Scientific Accuracy in Tv and Films

[valkyrie013]

Hi!
Was watching Fantastic Voyage (1966) and was thinking of some of the, well I wouldn't say inaccuracies.. but some things that did or didn't happen.

So starting a thread on the accuracy or inaccuracies of Tv and Film. Now some stuff is just blatant, some are part of the plot, so kind of, not really sticking to what would really happen, and them not giving a reason it didn't go that way. Kinda wide open thread for this stuff, but try to limit to more scientific stuff than more technobable like, Dilithium wouldn't do this or that etc. More like in Gravity where everything was in the same orbit so Sandra could spacewalk to 3 different way points, that are grossly far from each other.

First, Fantastic Voyage, there miniaturized, and there was a time limit of 60 minutes before everything that was miniaturized would naturally begin to grow to full size. They followed this with the people, and supposedly the Proteus was desolved by the immune system so it wouldn't regrow?. Now, what happens to the 10 gallons of water that was injected with the proteus? that water would naturally embiggen as well right??

So, have fun with the thread!

 

[JesterFace]

I wonder if some day someone makes a scientific discovery that makes all science fiction completely impossible, oh the horror.

 

[StarCruiser]

Yeah - I've never really worried about this. I don't expect anything like 'scientific accuracy' from Hollyweird...

Those very few films/shows where they do a decent job of it, are a surprise that way!

 

[Kai "the spy"]

First, Fantastic Voyage, there miniaturized, and there was a time limit of 60 minutes before everything that was miniaturized would naturally begin to grow to full size. They followed this with the people, and supposedly the Proteus was desolved by the immune system so it wouldn't regrow?. Now, what happens to the 10 gallons of water that was injected with the proteus? that water would naturally embiggen as well right??

Supposedly, Isaac Asimov fixed this for the novelization.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I don’t mind made up science but I prefer they get real science right. Like, a black hole with the mass of a small blob shouldn’t have been able to swallow a planet in seconds.

 

[Owain Taggart]

It sometimes depends on the context. Like, for instance, if it's something based on golden age sci-fi, I'm not expecting accuracy, in fact inaccuracy based on historical context can be a fun way of learning the way the world thought everything worked.

In terms of modern sci-fi, scientific accuracy is often bent to fit a story better, which is not usually a problem. It can often make for a better story. It only really becomes an issue for me if something is directly referenced or if it's about something that clearly hasn't been researched properly, and you hear characters drop 'facts' that are so far off. Clearly they're hoping most wouldn't notice, but I generally think sci-fi audiences are smart people.

I used to love following Phil Plait's blog Bad Astronomy. He even had a short-lived show on the Discovery Channel.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

How ironic that I should be reading a thread about scientific accuracy in film, just minutes after finishing the movie Damnation Alley.

srsly, the only way I see the ending of that movie making sense is that when the Earth snapped back onto its axis it reversed the flow of time (like in Superman) and prevented WWIII from ever occurring.

That being said, usually I'm fairly easygoing when it comes to science. Far as I'm concerned, except for really stupid shit like Damnation Alley and The Black Hole...realism is overrated. Not everything can be ing 2001.

 

[publiusr]

Now in terms of Fantastic Voyage, a remake might incorporate the current “Starship Hulk”
idea—-but here, the researchers are connected via telepresence to something like this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsi...crobot_grabbing_a_sperm_and_carrying_it_into/

Computers can be very small:
https://phys.org/news/2022-11-discovery-reveals-brain-like-molecular.amp
https://phys.org/news/2022-10-molecular-based-finite-state-machine.amp

This eliminates the need for any INNERSPACE set up.

Instead, you could have the danger come from losing one’s self into the tiny “proxy” if jacked in for too long.

I can even Imagine the dialog:

“The spin-bot, ‘Waldo’ will serve as exactly that.
You didn’t think we’d do something absurd like put you in a mini-sub hit with a shrink ray, did you?”

“Ridiculous!”

 

[valkyrie013]

Oh i'm quite the fan of 50-60's scifi shows. Favorite is When worlds collide. ( Wish they'd make a reboot)
The math and physics aren't that bad considering its 1953. the books were made in the 30s!

I know a bit of logic stretching is par for the course in movies and tv. But sometimes its like.. What? No no no.

 

[fireproof78]

That being said, usually I'm fairly easygoing when it comes to science. Far as I'm concerned, except for really stupid shit like Damnation Alley and The Black Hole...realism is overrated. Not everything can be ing 2001.

For the most part I'm the same. My wife gets annoyed at me because I enjoy listening to technical commentaries and finding what is and isn't realistic in a work, but if I'm watching the work? Yeah, I don't care. Science doesn't work that way? Ok, that's fine if it is in service to the story. The occasional point will jump out at me, usually from a psychological point of view like extremely poor diagnosing, or even some physics defining in combat. But, vast majority of the time, if I notice it, it's gone in the next frame and I enjoy the show. Which, to me, is the point of shows.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And FWIW, 2001 is my absolute favorite movie of all time. So I'm not knocking it.

srsly, I respect that film's attention to scientific accuracy, but most films could not function like that. A Trek or SW film would be completely impossible to make scientifically accurate.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

It's okay for a film not to be realistic so long as it doesn't represent itself as realistic.

 

[fireproof78]

It's okay for a film not to be realistic so long as it doesn't represent itself as realistic.

Unless a film tells me otherwise I don't treat it as realistic. Hollywood exists in such a separate world expecting realism is waste of my time. Drama, rule of cool, and such wins out.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Unless a film tells me otherwise I don't treat it as realistic. Hollywood exists in such a separate world expecting realism is waste of my time. Drama, rule of cool, and such wins out.

There are some films though which present a tone that implies realism. They DO tell you otherwise, they just do it through subtext.

Which is why I don’t mind fantastical stories about fictional characters but hate it when biopics like Beautiful Mind have glaring omissions that would change the entire tone of the movie.

Some movies like Gravity or Hurt Locker present themselves with a tone designed to represent realism, and that’s when if they’re not accurate they’re being openly deceptive.

It’s especially a problem with shows like Law and Order that claim so hard they are accurately representing law enforcement, they convince people law enforcement is infallibly benevolent.

 

[fireproof78]

There are some films though which present a tone that implies realism. They DO tell you otherwise, they just do it through subtext.

Which is why I don’t mind fantastical stories about fictional characters but hate it when biopics like Beautiful Mind have glaring omissions that would change the entire tone of the movie.

Some movies like Gravity or Hurt Locker present themselves with a tone designed to represent realism, and that’s when if they’re not accurate they’re being openly deceptive.

Films like that DO tell you otherwise with their subtext.

At some point in time I started treating all films as deception, so I'm not as fussed. I've watched biopics, and I know it's not accurate, and then I go read more to get the larger picture. Unfortunately, many films, even supposedly realistic ones, are still bound by the rule of cool, entertainment and drama over reality.

They can imply realism all they want. Doesn't mean I'll agree with them. It's all deception.

 

[Timewalker]

It sometimes depends on the context. Like, for instance, if it's something based on golden age sci-fi, I'm not expecting accuracy, in fact inaccuracy based on historical context can be a fun way of learning the way the world thought everything worked.

In terms of modern sci-fi, scientific accuracy is often bent to fit a story better, which is not usually a problem. It can often make for a better story. It only really becomes an issue for me if something is directly referenced or if it's about something that clearly hasn't been researched properly, and you hear characters drop 'facts' that are so far off. Clearly they're hoping most wouldn't notice, but I generally think sci-fi audiences are smart people.

I used to love following Phil Plait's blog Bad Astronomy. He even had a short-lived show on the Discovery Channel.

What really annoys me is the idea that the producer/director/showrunner can't be bothered to do research (or ignores the results of research) because they just assume the audience is too stupid to know the difference. Someone must have pointed out that parsecs are a unit of distance, not time, and was ignored.

 

[Owain Taggart]

What really annoys me is the idea that the producer/director/showrunner can't be bothered to do research (or ignores the results of research) because they just assume the audience is too stupid to know the difference. Someone must have pointed out that parsecs are a unit of distance, not time, and was ignored.

Or maybe because it's fantasy, they wanted to implement a unique measurement of time. Plus, when you're out in a galaxy far far away, maybe distance and time are encompassed into a single reading. It's like a lightyear. One you know what a lightyear is, you can deduce how far it is and how much time it can take.

 

[NCC-73515]

German translators thought Q Who was a time travel episode because Q whipped them x lightyears away to that Borg cube, and therefore called the episode Time Jump (temporal displacement) with Q

 

[Timewalker]

Or maybe because it's fantasy, they wanted to implement a unique measurement of time. Plus, when you're out in a galaxy far far away, maybe distance and time are encompassed into a single reading. It's like a lightyear. One you know what a lightyear is, you can deduce how far it is and how much time it can take.

A parsec is hardly a strange word to anyone familiar with basic astronomy. I was 14 when I first saw Star Wars in the theatre, and that line gave me a "WTF?" reaction. Even fantasy needs to have some basis for believability, and "it's fantasy so it doesn't have to make sense" is not acceptable.

 

[Owain Taggart]

A parsec is hardly a strange word to anyone familiar with basic astronomy. I was 14 when I first saw Star Wars in the theatre, and that line gave me a "WTF?" reaction. Even fantasy needs to have some basis for believability, and "it's fantasy so it doesn't have to make sense" is not acceptable.

Yeah, I know, but tell that to George Lucas! Honestly, I'm not sure how he came up with the idea for using that word in that context, but maybe he just thought it sounded cool.