(the idea for this thread came to me when the scientific inconsistencies in the one dedicated to Space 1999 were discussed) We all know that works of fiction take liberties in the name of creativity (because, rightly, they are not documentaries). We as viewers know this, but in the name of suspension of credulity we accept these liberties in exchange for being entertained. So obviously the James Bond films are not accurate portrayals of the world of international espionage. The F&F saga films have a very tenuous relationship with the laws of physics. The Perry Mason series is not used as study material in law school courses. Because the authors deliberately decide that being close to reality would prevent them from telling interesting stories. And here we come to the field of television and film science fiction, where the problems concern the "science" part. Compared to its literary counterpart, science fiction was not considered a "serious" genre until recently. So scientific verisimilitude was not a top priority. But "recently" (last 50 years?!?) "visual" science fiction has also become a mature genre, so authors have tried to be, well, a little more in line with scientific principles. But how much should this "little more" be? Obviously everyone has their own individual threshold. And we tend to judge Star Wars (which is practically a fairy tale with a dressing of spaceships and lasers) and The Expanse, which tried to be most realistic possible, differently. But in any case, at least I want a minimum of credibility even in these two very different works. And in fact both, for example, acknowledge the difference between a star and a galaxy. And they both take it for granted that if you want to travel to another solar system and return the same day you need some kind of FTL gizmo. This brings us to Space: 1999. This TV show has obviously always positioned itself as "serious". And the influence of 2001: A Space Odyssey (a film which, LSD trip aside, is scientifically impeccable compared to what came before) is evident. But Space 1999's relationship with science is that of two sworn enemies ready to kill each other. For example in an episode Koenig (the Moon Base commander) says "This is Triton's galaxy. This is Triton's star system. This is Triton's universe. This is Triton's sun." One has to wonder if the writers paid a little bit of attention at school when they explained the difference between an universe, a galaxy and a star. TOS managed to make clear the difference years before. It was information available to anyone who could reach out for an encyclopedia, or rather, a dictionary. There isn't even a dramatic need that could justify such a mistake. It would be as if in the aforementioned James Bond films the concepts of city, nation, continent and world were used interchangeably in the screenplay. It wouldn't be artistic license, it would be plain ignorance on the part of the writers. But for some reason ignorance of basic concepts that in other genres would be inexcusable in science fiction becomes perfectly ok, even a source of pride. Gerry Anderson (one of the creators of Space 1999) said on the subject: 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.’ But who knows, maybe he's right? All of this long introduction of mine is to ask you, what is your personal limit of scientific credibility that you expect in a science fiction film/TV series? Is there an absolute minimum (such as using terms like "galaxy" or "star" correctly)? Or could it also be that it has absolutely no relation to our scientific knowledge as long as the story entertains us (I admit that I had a lot of fun with Armageddon, another scientifically problematic film)? Tell me your opinion!