Cod "science" that ruins a sci fi film
- Thread starter Deckerd
- Start date
"Screw your science"
Oh no need to change anything. In fact, using that term just makes it all the more intriguing. I honestly had not heard the term "cod science" before.
MeanJoePhaser
Admiral
We say "junk science" in the states.
I guess that's the same thing.
I guess that's the same thing.
I was watching Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea just a couple of days ago and that movie had the Van Allen radiation belt SET ON FIRE. I laughed about it and kept watching the otherwise quite enjoyable and well-written movie.
It would be easier to do a thread about SF movies and shows that don't have awful science. A thread about movies and shows with bad science would encompass virtually all mass-media SF.
^ The question is about whether is ruins them or not. Made up science doesn't really ruin Trek for instance because it doesn't purport to be realistic, it's fantasy sci-fi.
Red Planet was supposed to be more realistic, so it matters more that they don't make massive gaffes.
Red Planet was supposed to be more realistic, so it matters more that they don't make massive gaffes.
What gaffes are you speaking of? The only one I can think of was that the scrip and dialogue called for the "critters" to be nematodes, but the effects crew screwed that up and made them into little shrimps, and that someone mistyped the DNA sequence from GATC to GATP... But I can forgive both of those.
I think that just about the only science-fiction film I've seen whose science at least seems to be reasonably well-grounded in reality is 2001: A Space Odyssey. I'm also thinking of certain aspects of Babylon 5, as well. I mean, whenever I see a sci-fi movie or show in which a ship or station has to actually rotate in order to create artificial gravity, I'm thinking that the writers have definitely got to know a thing or two!
Yeah, sure, we all love Star Trek - nobody's about to deny that - but it must be admitted that while certain aspects of the sci-fi "technobabble" (chroniton particles, etc.) are somewhat grounded in scientific reality - be it actual or merely theoretical - the writers often indulge in some pretty far-out extrapolations (a man's brain functioning as an alien society's controller, or a man breaking the warp-speed barrier and devolving into a salamander, etc.)!
Yeah, sure, we all love Star Trek - nobody's about to deny that - but it must be admitted that while certain aspects of the sci-fi "technobabble" (chroniton particles, etc.) are somewhat grounded in scientific reality - be it actual or merely theoretical - the writers often indulge in some pretty far-out extrapolations (a man's brain functioning as an alien society's controller, or a man breaking the warp-speed barrier and devolving into a salamander, etc.)!
Ah - cod science = junk science. Thought it was a typo.
How about holograms as sentient lifeforms - dumb idea from ST Voyager. The good doctor was basically a big program. I suppose the only reason they did this was to either open the field for lots of holodeck episodes or to dream up a somewhat different 'logical' Star Trek architype character from previous shows (Spock, Data).
Some things I will put up with. Gravity buttons/switches are not that realistic, but it is a convenient solution for being able to make shows set in space. Kudos to shows like B5 to come up with a workable realistic alternative.
How about holograms as sentient lifeforms - dumb idea from ST Voyager. The good doctor was basically a big program. I suppose the only reason they did this was to either open the field for lots of holodeck episodes or to dream up a somewhat different 'logical' Star Trek architype character from previous shows (Spock, Data).
Some things I will put up with. Gravity buttons/switches are not that realistic, but it is a convenient solution for being able to make shows set in space. Kudos to shows like B5 to come up with a workable realistic alternative.
That's not true. When it first came along, ST was just about the first SFTV series that made any effort at all to ground itself in plausible science. Roddenberry consulted with all sorts of scientific think tanks and engineers and researchers, trying to make his future as believable as possible. When he made ST:TMP, he consulted with Isaac Asimov and brought in astronaut Rusty Schweickart as a consultant on the spacewalk scenes. In early TNG, he also tried for scientific credibility, and Sternbach and Okuda contributed science jargon that was generally pretty well-grounded in real science. DS9 generally did a fairly good job with the science and technical stuff too, except when it didn't. (For instance, the shrinking effect in "One Small Ship" was fanciful, but at least they recognized that it would be necessary to shrink the air molecules for the characters to breathe, so they treated a fanciful premise in a well-reasoned way.)
Unfortunately, producers other than Roddenberry generally didn't care as much about credibility, so we get much more fanciful science in the third season of TOS, the animated series, the Harve Bennett movies, late TNG, the TNG movies, VGR, and ENT. So it's grossly inconsistent. But even the more fanciful stuff has at least some grounding thanks to the efforts of Roddenberry to lay a plausible foundation. It's totally untrue to say that ST has always been meant as fantasy.
I don't understand. Why do you consider artificial intelligence to be "junk science"? It's a concept that's been standard in serious SF literature for generations, and the subject of ongoing real-life research. There's no known reason to assume that it's impossible for self-aware intelligences to be created artificially. If anything, the assumption that consciousness must be unique to humans is more mystical than scientific.
True, the Trek version of holograms -- in terms of the physical projections, the seemingly solid constructs of "photons and force fields" -- is quite fanciful, and seems absurdly overcomplicated compared to virtual reality. But there's nothing dumb about the idea of a sufficiently complex artificial intelligence gaining sentience. As you say, the Doctor may have been called a hologram, but he was in fact an AI housed in the ship's computer; the hologram was simply his user interface.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
Doppelgänger (aka Journey to the Far Side of the Sun) was so elegantly designed, photographed and scored that I can almost forgive Gerry Anderson for taking a huge dump on physical cosmology in general and Kepler's Third Law in particular.
TGT
In the mid-90s was born the scientifically stupid epic. Movies that avoided physics so scrupulously that it seemed their writers were afraid of being sued by reality for copyright infringement.
Independence Day
Armageddon
Deep Impact
The Core
Day After Tomorrow
These movies weren't just dumb. They were insipid.
Independence Day
Armageddon
Deep Impact
The Core
Day After Tomorrow
These movies weren't just dumb. They were insipid.
"Screw your science"
That's what you say when you've really haddock enough of all this cod science.
Well, the other planet had exactly the same distance from the sun as the Earth did, didn't it? So where does the Third Law come in?
Aside from the super-powerful steam vents on the comet, what's your beef with Deep Impact?
"Screw your science"
I'll have you know you were nearly responsible for my untimely demise! And my new clone isn't even out of the vat yet... Ah well serves me right for eating a turkey burger while reading this site.
I'm sorry. 
I'd hate to have lost you.
I'd hate to have lost you.Similar threads
- Locked
