Realism and SCIFI

[RobertScorpio]

How important is it to you that scifi movies have some connection to reality. For example; Aliens and Aliens (I wont include the other goofy sequels or prequels)...Those movies are, at least when I am in coversations with others about them, are really liked because they seem to be grounded in some sort of future that seems like could happen. Maybe not the aliens themselves, but the way humanity is shown, or tech is used. You can see them as extensions of our own world social and technical norms of today.

What mainstream scifi movies or TV shows are best as showing a quasi-realistic window of the future.

Rob

 

[T'Baio]

I'm sorry...it's the signature.

 

[Mary Ann]

A connection to reality is vital, I believe, or the audience will not be able to relate to either the characters or the situations in which they find themselves as the audience will have no point of reference. Personally I place emphasis on relating to the characters because I'm a social sciences geek and am hopeless at math and science.

 

[Christopher]

Realism is sadly uncommon in SF cinema (there's much more of it in prose). 2001, 2010, and Contact are among the most scientifically plausible genre films out there, though more license is taken with the alien stuff. Similarly with The Abyss, only more so; the underwater technology is intensely realistic, since the movie was actually made underwater, but the aliens and their technology are highly fanciful, creating a cognitive dissonance.

Deep Impact did a pretty good job portraying the science credibly -- immensely more so than Armageddon, to be sure.

I want to say Moon, because it's based in the very realistic idea of mining Helium-3 from the Lunar regolith for fusion power, and I appreciate that the film has helped publicize this idea. And in general its depiction of the moonbase is pretty good. But it has the perennial problem of depicting Earthlike gravity on the Moon, and its depiction of cloning is pure Hollywood fantasy.

 

[RobertScorpio]

I'm sorry...it's the signature.

I was trying to go with the thrilla in manila...but couldnt find a suitable use..

Rob

 

[RobertScorpio]

Realism is sadly uncommon in SF cinema (there's much more of it in prose). 2001, 2010, and Contact are among the most scientifically plausible genre films out there, though more license is taken with the alien stuff. Similarly with The Abyss, only more so; the underwater technology is intensely realistic, since the movie was actually made underwater, but the aliens and their technology are highly fanciful, creating a cognitive dissonance.

Deep Impact did a pretty good job portraying the science credibly -- immensely more so than Armageddon, to be sure.

I want to say Moon, because it's based in the very realistic idea of mining Helium-3 from the Lunar regolith for fusion power, and I appreciate that the film has helped publicize this idea. And in general its depiction of the moonbase is pretty good. But it has the perennial problem of depicting Earthlike gravity on the Moon, and its depiction of cloning is pure Hollywood fantasy.

Huh, I never saw Moon..will check it out.

But I agree with your points. And totally agree on Contact. I love that movie because it is so realistic and everyone in the movie plays it as such.

Rob

 

[Technobuilder]

I guess when I think of realism within a fictional setting, I'm thinking more about how people might actually respond in certain fantastic situations or settings if the rules were different.

I also tend to think about how the situation is being portrayed. Is the story playing out realistically within the rules of the universe that have been established?

If not, it's hard for me to get into the story at all.

But I agree with your points. And totally agree on Contact. I love that movie because it is so realistic and everyone in the movie plays it as such.

Rob

As long as everyone plays it realistically, regardless of what's actually happening being crazy fantastic, I tend to enjoy it more.

 

[Meredith]

I want to say Moon, because it's based in the very realistic idea of mining Helium-3 from the Lunar regolith for fusion power, and I appreciate that the film has helped publicize this idea. And in general its depiction of the moonbase is pretty good. But it has the perennial problem of depicting Earthlike gravity on the Moon, and its depiction of cloning is pure Hollywood fantasy.

Note to self, place Moon on Amazon order queue.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Yeah, very true, Christopher. There are many websites like Bad Astronomy that point out the scientific flaws in a movie. I feel it isn't a nitpick, but very real concerns when science isn't portrayed correctly. There's this stigma that accurate science in a movie is boring, and it's frustrating to hear that. It almost feels like an easy way out for the writers.

Deep Impact was an awesome movie, but unfortunately Armageddon was more popular and made more money. I guess when it comes down to it, the fantastical sells better. A bit related, but I know David Levy who was referenced in Deep Impact personally. I get to see him every year almost.

Moon, I felt got the setting and atmophere almost spot on. In some way, I'm sure its connection and inspiration with 2001 had something to do with it.

 

[Christopher]

There's this stigma that accurate science in a movie is boring, and it's frustrating to hear that. It almost feels like an easy way out for the writers.

I find that lack of scientific savvy is more boring, because real science is rich with story possibilities that get overlooked in its absence. Look at planetary science alone. There are so many exotic types of world out there that you never come across in the kind of "soft" sci-fi that just recycles the same old expected types of planet that have been seen in earlier sci-fi shows and movies. Reality can be weirder and more diverse than the imagination -- or at least an imagination can stretch a lot farther when it has more material from reality to build upon. SF film and TV writers are missing out on so much potential by neglecting science.

 

[3D Master]

There's this stigma that accurate science in a movie is boring, and it's frustrating to hear that. It almost feels like an easy way out for the writers.

I find that lack of scientific savvy is more boring, because real science is rich with story possibilities that get overlooked in its absence. Look at planetary science alone. There are so many exotic types of world out there that you never come across in the kind of "soft" sci-fi that just recycles the same old expected types of planet that have been seen in earlier sci-fi shows and movies. Reality can be weirder and more diverse than the imagination -- or at least an imagination can stretch a lot farther when it has more material from reality to build upon. SF film and TV writers are missing out on so much potential by neglecting science.

Greatest offender on that one: Star Trek Enterprise. They create a Rogue Planet! A planet launched out of its solar system, no more sunlight!

Normal Earth plants with green leaves on it.

Anyway, realism, real science should be part of it. You only deviate it, as far as I'm concerned, when you have no longer a choice.

Of course, that does not mean, a projection, or prediction of science that is different from current notions on the future of real science should not be followed. If this were the case, you end SF altogether.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Exactly. So many possibilities to explore. I only wish writers would try harder at being accurate. Defying Gravity is an example of a wasted potential. They could have done SO much with that concept, of visiting different worlds and battling their elements. When you come to that point, you don't need villains. The elements are enough to kill you if mistakes are made. That's what I loved so much about Ben Bova's Mars. It wasn't the government they were battling. It was the elements of Mars.

When you think of it, if naval writing like Patrick O'Brien's Aubrey/Maturin series can be so realistic you can smell the salt in the air, why can't Sci-Fi be the same way in terms of being accurate?

 

[Christopher]

^It can. There's plenty of prose SF that's extremely realistic. It's just that very little mass-media stuff is on a comparable level.

 

[Warped9]

Good SF is taking scientific theories and even far out ideas and making them seem plausible. And all without ignoring what is already known and proven. But when they pull things out of their ass and treat science as something interchangeable with magic then it gets stupid. And we get a lot of stupid.

That isn't to say, though, that some theories cannot seem like magic. Wil McCarthy's book Hacking Matter really lays the ground work for ideas he put forth in his Collapsium books regarding programmable matter. Just reading this stuff that is actually being researched and pushed forward I was imagining what this could look like on film. It would look very much like magic even though it's based on sound theory and research.

Note, too, that an LCD, LED or Plasma television is a simple form of programmable matter.

 

[Kelthaz]

Realism isn't important to me in the slightest. It's important that a show remain internally consistent, but beyond that I don't care. The Rule of Cool and the Rule of Fun trump crusty old reality any day of the week. Throw in a Beyond the Impossible if you want to make your show even more incredible.

 

[Warped9]

There's plenty of prose SF that's extremely realistic. It's just that very little mass-media stuff is on a comparable level.

Very true.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

How important is it to you that scifi movies have some connection to reality.

When it is a science fiction story (not a fantasy story) set on Earth very much so.
A film or TV series set in space somewhat so as it is usually in the far future.

Under the SciFi subgenres:

* 3.1 Hard SF
* 3.2 Soft and social SF
* 3.3 Cyberpunk
* 3.4 Time travel
* 3.5 Alternate history
* 3.6 Military SF
* 3.7 Superhuman
* 3.8 Apocalyptic
* 3.9 Space opera
* 3.10 Space Western

I think The Postman (1997) and "Jericho" (2006) got it fairly real for a scifi near future Apocalyptic film.

What mainstream scifi movies or TV shows are best as showing a quasi-realistic window of the future.

Minority Report (2002) for many things with society & technology in the near future (within 50 years).

Gattaca (1997) (for near future and genetic engineering/discrimination)
The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996) for the human experiments

Alien (1979)
The Fly (1986)
Contact (1997)
The Thirteenth Floor (1999)

The Abyss (1989)
"John Carpenter's The Thing" (1982)

"Defying Gravity" (2009)

Mission to Mars (2000) for the lighting and crew quarters and ship interiors & exteriors

"2010: The Year We Make Contact" (1984)

Moon (2009) for the lunar station interiors, exteriors, transportation, spacesuit

"The X Files" for some scientific lab-type stuff

Innerspace (1987)

related article I found:
Why Is Hard Science Fiction So Unrealistic?


This webpage really explains the many levels though:
Grading SF for Realism
Technologies, Themes, Examples of each of the below:

The Need for Multiple Parameters
The Hard-Soft Sci Fi Gradational Scale

"Present Day Tech" type Science Fiction

Ultra Hard / Diamond Hard Science Fiction

Very Hard Science Fiction

Firm Science Fiction

Medium Science Fiction

Soft Sci Fi

Very Soft Science Fiction
[The Star Trek Canon goes here]

Mushy Soft Science Fiction

Science Fantasy, and Fantasy

 

[RobertScorpio]

Impressive list Jefferie and I see where you're going with it...

great posts everyone. I have just read them all and I am very impressed with the quaility of the posts....two thumbs up!

Rob

 

[ngc7293]

The majority of people posted that they think that realism in a science fiction movie is required. There seems to be the implication that if you don't have that realism then the movie is going to be bad. I've seen Contact and 2001 and agree they are very good movies. I've also seen Star Wars, you know the movie with explosions and dog fights in space? It's great lots of people (and critics) thought so.

Realism isn't what makes the movie, it's the writing. I've seen The Incredibles once. I've been told it is a very good movie. Is it because of the Realism........I am going to guess not. My guess is that it had something to do with the writing.

 

[Owain Taggart]

The majority of people posted that they think that realism in a science fiction movie is required. There seems to be the implication that if you don't have that realism then the movie is going to be bad. I've seen Contact and 2001 and agree they are very good movies. I've also seen Star Wars, you know the movie with explosions and dog fights in space? It's great lots of people (and critics) thought so.

Realism isn't what makes the movie, it's the writing. I've seen The Incredibles once. I've been told it is a very good movie. Is it because of the Realism........I am going to guess not. My guess is that it had something to do with the writing.

Well, of course. I think that's a given. Nobody ever said that a movie's bad simply because there's no realistic science; rather I'd just like to see writers make more of an effort to be more accurate in terms of science rather than saying it's boring and not even trying. And let's not kid ourselves. You mentioned a cartoon superhero movie. Of course it's not going to have realistic science. It's going to have cartoon physics and what not.