Why can't Hollywood get science right?

[Plain Simple]

Take, for example, sound in space. A human being with a giraffe head would be weird, as you say. It's not something we see everyday.

But we do hear sounds every day. And we're accustomed to machines and explosions making loud noises. The silence of outer space is completely outside our experience.

Intellectually, we may understand that there is no sound in space. But for most people, an explosion that does not make a loud 'bang' would be like a human being with a giraffe head: not just weird, but distracting.

Interesting point. Since tv and films are such an integrated part of life for most people in the 'modern world' there is a feedback here as well. If something is shown over and over in film and on tv, it becomes part of what is considered normal or conforming to intuition.

Not all the bad science falls in the category of 'bad science conforming to intuition better than good science'. What about the endless nonsense ascribed to dna/genetic sciences or the effects of radiation? I don't think there is any daily intuition on these subjects at all, apart from what we get fed by pop culture.

This also raises an interesting question about just what exactly would be 'realistic'. Realistic, from whose perspective? From what's perspective?

Unless the camera is carried by one of the characters in the movie, the perspective is usually from an external third person's point of view. Regarding this person to be part of the depicted reality leads to many problems. Why do other characters not notice him, why does this character constantly hear music in the background, etc. So it's safe to say that the perspective from which we're viewing the events is completely external, even if we would be able to feed the images and sounds directly into our brain without needing the help of a tv. But whatever our point of view is, if the events unfolding before our eyes are supposed to take place in the real world, then they will follow nature's lead. In the case of sound in space you argued successfully that based on one's point of view you might hear sounds (in which case it is also not 'bad science'), but for most other 'science problems' I don't see how changing your point of view might solve them. If something doesn't explode then it doesn't, no matter under which angle you look at it.

I'm starting to feel that I'm arguing too much in favour of rigorous adherence to science fact in fiction, which is absolutely not my goal. But the situation right now is too unbalanced I fear, in the wrong direction. And I'm trying to understand why this is. If there's anything else going on here than scientifically illiterate writer's not willing, wanting, or able to spend time and effort to research how things would actually work.

 

[Davros]

Does anyone really want to watch a Silent Star Wars battle?

I would have no problem with it.

After all it has to be better than the dialog the prequels gave us to listen to.

 

[Goliath]

I'm starting to feel that I'm arguing too much in favour of rigorous adherence to science fact in fiction, which is absolutely not my goal. But the situation right now is too unbalanced I fear, in the wrong direction. And I'm trying to understand why this is. If there's anything else going on here than scientifically illiterate writer's not willing, wanting, or able to spend time and effort to research how things would actually work.

Oh, I definitely think there is something more--though scientific illiteracy is part of the problem.

Science fiction is, and always has been, a three-sided enterprise.

At one corner, you have people who are primarily interested in science (that is to say, physical science) and technology itself. This is the type of person who writes and reads something like Stephen Baxter's Voyage, and who makes and watches a movie like Destination Moon. For this type of person, the human characters are really just props, and their stories are just set dressing. Scientific and technological extrapolation are the real stars of the show.

At the second corner, you have people who are interested, not so much in science and technology, but in people, society, and culture. For this crowd, scientific and technological speculation are simply a means to an end, and important only insofar as they serve the point of the story--whether that point is political, philosophical, sociological, anthropological, or whatever. This would include everything from H. G. Wells' scientific romances, to 1960s New Wave stuff like Ursula K. LeGuin's The Left Hand of Darkness, to William Gibson's Neuromancer, to Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. It would also, I think, include Danny Boyle's Sunshine.

Finally, at the third corner, you have people who are primarily interested in traditional fantasy and adventure stories with a scientific flavour or inflection. They like the look and sound of science fiction, but aren't all that interested in science, either soft or hard. Back in the Golden Age of SF, this was the type of person who used to read Planet Stories instead of Astounding. Nowadays, they enjoy movies like Star Wars.

'Real science' is most important to the first group, and least important to the third. Its importance to the second group varies widely: sometimes it matters, and sometimes it doesn't. Take, for example, one of my favourite stories: "Red Star, Winter Orbit" by William Gibson and Bruce Sterling. This can be read on two levels: as a piece of fairly hard SF about a future in which economics has shut down the space age; and as a soft-SF meditation on the present, rather than the future, in which the characters and their setting are metaphors for our own world.

The important thing, it seems to me, is to be clear about what type of story the author wants to tell, and to accept that story on its own terms. It makes no sense to criticize Star Wars for its scientific implausibility, or 2001: A Space Odyssey for not telling a ripping yarn, because in both cases, that was never the author's intention.

We should be critical only if the story fails on its own terms: if space opera is boring, if soft SF has nothing meaningful to say about people, and if hard SF gets the science wrong.

 

[Crystalline Entity]

The important thing, it seems to me, is to be clear about what type of story the author wants to tell, and to accept that story on its own terms. It makes no sense to criticize Star Wars for its scientific implausibility, or 2001: A Space Odyssey for not telling a ripping yarn, because in both cases, that was never the author's intention.

We should be critical only if the story fails on its own terms: if space opera is boring, if soft SF has nothing meaningful to say about people, and if hard SF gets the science wrong.

Hear hear!

 

[FlyingLemons]

Ultimately, at the end of the day, not many people would watch a film if it contained expositions about hard science every five seconds. I'd like to see a few Stephen Baxter films personally, but given that the guy likes to pepper his sci-fi novels with actual physics as the technobabble, it would mean 99% of the audience couldn't understand it. Any physicists in the audience who were watching it would enjoy a big geek moment, but that's not a viable plan for a film that would need to make a couple of hundred million dollars.

At the same time, my teeth do grate when people in sci-fi films babble complete nonsense made out of real words, e.g. in Transformers when Hot Australian Scientist Blonde says "You need to stop thinking about Fourier transforms and start thinking about Quantum Mechanics", which I as someone very familiar with both found annoying, but well... it's a movie, not a science lecture.

One film I am looking forward to, if it ever gets made, is Kip Thorne's Interstellar, a scientifically accurate sci-fi film written by said physicist about some people who travel through a wormhole into another dimension which apparently will be directed by Steven Spielberg. However, I'm not entirely sure about what's happened to it, and by the time it's made the script will surely have a Hot Scientist Blonde spouting meaningless jargon and annoying the theoretical physicists in the audience...

 

[Plain Simple]

The important thing, it seems to me, is to be clear about what type of story the author wants to tell, and to accept that story on its own terms. It makes no sense to criticize Star Wars for its scientific implausibility, or 2001: A Space Odyssey for not telling a ripping yarn, because in both cases, that was never the author's intention.

We should be critical only if the story fails on its own terms: if space opera is boring, if soft SF has nothing meaningful to say about people, and if hard SF gets the science wrong.

Hear hear!

Edit: I wanted to say here that the quote in Crystalline Entity's post is not mine, but I couldn't quote his post, without misquoting it, it seems.

 

[diankra]

Science fiction is, and always has been, a three-sided enterprise.

At one corner, you have people who are primarily interested in science (that is to say, physical science) and technology itself. This is the type of person who writes and reads something like Stephen Baxter's Voyage [SNIP]

At the second corner, you have people who are interested, not so much in science and technology, but in people, society, and culture. [SNIP]

Finally, at the third corner, you have people who are primarily interested in traditional fantasy and adventure stories with a scientific flavour or inflection. They like the look and sound of science fiction, but aren't all that interested in science, either soft or hard.

'Primarily' is really pushing it too hard... for instance, I love Stephen Baxter's books, and (after years of reviewing SF) I read politics and history as a distraction.
I do see your point about the different emphases, but... I don't read Voyage out of a love for hard science - Springer/Praxis publish books detailing the technicalities of Apollo if you want that. It's convincing alternate history where the details of Apollo-Saturn V are central to i foundations in the way that the capablities of a Civil War rifle are central to any novel set during the civil war (and a consistent depiction of what a light sabre can and can't do is to a good Star Wars book).

 

[Crystalline Entity]

First, sorry for the quoting mishap Plain Simple and Camelopard, don't know what happened there.

Second, can anyone cite an example of SF, movie or book, that is good/great in all three dimensions? In other words, an epic story with profound insights on humanity, and that is grounded in sound science? Thanks!

 

[Goliath]

Second, can anyone cite an example of SF, movie or book, that is good/great in all three dimensions? In other words, an epic story with profound insights on humanity, and that is grounded in sound science? Thanks!

Hmm. That's an interesting challenge.

The novel that springs to my mind is Joe Haldeman's The Forever War.

It's a space opera (space marines at war with aliens). It's soft SF (reflecting both Haldeman's own experiences as a soldier in Vietnam, the rapid social changes of the late 60s and early 70s, and the alienating effect of both). And it's hard SF (with a lot of interesting stuff about black holes, time dilation and extreme planetary environments).

Think of it as the Neapolitan ice cream of SF novels.

 

[Goliath]

'Primarily' is really pushing it too hard... for instance, I love Stephen Baxter's books, and (after years of reviewing SF) I read politics and history as a distraction.

I don't think so. Perhaps you misunderstood my meaning.

I do see your point about the different emphases, but... I don't read Voyage out of a love for hard science - Springer/Praxis publish books detailing the technicalities of Apollo if you want that.

Yes. But that's why I said "primarily," rather than "exclusively."

It's convincing alternate history where the details of Apollo-Saturn V are central to i foundations in the way that the capablities of a Civil War rifle are central to any novel set during the civil war (and a consistent depiction of what a light sabre can and can't do is to a good Star Wars book).

Ah, but I would argue that a good alt-hist novel is itself a form of hard SF, with historical speculation replacing scientific speculation.

Once again: people who are exclusively interested in counterfactual historical analysis could read something like Tetlock, Lebow and Parker's Unmaking the West: "What If" Scenarios That Rewrite World History--a book written and edited by professional historians, like myself.

People who prefer their counterfactual history in the form of infotainment (the way I prefer my science) can read an alt-hist novel, like, say, Harry Turtledove's The Guns of the South.

Turtledove's procedure in The Guns of the South is in fact very similar to a hard-SF author's procedure. Larry Niven's "Neutron Star," for example, asks you to swallow a couple of fantastic technologies (FTL travel, indestructibe starship hulls), but then extrapolates rigorously from there. Turtledove starts with an admittedly fantastic premise (time-travelling South-African neo-nazis equip the Army of Northern Virginia with AK-47s), and then tries to extrapolate with equal rigour, based on what we know about the historical actors involved.

The only difference is, Turtledove has a much harder time predicting the motions of his bodies through space. Niven, after all, was writing about a single starship, with a single person inside, flying by a single neutron star. This, incidentally, is the main reason why the human sciences have made such little progress compared to the physical sciences. Understanding and predicting the behaviour of celestial bodies--that's easy. Understanding and predicting the behaviour of human beings--that's hard.

 

[Nerys Myk]

They'll get the science right in Hollywood as soon as they get the medicine right. Or the law. Or business. Or politics. Or history (U-571 anyone? )

And as wonderful as 2001 is, you can't exactly tell me anything that happened after Dave met the monolith first-hand was the cinematic equivalent of NOVA.

Remember, "It's just a movie." Fiction. Or like Eric Pierpoint said in that Bablyon 5 episode to those computer resurrections of long-dead Sheridan et al, when he was describing how TPTB had completely rewritten their history, "Good facts. As opposed to real facts."

I'm willing to bet Hollywood doesn't even get Hollywood right in movies about Hollywood.

 

[Goliath]

I'm willing to bet Hollywood doesn't even get Hollywood right in movies about Hollywood.

I certainly hope not.

I mean--Sunset Boulevard? *Shudders*

Great movie, but...

 

[FordSVT]

Constant thrust equals constant velocity.

I was so disappointed in Firefly's Out of Gas when the implication was the ship had stopped because the engine was broken.

It's even more ridiculous, because in War Stories they turn off the engine (and everything else) and continue their silent approach at Niskas station.

But in all honesty, science has no sense for the dramatic. Plain and simple.

Yeah, I love it in a sci-fi show then a starship looses it's engines, literally makes a noise like an IC engine grinding to a halt, and then slows to a dead stop. Great science there! It's a clear case of both writers and sci-fi artists knowing EXACTLY the mistake they are making but doing so anyways for dramatic effect. Which is fine. It's a drama, not a science documentary.

 

[TheArsenal]

For the same reason they can't say the word without adding "schmience" on the end, as in: "Science-schmience, just get me a good story".

 

[FlyingLemons]

Second, can anyone cite an example of SF, movie or book, that is good/great in all three dimensions? In other words, an epic story with profound insights on humanity, and that is grounded in sound science? Thanks!

I'd recommend the Destiny's Children trilogy by Stephen Baxter. Coalescence, Exultant and Transcendent are brilliant books, spanning our era, a global warming 2047(?) Earth, and the far future. The story basically explores the evolution of mankind from our state today to near-godhood, and is truely epic in scope. Baxter used to write quite flat characters juxtaposed with a lot of physics, but his modern stuff is brilliant.

 

[Manticore]

They'll get the science right in Hollywood as soon as they get the medicine right. Or the law. Or business. Or politics. Or history (U-571 anyone? )

And as wonderful as 2001 is, you can't exactly tell me anything that happened after Dave met the monolith first-hand was the cinematic equivalent of NOVA.

Remember, "It's just a movie." Fiction. Or like Eric Pierpoint said in that Bablyon 5 episode to those computer resurrections of long-dead Sheridan et al, when he was describing how TPTB had completely rewritten their history, "Good facts. As opposed to real facts."

I'm willing to bet Hollywood doesn't even get Hollywood right in movies about Hollywood.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouFailFilmSchoolForever

 

[diankra]

Second, can anyone cite an example of SF, movie or book, that is good/great in all three dimensions? In other words, an epic story with profound insights on humanity, and that is grounded in sound science? Thanks!

I'd recommend the Destiny's Children trilogy by Stephen Baxter. Coalescence, Exultant and Transcendent are brilliant books, spanning our era, a global warming 2047(?) Earth, and the far future. The story basically explores the evolution of mankind from our state today to near-godhood, and is truely epic in scope. Baxter used to write quite flat characters juxtaposed with a lot of physics, but his modern stuff is brilliant.

BTW, the Destiny's Children series (four books to be strictly accurate, because as Steve often does, there's a collection of short stories - Respelendent - set within the same continuity as well as the actual trilogy) is in itself a sub-section of his Xeelee series of books (Ring, Raft, Flux, Timelike Infinity and another short story collection, Traces). Some of those are set on the fringes of the 'main' story, about isolated groups of humans struggling to adapt and survive, others involve the conquest and liberation of Earth, and the final fate of Humanity's last survivors, so quite important!

 

[FlyingLemons]

I think the earlier Xeelee stories are a bit dry - I found Raft quite difficult to get into as quite a lot of it seemed to consist of discussions of things like Gauss' Rule and other things that I've encountered on an everyday basis. Later on, when he's able to mesh an interesting story with the physics, then it's better.

But the entire series is worth reading. Timelike Infinity has to be one of my favourites besides the Destiny's Children series. I think I might actually go read it again in fact...

Oh, and for hard science in sci-fi films, not entirely sure if this is the right forum, but...

Spoiler: Trek XI hard science bit

Apparently when the Kelvin is attacked by Nero, there's someone who gets sucked into space and we see the entire battle from their point of view, and yes, it is silent. They actually acknowledge you can't year phaser blasts/photon torpedos flying around in space! Finally!

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Regarding sound in space, I chalk it up to artistic license unless the characters are shown to actually hear the sound. There's no music in space either, both are for the viewers. It really depends on what they are going for, if the focus is on the adventure aspects they key up the sound, if they want space to be eerie or whatever they can go silent, but I don't think it's necessarily a question of realism but making it real for the viewer. Having sound during the trench run in Star Wars certainly made it more real for me as a viewer, having sound in a movie about NASA not so much.

 

[Plain Simple]

I think the earlier Xeelee stories are a bit dry - I found Raft quite difficult to get into as quite a lot of it seemed to consist of discussions of things like Gauss' Rule and other things that I've encountered on an everyday basis.

What exactly do you mean here by Gauss' Rule? I can think of a couple of things that fit that description (Gauss was a genius and produced so much great math), but I'm wondering how any of those found their way into a novel.