How much science should be in science fiction?

[Gotham Central]

So I was sitting watching a sci-fi movie from the 50's on TV the other day and I was somewhat amused at how silly the science was in otherwise decent films.

For instance, Rocketship XM is about a lunar expedition that, thanks to an engine mishap, finds itself accidently sent to Mars. Now just think about that for a second. This was an ordinary "rocket" carrying 4-6 people (i've actually forgotten how large the crew was) on a trip to the moon. It took the Apollo astronauts 3 days to reach the moon (it can probably be done in less time). However it would take at least 13 months to reach Mars. The idea that a trip to the moon could even reach Mars is just downright silly.

In the Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea motion picture, an asteriod entering the Earth's atmosphere somehow manages to set the Van Allen belt (and thus the entire atmosphere) on fire.

In The day the Earth Caught Fire, nuclear explosions cause the Earth to shift it orbit and go hurtling in toward the sun (which of course is the reverse of the equally silly premise of Space 1999).

Its easy to say that such outrageously bad science is limited to classic sci-fi but then you see films like Sunshine, The Core or The Day After Tomorrow...and you realsise that such bad science continues to this very day.

We usually excuse "bad" science for the sake of story tellin (i.e. FTL drives and artificial gravity). But I'm wondering what is the threshhold in which shortcuts shift into sheer silliness? How constrained should writers/filmmakers feel by science when making science fiction?

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Well, there's science fiction and there's sci-fi. Sci-fi is usually action/ adventure with a thin veneer of technobabble to set up a situation of great peril that the heroes must survive - that's everything from I, Robot to Jurassic Park in recent years. Science fiction is extremely rare in film, and within it, there's social SF and hard SF. Hard SF is really difficult to find (2001 takes a crack at it, you might say Primer is hard SF, though it becomes incomprehensible about 2/3rds of the way through), but social SF comes around every so often (Gattaca). The problem with hard SF in film is hard SF is characterized by a lot of tech talk where the author has extrapolated today's technology and therefore has to explain a lot. You just can't do that on film.

But, as a general rule, most filmed entertainment is only minimally science fiction. For the real deal, you have to read books.

 

[Christopher]

There's no "should" in storytelling. What matters is what works best for each individual tale. Still, it would be nice if more sci-fi movies and TV shows would pay attention to real science. There have been some good ones, like Destination Moon and 2001/2010 (true, the latter fudged a few things, but was mostly pretty solid scientifically).

I do feel, however, that there's no excuse for sloppiness and ignorance. If you fudge the science in a work of fiction, it should be an informed fudge, the result of poetic license rather than just not caring. It's elementary to do some basic research. If you're writing a story set in Paris, you don't make up your own language and architecture and culture and geography; you research the subject to give the story verisimilitude. If the story requires you to fudge, say, the location of the police station relative to the Louvre, you fudge it, but overall you get the basics right. So there's no excuse for not doing the same kind of basic research when writing about space or physics.

So I'm not going to say there should be a threshold level of science in an SF story, since that would kick out a lot of great stuff like Bradbury. But there should be a basic level of conscientiousness and professionalism brought to bear. And too many filmmakers see SF as an excuse to relax their standards and do inferior work.

 

[Reverend]

Interesting you mention 2001 since that movie didn't actually explain much of anything. The point was that the science had been carefully thought through and it was all just there on screen. Science in science fiction has been given something of a bad name when lazy writers decide to dump a bunch of techno-babble, intending for it to go over the heads of the audience making things seam cleverer than they really are.

 

[Admiral2]

It's a balancing act. The author just has to find the balance he's comfortable with. Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke included a lot of real science in their works, but also included enough drama and action to compensate. On the other hand, other real life scientists have written science fiction books that utterly bored me - namely Carl Sagan's Contact. In that instance, the amount of real science in it wasn't the problem.

 

[Sephiroth]

the only halfway decent Science Fiction i have seen in recent years was that horror movie with the ship with a black hole for an engine (spaceing on the title right now) and that came out YEARS ago, True science fiction is VERY rare, because Sci-Fi is just easier

 

[Admiral2]

the only halfway decent Science Fiction i have seen in recent years was that horror movie with the ship with a black hole for an engine (spaceing on the title right now) and that came out YEARS ago, True science fiction is VERY rare, because Sci-Fi is just easier

Event Horizon??? That was halfway decent? The spaceship went to hell and back! How is that "halfway decent science fiction"???

 

[Christopher]

Actually, aside from that, Event Horizon did get its basic science fairly right, particularly its depiction of weightlessness and vacuum. As for the "hell" dimension, I have read SF prose tales that postulated similar concepts, another universe having physical and causal laws so alien that it seemed hellish to us. I'm thinking specifically of Greg Bear's novella "The Way of All Ghosts," which the concept of EH somewhat reminded me of.

 

[Holdfast]

I don't much care about bad science provided the story is gripping enough for me to ignore the bad science.

 

[MyCylon]

I think the inner logic is more important than scientific accuracy. If you establish that FTL is possible in your fiction universe, for example, that's ok as long as it stays that way.
Granted, I do prefer instances where what we get is based on real science and then extrapolated, but I don't think it's that vital. However, there is a point where some ideas just come across as too silly, and you just fail to become immersed. That point is very hard to define, I think, because it depends on so many factors including, of course, personal preference and perception. And then there's VOY's "Threshold"...

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I don't think it's a matter of how much science is there, as long as it's there for a reason and serves the story.

If you're going to use real science, you should probably not bend the rules too far. If you're going to use made-up science (FTL, etc.), at least be consistent. You can gain some credibility by basing your fantastical science on some real scientific groundwork, too.

It all really depends on how "realistic" it's supposed to be, anyway. Some things (e.g. Star Wars) deliberately have no grip on realism.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

It's a balancing act. The author just has to find the balance he's comfortable with. Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke included a lot of real science in their works, but also included enough drama and action to compensate. On the other hand, other real life scientists have written science fiction books that utterly bored me - namely Carl Sagan's Contact. In that instance, the amount of real science in it wasn't the problem.

*gasp* Heresy! Contact may well be my favorite SF book of all time.

Try listening to it on tape. There's an audio book out there read by Jodie Foster. I have listened to it multiple times. It is fantastic!

 

[kv1at3485]

Scifi isn't in the science. It's in how changes to culture and society (usually in the form of changing scientific knowledge and technological application) affect how people act and live.

So you can have near, if not effectively, magical science and technology in a story and its setting, but it doesn't become scifi unless the characters behave in a manner consistent with that setting.

You could even have a setting which throws out everything we know, like being set in a universe with completely different physical laws. And it would be scifi if you managed to 'keep things together' and make sure the implications are appreciated.

Saying that, the 'softest' scifi is always the hardest to make. It takes a lot of brains to keep things in check once "all the stops" are pulled out. It's hideously easy to pull out the stops and end up with a mess that isn't scifi. Like, Star Trek for example.

 

[zenophite]

alot of people get worked up and complain about the science in sci-fi but as long as the story is internally consistent then I could care less. Never let reality get in the way of a good yarn.

 

[stj]

As much as possible. There should also be as much correct grammar, spelling and punctuation as possible, too. And as much factual history and geography as possible. They should all be as good as the writer can make them. It's part of good writing. Thinking otherwise is preposterous. The real issue seems to be whether or not the viewer knows enough science to spot the nonsense. The most common bad science is depressingly typical movie physics. May I suggest that movie physics has not really improved any action movie?

I will go further---fictional science that is a logical development of real science has extra impact. The possibility that it might be "real" makes it more relevant, even in a simple adventure story gussied up with silver underwear. That too is good writing. And, while it may be a subjective thing, logically developed fictional science just has more style.

My experience is that hostility to science is usually symptomatic of a bad writer. The few exceptions tend to be child-like in their writing, aiming at engaging the emotions instead of the whole intellect. The anti-science "science fiction" writers really object to big words. Good writers, however---I firmly believe---want to use the right words, not just the short ones. Close inspection of the crusaders against "technobabble" often reveals very unsavory attitudes.

But the protest that bad science is okay if it is internally consistent within the ficitonal universe is not true of the majority. Most people only object to the science when they don't like something else but won't say what.

 

[Admiral2]

It's a balancing act. The author just has to find the balance he's comfortable with. Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke included a lot of real science in their works, but also included enough drama and action to compensate. On the other hand, other real life scientists have written science fiction books that utterly bored me - namely Carl Sagan's Contact. In that instance, the amount of real science in it wasn't the problem.

*gasp* Heresy! Contact may well be my favorite SF book of all time.

Try listening to it on tape. There's an audio book out there read by Jodie Foster. I have listened to it multiple times. It is fantastic!

Actually, Jodie Foster is my favorite actress, ever. I've already seen her in the movie version. It didn't make it any less annoying for me. Why would listening to her read a book I hate make it more enjoyable?

 

[FalTorPan]

This video should prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that science can be dramatic.

 

[zenophite]

This video should prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that science can be dramatic.

I'd never heard of him before - I'm hooked! thanks for the link!
Why don't people talk like this anymore - it's charming!

 

[God Magnus]

Having watched a very wide range of scifi/fantasy in my time, I'd say that aside from the basics (such as the grammar notes mentioned above) the most important thing is that a story remains internally consistent. For instance, while it is scifi humor, "Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy" has physics that make zero sense in the context of our reality, but make total sense in the context of its own reality and is a fun story to boot.

 

[Starbreaker]

This is why I like having different types of sci-fi to read. I can go with some really hard sci-fi and learn about terraforming or astronomy and physics, or I can just sit back and enjoy a little adventure tale. It all depends on my mood.