Why can't Hollywood get science right?

[RAMA]

I've noticed that people's reaction to science in SF is relative...they're willing to accept certain things but not others that are equally or less accurate. Sometimes the reaction appears totally arbitrary to me...and then there are the people (sad as they are..) who claim to refuse to want to watch something because the FICTIONAL technology or science a show or movie creates is not being presented correctly...

RAMA

 

[FordSVT]

I've noticed that people's reaction to science in SF is relative...they're willing to accept certain things but not others that are equally or less accurate. Sometimes the reaction appears totally arbitrary to me...and then there are the people (sad as they are..) who claim to refuse to want to watch something because the FICTIONAL technology or science a show or movie creates is not being presented correctly...

RAMA

People like that are kind of sad... there is almost no "good" or interesting science fiction that is 100% scientifically accurate. That's the thing with science "fiction", it tends to deal with "fictional" science, i.e. things we extrapolate from modern science but that don't actually exist yet.

I think people like this should stop reading fiction and start getting their BSc. Get away from the entirety of "fiction" altogether!

 

[diankra]

I've noticed that people's reaction to science in SF is relative...they're willing to accept certain things but not others that are equally or less accurate. Sometimes the reaction appears totally arbitrary to me...and then there are the people (sad as they are..) who claim to refuse to want to watch something because the FICTIONAL technology or science a show or movie creates is not being presented correctly...

RAMA

Well, there's two issues there. One is that people find a situation credible if it meshes with common sense, the problem being that common sense is formed by everyday experience, and high level science isn't necessarily dealing with that, and the reality it describes can seem nonsensical in everyday terms.
Aside from spaceflight contradicting our everyday experience (stop pushing something and it'll stop very soon), the classic example is that common sense says that faster than light should be easier than time travel, as FTL is just travelling faster, but time travel is weird. But current physics says time travel is potentialy possible (though horribly difficult technologically), but FTL is a no-starter...

The other is... well, are we talking about people who refuse to watch Star Wars because the FTL drive doesn't work the way Star Trek says it should? Yep, that's silly. But if new Star Trek contradicts previous Star Trek tech without providing a work-around, that's just a breach of internal consistency - it's like Poirot solving a locked-room mystery by revealing a second door which definitely wasn't there in earlier scenes.

 

[theenglish]

I've noticed that people's reaction to science in SF is relative...they're willing to accept certain things but not others that are equally or less accurate. Sometimes the reaction appears totally arbitrary to me...and then there are the people (sad as they are..) who claim to refuse to want to watch something because the FICTIONAL technology or science a show or movie creates is not being presented correctly...

RAMA

I think people tend to believe that the fictional world operates like ours until the plot establishes something different. When a concept is introduced for a particular universe then people are usually willing to accept this concept. This includes Warp Drive, Transportation, Time Travel etc. When suddenly something happens that is obviously an over site, then the suspension of disbelief is broken.

For example, in Lost, we can accept that all our main characters are jumping through time but if all of a sudden they turned into super-powered heroes it would be a little hard to take without some serious plot developments.

A real life example I recall: I remember rolling my eyes in generations when the star is destroyed and its effects can be seen immediately by Picard and Kirk, yet they still need to wait for the impact. It wouldn't have taken too much directorial changes to correct this error.

 

[FordSVT]

^I'd point out that you would see the sun explode well before the shock wave hit you. Light travels much faster than even exploding matter from a star. The real problem with that scene is that it appeared from the planet that as soon as the rocket was launched into the air and headed toward the star they could see the effect on it. There should have been a delay of 10-15 minutes at least between the time the rocket launched (we'll assume it can travel a significant fraction of the speed of light given their technology level) and the time they see the sun ignite, and then more time until the actual shock wave hit the planet.

 

[ria 75]

One of few exceptions: ReGenesis is a science fiction show that gets science right and depicts scientists as human beings. Its realism and the fact that it is set in the present or very near future (except for one episode set decades in the future - with slightly overanticipated scientific progress, I confess) leads us to forget that it is science fiction.

 

[Mike Farley]

And, of course, they would have been fried by the radiation long before the shockwave tore the planet apart.

 

[FordSVT]

And, of course, they would have been fried by the radiation long before the shockwave tore the planet apart.

Of course, I was just speaking in blockbuster sci-fi generalities.

It really did look like the rocket went up and hit a star orbiting the planet. There was no delay or anything, it was like you watched it's entire journey on screen.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

Because real science in movies to the average moviegoer is B.O.R.I.N.G. 2001 anyone?(I love that movie by the way)

Real science in 2001?

Which part? Where the alien device teaches cavemen how to use tools? Or where a giant black square in space turns into dozens of alien landscapes?

 

[ria 75]

^^Yup. I believe 2001 is closer to metaphysics than SF. Not that they're mutually exclusive.
Let me rephrase. This SF movie has more metaphysics than science.

 

[Maurice]

Because real science in movies to the average moviegoer is B.O.R.I.N.G. 2001 anyone?(I love that movie by the way)

Real science in 2001?

Which part? Where the alien device teaches cavemen how to use tools? Or where a giant black square in space turns into dozens of alien landscapes?

The bits in between with the hairless apes and the tins cans in space, silly.

 

[theenglish]

^I'd point out that you would see the sun explode well before the shock wave hit you. Light travels much faster than even exploding matter from a star. The real problem with that scene is that it appeared from the planet that as soon as the rocket was launched into the air and headed toward the star they could see the effect on it. There should have been a delay of 10-15 minutes at least between the time the rocket launched (we'll assume it can travel a significant fraction of the speed of light given their technology level) and the time they see the sun ignite, and then more time until the actual shock wave hit the planet.

Yes, my laziness for omitting the word instantaneously. Typing when tired and all that.

Nevertheless, the point I think stands.