How much legit does the science have to be in your sci-fi TV/movies?

[Starkers]

It's not even about the "awesome" factor, it's just basic storytelling. For example; in real science, certain things take a long damn time (space travel for example.) So unless your whole premise is based around that very passage of time and the isolation involved (like say KSR's 'Aurora' or Weir's 'Project Hail Mary'); then it can become a direct impediment to simply advancing the narrative.

For example: 'The Expanse' mostly gets around this by mostly being deliberately vague about the passage of time; unlike the novels, which hold true to it, because their medium affords them that luxury.
In visual storytelling the story is rarely served by having a "two weeks later" card flash up between every other scene on the Roci, just because that's how much time should logically have passed between two halves of a conversation. It would stop the show dead in it's tracks and kill the pacing. Same thing with intercutting between different locations. It doesn't need to all be in strict chronological synch with the presumed elapsed time; it just needs to *feel* like the natural flow of the narrative.

Another example could be chemical process, or a mathematical calculation that should take way longer in real life that it may seem to on a show, purely in the name of expediency. It's not different than with say a legal drama when two characters may be having a conversation, then there's a cut, and they're getting out of a car in-front of a building, seemingly continuing the self-same conversation, which they're still having after the next cut when they're walking out of the elevator on the 21st floor.
From an objective standpoint, that's bafflingly unrealistic; but in the name of clear storytelling it's entirely necessary.

Yeah I think most crime dramas would grind to a halt if characters had to wait a realistic amount of time for DNA results!

I like things that take science seriously, but I also like things that are focused on pacing/enjoyment above and beyond that. I love The Arrival and I love Star Wars. I love The Expanse and I love Star Trek. And for me it all falls under the umbrella of science fiction because, for me, the operative word is fiction.

What's likely to piss me off is consistency. I almost* don't care how ridiculous your 'science' is so long as you're constant about how things work. If it takes roughly a week to get from planet A to planet B then it should always take roughly a week.

*I say almost because there are still a lot of things that annoy me but it's rare that the science is the final straw.

 

[Christopher]

Yeah I think most crime dramas would grind to a halt if characters had to wait a realistic amount of time for DNA results!

The thing is, there's a difference between informed poetic license that serves the story and mistakes that show the writers simply didn't do their homework. The latter often undermines the story rather than benefitting it. The way I was taught it was, you have to learn the rules in order to know when it's okay to break them.

I like things that take science seriously, but I also like things that are focused on pacing/enjoyment above and beyond that.

Yeah, but the mistake a lot of people make (including in this thread) is assuming that getting the science right requires centering it in the story. As I've been trying to get across, sometimes it's the opposite -- getting it right can simply mean it's an unobtrusive part of the background, without any egregious errors or stupidities distracting the audience from the story. It's like building a house. A great deal of the work the builders do goes into structural and electrical and plumbing stuff behind the walls that the residents generally don't have to pay attention to because it just does its job reliably and invisibly. It only stands out if it breaks down, or if it wasn't built carefully enough to begin with.

It's the same as what you said about consistency. Even if you make up the rules of the universe, you have to put enough thought and care into their workings to portray them consistently. And that's intrinsically no different from putting in the thought and care to portray realistic science consistently.

 

[Skipper]

Regarding Space 1999, I found this interesting bit of an interview with Barbara Bain

Q: Now as I recall, the producers of Space: 1999 were very concerned about scientific accuracy in the stories.

Bain: We had some very good science fiction people as advisors who knew what they were talking about. For instance, they knew that sound up there wouldn’t travel, and it would just be quiet up there. But then we wouldn’t have a series, so we couldn’t do that. There were various considerations that had to be made, but they were based on what is, or what was, known at the time. For all I know now it’s out of date. I don’t really know.

I'm not sure what the interviewer means when he says that they "were very concerned"...

By the way, no one can convince me that at "Spazio 1999" they had any type of science advisor. Absolutely none.
Because things like this one

are not due to poetic license or narrative necessity. There is no story-related reason not to use the correct terminology. This is the result of simple ignorance. And this, for me, is inexcusable. Using another previous example, it is as if you were to write a story where the protagonist takes a trip abroad and the terms city, country and continent are used incorrectly, just because the screenwriter doesn't know the difference and doesn't even want to fill this gap. It's borderline insulting (IMHO, of course).

 

[Set Harth]

If it takes roughly a week to get from planet A to planet B then it should always take roughly a week.

Tell that to the Star Wars crowd. "If for some unfathomable reason you don't use a major hyperlane it can take three weeks, my Galaxy Guide says so."

 

[Skipper]

Shields in Space battles

Uh, it's not like they are literally impossibile

Travelling across Galaxy almost instantly like in Stargate

It really doesn't bother me. Some kind of instant travel exists even in some hard scifi novels

A whole planet with just 1, 2 or 3 governments

Well, dramatic reasons, but still, it's not like it's impossible.

Borders in Space - seriosly how do you expect to protect an endless 3 dementional space? Just puting beacons will take you 1000 if not million years.

Even in real life, borders are a convention. If you cannot physically patrol or control them, no one is stopping you from establishing them.

Few points of entry in to a single Star System .

Well, if you can enter a solar system through a fixed wormhole or something like that makes sense.

Mines in Space

As above, if your entry point is limited mines are a weapon that makes sense.

Humans in Space - life span is too short to be a space faring race.

If your mode of transportation is a generation spaceship or you use some FTL drive, why not?

Not understanding the size of Galaxy )

On this one I agree

 

[Christopher]

Uh, it's not like they are literally impossibile

No, but they wouldn't work like they're normally portrayed. The original concept of "deflectors" in TOS, judging by the science advisors' memos in The Making of Star Trek, was more of a point-defense system that would push (deflect) incoming debris/projectiles away with an electromagnetic force, rather than the invisible "walls" of energy that later productions depict them to be. Realistically, a force field isn't a rigid barrier, just an acceleration in a certain direction that can be resisted by thrusting hard enough in the other direction, like swimming upstream.

Also, an EM field might work against projectiles or particle radiation, but would be useless against lasers, gamma rays, or X-rays.

As above, if your entry point is limited mines are a weapon that makes sense.

I suppose that depends on how they work. In space, an explosion that happens nearby isn't that much of a threat because there's no medium to transmit the shock. The hazards would mainly be radiation and shrapnel. But unless the mines have some kind of proximity triggers, you could probably slip through them fairly easily without setting them off.

 

[fireproof78]

Not to split hairs, but there's nothing scientifically implausible about that. That kind of thing falls under the umbrella of "technical" accuracy.
One assumes the Pentagon still requires script approval before they'll provide technical advisors, so in the absence of that, it's basically up to the costume department to do their own research (amongst the ten thousand other things they have to deal with) so it's not surprising that a lot of them settle for "eh, close enough" since 90% of the audience won't notice.

A 20 year old captain in the US Navy full commander or random service ribbons definitely falls under close enough but something I notice snd find annoying.

We all have our thing.

 

[Skipper]

No, but they wouldn't work like they're normally portrayed. The original concept of "deflectors" in TOS, judging by the science advisors' memos in The Making of Star Trek, was more of a point-defense system that would push (deflect) incoming debris/projectiles away with an electromagnetic force, rather than the invisible "walls" of energy that later productions depict them to be. Realistically, a force field isn't a rigid barrier, just an acceleration in a certain direction that can be resisted by thrusting hard enough in the other direction, like swimming upstream.

Also, an EM field might work against projectiles or particle radiation, but would be useless against lasers, gamma rays, or X-rays.
.

Well, I can imagine that a "force field" would be actually various technologies that work together to protect the vehicle. And you can add to your list teslaphoresis too! So if your enemy tries to attack you with carbon nanotubes you are INVINCIBLE!!!!

 

[Christopher]

Well, I can imagine that a "force field" would be actually various technologies that work together to protect the vehicle.

The TNG Tech Manual said that deflectors are a gravitational distortion of spacetime around the ship that deflects matter and radiation away, but I never quite bought that, because then how would they see out? They handwaved that it selectively let some frequencies through but not others, but that doesn't seem plausible, since it's actually bending the fabric of space, not some kind of semi-opaque filter.

I used a similar idea in my upcoming novel Arachne's Legacy, a defensive field that works kind of like the ergosphere around a black hole, altering incoming paths so they go off to the side instead of hitting the ship. I mention that the effect can't be made too intense without blinding the ship, and incoming fire can be redirected to compensate for the drift, so it's a limited defense.

 

[Admiral Qu'irk]

If the story can work above and beyond what the audience knows is reality, it's easier.
If the story can work above and beyond real life physics, it's easier.

In the end, making the unreal feel real has to count somewhere in the chain. Ultimately, it's down to a combination of script concepts, dialogue, and acting to sell the impossible, and within the genre(s). Sci-fi and fantasy are lumped into one, despite having disparate rules and how most sci-fi shows still do use fantasy.

Space 1999 - the premise was bunk, even then. It was sold on the drama and philosophy. Even then, the show - amazingly - has the verve to bring up scientific principles in the show that are actually true. In a show that's based on an iffy premise. Their proverbial slight of hand did wonders, if people were willing to look beyond the theme music. But a fun tangent, this show - for once - has more lasting benefit by having its real location be Earth. As, given what we know of the moon and its properties (see list below), it's easier to generate more plotlines than what S1999 did with the moonbase occupants trapped but lucky enough to have such busy lives -- and S1999 does impress me in a number of episodes... I'm amazed no sci-fi in the 70s focused on Earth if, theoretically, the moon went bye-bye. They covered almost everything else...

• Moon controls tidal waves and thus part of the ecological process as we currently know it - I believe this is a more distant discovery but not nearly as recent as moonquakes?
  
• The moon already is drifting away from Earth, at about 1" per year
• If there's any cheese involved, it was left behind by one of the astronauts
• The moon is contracting and even has earthquakes due to all the stuff we put on it (think relative scale) - okay, this revelation is a new discovery, reported over the last year or so
• Frank Zappa's daughter shares the moniker and her song "Valley Girl" was intended as a satirical statement on the Valley subculture of the early-1980s
• Craters are cool
• etc

I could buy into the Force, even if the 1977 original feels like it was about to say "There is no Force, you just had all that practice shooting wamprats from a considerable distance and this is the same thing but on a bigger scale", though that was also limited in scale and scope. Once it was made to do anything on a whim, it got too much as it also begs obvious questions on how nobody else, even the biggest Jedi of them all, had no inkling? (Or Yoda kept it all a secret, okey dokey then.)

I could buy into the light sabers due to limited function and presentation. For all we know, they're retractable, electrified swords and not the way that fans thought of later on over time. And maybe one day light can be harnessed in the way a sword is utilized. Still, bringing a sword to a gunfight is no less dumb.

Like the sonic screwdriver from Doctor Who, a device with a stated purpose (and allowing for some wiggle room within reason that fits the original scope - a unidirectional beam of ultrasonic noise to controllably push objects or start a fire being coherent examples. Once it was used to reprogram a computer by the flick of a wrist or acted like a tricorder or shield generator - it's no wonder a Tereleptil zapped it until it went boom boom... It was more fun back in the days when the Doctor had pockets full of goodies, which felt more grounded, and not a "Swiss Army Screwdriver". To the point I reveled with glee when the "Fugitive" Doctor asked what it was and wondered why anyone needed it before mocking it. Then again, an alien character that once regenerated due to a great fall now can fall from a much further-up distance and be fairly unscathed. Regeneration is fantasy based on science as extrapolation, noting how some simpler creatures can regrow legs if cut off and other neat things the more complex ones largely can't do... but it was easy to buy into. At least before a regeneration put out enough fire and energy to destroy entire Dalek fleets or wreck spaceship interiors that then have said flambe-Doctor get flung out due to the ship now out of control... scale and scope, in relation, and presentation - and everyone's different in what they will suspend disbelief over. It's inevitable, but one more example is this:

Heck, the TARDIS - as told initially - a machine that could travel anywhere in time and space, whose camouflage unit finally broke down while on Earth (after a lot of recent travel and harrowing escapes by the Doctor and Susan) just felt real. Suspension of disbelief wasn't difficult for sure, based on how they told it. Which is amazing, given how no technobabble or winkytink jokes needed. (A couple of episodes did beg questions, but that's another story.) Best of all: The 4th Doctor's explanation to Leela (in "The Robots of Death") was all that was really needed, and said explanation was never bettered so far. The real fun was in Ian being mindblown over what he (the scientist trope) thought was impossible.

Oh very well, then - her's one last bit: So why do I think the psychic paper is a load of bunk? Since the day it was deemed hypnosis as a real concept was debunked, even if it's still fun to see Delgado and - to a lesser frequency, Ainley - use it... kudos to the actors... I shouldn't dislike it as much, since the Doctor and Master both executed hypnosis before and with technology to project... I could roll with it. But as a piece of paper? Even energy radiating from a monacle or projectile beam is far easier to swallow.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

It's not even about the "awesome" factor, it's just basic storytelling. For example; in real science, certain things take a long damn time (space travel for example.) So unless your whole premise is based around that very passage of time and the isolation involved (like say KSR's 'Aurora' or Weir's 'Project Hail Mary'); then it can become a direct impediment to simply advancing the narrative.

While true, it also speaks to the reason why generations of filmmakers largely avoided producing stories where that kind of procedure played a central role in the heart of the story; they built their audiences on the appeal of bangs, blasts and spectacle, which was believed absent in the average Hard SF story or in using real world science.

This brings it back to Gerry Anderson, and how hard it is to buy his applying real science to Space: 1999, when most of the series was overflowing with improbable, thrill-leaning plots and "bigger" visuals throughout its two seasons, just as devoid of real world science as anything produced by Irwin Allen.

I'd like to say George Lucas was wise enough not to sell Star Wars as having any real scientific foundation, yet he eventually failed to resist the need to ape Star Trek by licensing technical manuals & magazines, with hired hands attempting to apply scientific principals to tech and organic beings firmly sitting on the polar opposite of making any sort of real world sense. Of course, Lucas would shovel out a bigger hole with the invention of Midichlorians as an explanation of the spiritual / supernatural Force in The Phantom Menace, a move still earning criticism from various corners of SW fandom, proving he should have left his fictional spiritualism / supernatural realm alone, as it never required a biological explanation for understanding in relation to its believers / practitioners.

 

[Owain Taggart]

The thing is, there's a difference between informed poetic license that serves the story and mistakes that show the writers simply didn't do their homework. The latter often undermines the story rather than benefitting it. The way I was taught it was, you have to learn the rules in order to know when it's okay to break them.

Sounds like a good rule to go by

Yeah, if something takes 5 min to Google, even a minor thing, that makes the writers look lazy, and that's on them for not doing simple research.

One minor and somewhat funny example from a Little Caesars commercial from several years ago, featuring a father and son stargazing with a telescope. They wouldn't have been able to see anything at all, as it was actually pointing downwards. That's not how it works!

 

[Drunk Superman]

I prefer illegitimate science, stitching together a body from corpses and bringing it to life.

 

[Christopher]

If the story can work above and beyond what the audience knows is reality, it's easier.
If the story can work above and beyond real life physics, it's easier.

"Easier" in what way? For whom? The creators? Taking the easy route rarely produces anything really good. The audience? Maybe, but it's good for fiction to challenge the audience.

Anyway, if you really want something "above and beyond" real physics, as opposed to something beside or beneath it like most fake science in TV and movies, then you need to know real physics, not only what's currently known but cutting-edge theory and the scientific method, so that you know how to extrapolate plausible-sounding future science. Or at least you need to hire consultants who know those things, and then actually listen to their advice.

In the end, making the unreal feel real has to count somewhere in the chain.

Exactly. Like any illusionist, you have to do the work to sell the illusion to the audience. You can't just assume they'll swallow any nonsense you throw at them. Many viewers would be content with that, because it's what they're used to or they wouldn't know the difference, but you don't want to alienate or disappoint that segment of the audience that would know when you get it wrong.

If there's any cheese involved, it was left behind by one of the astronauts

Wallace and Gromit took it home with them.

Still, bringing a sword to a gunfight is no less dumb.

Not necessarily. The Mythbusters showed that at close enough range, a knife-wielder can strike a gun-wielder before they have time to draw, aim, and fire. And I've been told by knowledgeable people (when I complained about Klingons in DS9 using swords and they set me straight) that melee weapons like blades can be more effective than ranged weapons like guns in close-quarters combat, where it's difficult to aim a gun and there's too high a risk of friendly fire.

It was more fun back in the days when the Doctor had pockets full of goodies, which felt more grounded, and not a "Swiss Army Screwdriver".

On the one hand, I agree, but on the other hand, it's plausible that the Doctor, an inveterate tinkerer, would gradually add more and more functions to the screwdriver over the centuries.

Then again, an alien character that once regenerated due to a great fall now can fall from a much further-up distance and be fairly unscathed.

If you're talking about "The Woman Who Fell to Earth," I think that was justified by it being just after regeneration so that the rapid-healing energies were still in effect, the same way Ten was able to regrow his severed hand.

Oh very well, then - her's one last bit: So why do I think the psychic paper is a load of bunk? Since the day it was deemed hypnosis as a real concept was debunked, even if it's still fun to see Delgado and - to a lesser frequency, Ainley - use it... kudos to the actors... I shouldn't dislike it as much, since the Doctor and Master both executed hypnosis before and with technology to project... I could roll with it. But as a piece of paper? Even energy radiating from a monacle or projectile beam is far easier to swallow.

I dislike the psychic paper for the same reason you dislike the overpowered sonic -- it makes things too easy for the Doctor. But since telepathy is fantasy anyway, I can buy that it's more powerful than "regular" hypnosis, or rather, can do the things that hypnosis is presumed to be capable of in fiction. And if psionic energy is a physical phenomenon, I can buy that a Sufficiently Advanced Technology could be infused with it and have the appearance of a piece of paper.

Anyway, Star Wars is pure fantasy and has never pretended otherwise, and Doctor Who has mostly been fantasy too (though it made kind of an effort to be more scientifically accurate and educational in the Troughton era when Kit Pedler was the science advisor). I see Doctor Who as basically a tall tale; the absurdity and lack of consistency is kind of the point, since it's just a series of ripping yarns trying to top themselves.

 

[Set Harth]

and Doctor Who has mostly been fantasy too (though it made kind of an effort to be more scientifically accurate and educational in the Troughton era when Kit Pedler was the science advisor).

Sort of. It felt mostly like they were trying to get English school-age kids interested in science. Along the way we got absurdities like inhalation of molten mercury fumes being compared to living in an apartment over a brewery.

 

[Ovation]

absurdities like inhalation of molten mercury fumes being compared to living in an apartment over a brewery.

That’s truly absurd. Everyone knows it’s a distillery, not a brewery. FFS!!

 

[Sci]

I don't mind ludicrous science as long as the psychology of the characters makes sense.

Here's my litmus test:

In the 2012 film Prometheus, there is a scene where scientists, on a mission of scientific research, are exploring a cave on an alien world where the temperature is -12. They happen upon a pool of water... and the water isn't frozen. They remark upon it being weird and then continue off to get themselves killed by alien monsters.

This is not how real scientists would react to liquid water found at a temperature of -12. At all.

I don't mind there being liquid water at -12. But if you give me a set of scientists on an exploratory mission, they're not gonna see that and go "Huh" but then find something else more interesting. They're gonna stop and start freaking out over liquid water at a temperature where it should be frozen.

So that's my litmus test. Give me all the absurd science you want, but don't give me characters who react to that stuff unrealistically.

 

[BK613]

The thing is, there's a difference between informed poetic license that serves the story and mistakes that show the writers simply didn't do their homework. The latter often undermines the story rather than benefiting it. The way I was taught it was, you have to learn the rules in order to know when it's okay to break them.

This succinctly sums up my general attitude, although I don't hold 'science' as being different from any other form of accuracy. And variations of that last sentence show up in just about ever field of endeavor.

 

[Reverend]

I don't mind ludicrous science as long as the psychology of the characters makes sense.

Here's my litmus test:

In the 2012 film Prometheus, there is a scene where scientists, on a mission of scientific research, are exploring a cave on an alien world where the temperature is -12. They happen upon a pool of water... and the water isn't frozen. They remark upon it being weird and then continue off to get themselves killed by alien monsters.

This is not how real scientists would react to liquid water found at a temperature of -12. At all.

I don't mind there being liquid water at -12. But if you give me a set of scientists on an exploratory mission, they're not gonna see that and go "Huh" but then find something else more interesting. They're gonna stop and start freaking out over liquid water at a temperature where it should be frozen.

So that's my litmus test. Give me all the absurd science you want, but don't give me characters who react to that stuff unrealistically.

Except those aren't *really* scientists, are they? An aspect of that movie that often gets missed is that the whole "science team" was recruited from a bunch of fringe whack-jobs; academic outcasts who had already been ostracised and ridiculed for their abandonment of scientific method and accepted theories in favour of wild and ridiculous notions that stray way off the beaten track. Indeed most of them seemed to embrace the narcissistic self-image of the under-appreciated maverick scientists. They were never fully rational to begin with, and that's kinda the point.

Whatever they may think; they're not there because they're the best of the best (far from it!) They're not there because they were right all along and this is their reward and vindication. They're there because they won't be missed. They're there as canaries to make sure the site has what Weyland was looking for, and that it was safe enough for him to be revived and meet his maker. Beyond that, they're of little use or concern to him. Indeed, no matter what they were probably never intended to make it back alive.
So yeah, they act like reckless idiots and pay for it with their lives. That's basically what they were supposed to do. Scientists, are just as capable of idiocy as anyone else (sometimes more!) A doctorate isn't some magic spell that endows someone with the clear-eyed perception of pure logic in all things. They're people/characters with their own motivations and reasons for doing what they do.

When it comes to storytelling; context is everything.

I'd like to say George Lucas was wise enough not to sell Star Wars as having any real scientific foundation, yet he eventually failed to resist the need to ape Star Trek by licensing technical manuals & magazines, with hired hands attempting to apply scientific principals to tech and organic beings firmly sitting on the polar opposite of making any sort of real world sense.

Lucas had basically nothing to do with print media. He didn't really care. Publishing did their own thing based on what they thought would sell. That's it.
Most of the "technical" stiff was born out of the early pen & paper RPGs, and served mostly to cater to their game mechanics and to offer the players a starting point and bedrock for crafting their own adventures. Which again: Lucas didn't care to involve himself with. At the time he was rather more preoccupied in revolutionising almost ever aspect of cinema post-production and presentation, industry wide.

Of course, Lucas would shovel out a bigger hole with the invention of Midichlorians as an explanation of the spiritual / supernatural Force in The Phantom Menace, a move still earning criticism from various corners of SW fandom, proving he should have left his fictional spiritualism / supernatural realm alone, as it never required a biological explanation for understanding in relation to its believers / practitioners.

Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts in Lucas's eyes, and never were. The force was always suppose to be a real, tangible thing that existed within the universe, and was always meant to interact in a real, tangible way. As mysterious as it is, it's still just meant to be a mechanism of how the universe works, just like gravitation, magnetism, and quantum physics. So yes, biology was always a factor. That never changed.
What else would you suppose the line "the Force is strong in my family" is meant to imply? Spiritual genes perhaps?

 

[Sci]

Except those aren't *really* scientists, are they? An aspect of that movie that often gets missed is that the whole "science team" was recruited from a bunch of fringe whack-jobs; academic outcasts who had already been ostracised and ridiculed for their abandonment of scientific method and accepted theories in favour of wild and ridiculous notions that stray way off the beaten track. Indeed most of them seemed to embrace the narcissistic self-image of the under-appreciated maverick scientists. They were never fully rational to begin with, and that's kinda the point.

Whatever they may think; they're not there because they're the best of the best (far from it!) They're not there because they were right all along and this is their reward and vindication. They're there because they won't be missed. They're there as canaries to make sure the site has what Weyland was looking for, and that it was safe enough for him to be revived and meet his maker. Beyond that, they're of little use or concern to him. Indeed, no matter what they were probably never intended to make it back alive.
So yeah, they act like reckless idiots and pay for it with their lives. That's basically what they were supposed to do. Scientists, are just as capable of idiocy as anyone else (sometimes more!) A doctorate isn't some magic spell that endows someone with the clear-eyed perception of pure logic in all things. They're people/characters with their own motivations and reasons for doing what they do.

When it comes to storytelling; context is everything.

Well, I haven't seen the film in going on 12 years now, so all I can say is that I didn't pick up on the idea that these were all supposed to be woo-woo irrationals at the time. I just could not believe how idiotic Abbot and Costello (I can't remember the characters' actual names) were being -- it struck me as not meeting even the minimum threshold of what a believable researcher would do, and only seem to resemble the behavior of a very ignorant person. Maybe the movie would work better for me if I rewatched it with that in mind next time.