almost every filmmaker beat themselves up (and occasionally trash talked each other) trying to prove how scientifically accurate their productions were, when the first priority was to use the genre to entertain.

That does not mean employ idiot level "science" from the 50's (Plan 9 From Outer Space, etc.), but at the end of the day, there's only a very small sub group of audience members who were going to complain about inaccuracies. Today, its a few obsessed geeks or journalists who (among other things) publish pointless top 10 "most scientifically implausible" lists, when again, the general audience does not care, otherwise ST, Marvel movies and other films would not make a dime due to its alleged failings in the eyes of the public.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Yeah, it would depend on how deep they're willing to go. My opinion though, is that if a production is going to bring up a particular subject, that they should try to be accurate. It does them no service if they've only gone half-way. That kind of goes with any show that decides to use science, though, and not sci-fi in particular.

One locally produced TV show in its pilot episode hilariously had a character refer to having a "telescope with a refractor." It either is or isn't, as a refractor is a type of telescope, the other kind being a reflector. Seems like a rather basic error to make, yet we do have a fairly active astronomy club here that they could have simply called for advice.

 

[tomswift2002]

Just last year I picked up Mill Creek's 150 SCI-FI classics box set, and one of the things that is so fun about those shows is how the writer's really did not care what science they were not following. One show I rewatching a lot is the 50's "Flash Gordon". Sure Flash is prowling the Galaxy in the SkyFlash, a chemically-propelled rocket ship, but he still manages to get from one side of the Galaxy to the other at sub-light speed.

Even older cartoons really threw science out the window, whereas I find a number of new cartoons really turn me off by having the characters constrained by the laws of the universe we have to go by outside the TV.

 

[HIjol]

I usually lean towards the "science" end of Science Fiction, like Larry Niven-ish kinds of SF...

...usually