Science Fiction movies should stop being inaccurate

[rodsky]

---

This article is already about one year old, but I still want to reiterate its message.


Dustin Hoffman Is On A Mission Of Scientific Awesomeness

Dustin Hoffman is so concerned about getting better science in science-fiction movies, he's helping to sponsor a "dating service" to match movie directors with real scientists. But will he play a violin at their table-side?

Hoffman, whose science fiction movies include Sphere and Outbreak, has told friends that he's tired of the "silliness" of most films in the genre. He thinks movies can have an entertaining plot and present real science at the same time, according to an anonymous Friend Of Dustin quoted in the Australian newspaper.

An associate said: "Dustin thinks you can make entertaining movies which also get a message across without slowing down the action. He enjoys comic book blockbusters but if they go over the top and don't care about getting it right, why should the audience care?"

Hoffman, who was a chemist at the Maxwell House coffee company before he became a movie star, has teamed up with a group called the Science And Entertainment Exchange, which aims to play matchmaker between scientists and film-makers. Weirdly enough, the Exchange, which is affiliated with the National Academy of Sciences, was founded by Naked Gun director Jerry Zucker, Hoffman's neighbor. (Besides Hoffman and Zucker, the Exchange's officers include Gregory Benford, Lawrence Kasdan, Rob Reiner and Craig Venter.)

Will the group actually help to increase the accuracy of science in most movies? Probably not, but if it leads to even one or two more films that are actually focused on real science, that would be a major boon.


Science & Entertainment Exchange - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So basically, this is just a reminder to those who come into this subforum, and start posting about a topic because "It was so awesome in the CORE!" or "But I saw it in Armaggeddon!" --the excuse of "because it's FUN to watch!" should stop, because its at the expense of gaining knowledge and real science, and will just breed more pseudoscience fanatics.

-RODION

[chad_tukes]

why should the audience care? they care because of the entertainment value and are willing to spend money for it. at the end of the day, it's more about entertainment and less on 'real science'. who will be the target audience? science geeks? the movie industry is business, and if you make movies with plots such as dark matter, theory of relativity, evolution, and phsyics, what does that make Superman? will superheroes not be able to fly because there is some sort of a strong electromagnetic force called "gravity" which pulls him back to the ground? that is too boring. Dustin Hoffman present a difficult to near impossible proposition. the 'boringness' of science cannot possibly outweigh the entertainment value.

[grovestreet]

Carl Sagan also pointed this out in his book "broca's brain".

Superman is more like a fantasy movie than a science fiction movie.

[rodsky]

why should the audience care? they care because of the entertainment value and are willing to spend money for it. at the end of the day, it's more about entertainment and less on 'real science'. who will be the target audience? science geeks? the movie industry is business, and if you make movies with plots such as dark matter, theory of relativity, evolution, and phsyics, what does that make Superman? will superheroes not be able to fly because there is some sort of a strong electromagnetic force called "gravity" which pulls him back to the ground? that is too boring. Dustin Hoffman present a difficult to near impossible proposition. the 'boringness' of science cannot possibly outweigh the entertainment value.

According to wikipedia, superheroes are classified under "Superhero fiction" in the science fiction genre, and is almost a totally different genre in itself: Superhero fiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll paste this from the definition of science fiction as Wikipedia defines it:

According to science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein, "a handy short definition of almost all science fiction might read: realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method." Rod Serling's definition is "fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science Fiction is the improbable made possible.".

A movie based on scientific facts and strongly follows laws and principles of nature doesn't necessarily have to be boring. Thus it also follows that a sci-fi movie doesn't have to be inaccurate for it to be entertaining. As an example, when talking about "secret agents", McGyver is a more realistic representation of such an individual, than say James Bond (i.e. he makes use of what he has around him, rather than depend on some do-it-all gadget that makes life easy for him), yet it doesn't make him less interesting than Bond.

I believe that the plot of most of the sci-fi movies out there (or the ones that claim to be sci-fi) are not inaccurate because "the audience wants it to be inaccurate". I think the reason why some of them tends to be inaccurate at times, is simply a product of poor research on the subject matter, and perhaps, may I dare to say, a certain amount of "laziness" on the part of the writers/producers, in the hopes that "Oh, the common Joe won't notice that" sort of mentality, which to me, is pretty much insulting the capacity of human intelligence and wisdom.

It also doesn't follow that "money comes first" in the movie industry. There are a lot of "over the top" science fiction films out there that promised to be "entertaining", but the general audience is smart enough to know when it goes overboard, and thus it doesn't fare well in the box office.

-RODION

[YJOB]

This topic reminds me of my favorite tv series sir, MacGyver.
Combining science with action and entertainment.
Well, maybe there are some episodes where the "science" gets kind of questionable but overall though MacGyver is a good example.

[chad_tukes]

According to wikipedia, superheroes are classified under "Superhero fiction" in the science fiction genre, and is almost a totally different genre in itself: Superhero fiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll paste this from the definition of science fiction as Wikipedia defines it:

According to science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein, "a handy short definition of almost all science fiction might read: realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method." Rod Serling's definition is "fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science Fiction is the improbable made possible.".

A movie based on scientific facts and strongly follows laws and principles of nature doesn't necessarily have to be boring. Thus it also follows that a sci-fi movie doesn't have to be inaccurate for it to be entertaining. As an example, when talking about "secret agents", McGyver is a more realistic representation of such an individual, than say James Bond (i.e. he makes use of what he has around him, rather than depend on some do-it-all gadget that makes life easy for him), yet it doesn't make him less interesting than Bond.

I believe that the plot of most of the sci-fi movies out there (or the ones that claim to be sci-fi) are not inaccurate because "the audience wants it to be inaccurate". I think the reason why some of them tends to be inaccurate at times, is simply a product of poor research on the subject matter, and perhaps, may I dare to say, a certain amount of "laziness" on the part of the writers/producers, in the hopes that "Oh, the common Joe won't notice that" sort of mentality, which to me, is pretty much insulting the capacity of human intelligence and wisdom.

It also doesn't follow that "money comes first" in the movie industry. There are a lot of "over the top" science fiction films out there that promised to be "entertaining", but the general audience is smart enough to know when it goes overboard, and thus it doesn't fare well in the box office.

-RODION

sure, you can produce realistic movies that portray "real" or "hardcore" science without a hint of inaccuracy, but the big question is will it actually be worth the investment? you made a good point --- "it doesn't fare well in the box office." don't get me wrong, i'm on the same boat as far as making realistic films ---but for movies? maybe they'd fare well if films like these settle on the small screen (perhaps a TV series). if producers want to make scientifically accurate films, then perhaps, they can make a documentary instead, with less expectations as far as fattening their wallets. in fact, people would rather watch "Terminator" than say "A Space Odyssey" or "Gattaca". Science fiction is almost synonymous to scientific inaccuracy.

a good example is the TV series "Fringe". we all know for a fact that "Fringe Science" eschews from mainstream science though considered by some as credible. but why do people love to watch it? it's not because Fringe present scenes that most chemists/physicists can relate to, but quite the opposite in that it presents a plot that can never happen in real life. it's a fact that people love to play with their imaginations, and Fringe makes a good job reaching out to a wider audience.

bottomline --- Hollywood doesn't care about scientific accuracy (i guess you're right when you said they're too lazy to research); they only care about making money --- business gihapon.

[rodsky]

I don't know what sort of message you're trying to put out though, with your posts. Are you saying that people like me or Dustin Hoffman should just give up and not honk the horn just because it's "all about money"? Are you saying an effort like this is futile?

Some other points to ponder upon:

1) James Cameron didn't allow "Avatar" to come out earlier than he would have want to, because the technology wasn't present yet, when he conceived of the idea for the film. Question: Since he is of the "Hollywood ilk", why then would he wait several years later, to create the film--why didn't he just make the film back in say 1992, with the technology available at THAT time? He could have equally earned a sizable amount of money off the box office back then...so again, why wait? Simple--it's because he CARED about the story--he didn't want to use crude special effects available back in 1992 because from his perspective, it would have detracted from the storytelling that he wanted the audience to experience.

2) Same thing with the Star Wars Prequels (Lucas felt that technology wasn't sufficient at the time to make 1, 2 and 3, so he ended up making 4,5, and 6 first). These directors actually CARED about their storylines, to the point that they were willing to hold off their ideas, and wait when the technology is ripe before they would express their story in the medium of film. So as you can see, Hollywood or not, some good directors and producers, who have indeed produced blockbuster science fiction movies, do CARE about the story and not just be focused on return of investment. Because sometimes, when you prioritize the art, the money would just follow. There are a lot of "formula" movies out there (i.e. movies that producers have based a "money making formula" upon), but the really good movies that the movie-going public really loves, clearly show that the people involved in the film took good care of the plot/storyline itself, rather than focus on a simple formula to rake in money.

-RODION

[chad_tukes]

I don't know what sort of message you're trying to put out though, with your posts. Are you saying that people like me or Dustin Hoffman should just give up and not honk the horn just because it's "all about money"? Are you saying an effort like this is futile?

Some other points to ponder upon:

1) James Cameron didn't allow "Avatar" to come out earlier than he would have want to, because the technology wasn't present yet, when he conceived of the idea for the film. Question: Since he is of the "Hollywood ilk", why then would he wait several years later, to create the film--why didn't he just make the film back in say 1992, with the technology available at THAT time? He could have equally earned a sizable amount of money off the box office back then...so again, why wait? Simple--it's because he CARED about the story--he didn't want to use crude special effects available back in 1992 because from his perspective, it would have detracted from the storytelling that he wanted the audience to experience.

2) Same thing with the Star Wars Prequels (Lucas felt that technology wasn't sufficient at the time to make 1, 2 and 3, so he ended up making 4,5, and 6 first). These directors actually CARED about their storylines, to the point that they were willing to hold off their ideas, and wait when the technology is ripe before they would express their story in the medium of film. So as you can see, Hollywood or not, some good directors and producers, who have indeed produced blockbuster science fiction movies, do CARE about the story and not just be focused on return of investment. Because sometimes, when you prioritize the art, the money would just follow. There are a lot of "formula" movies out there (i.e. movies that producers have based a "money making formula" upon), but the really good movies that the movie-going public really loves, clearly show that the people involved in the film took good care of the plot/storyline itself, rather than focus on a simple formula to rake in money.

-RODION

i'm also confused about your main point. so you actually feel strongly about a movie's plot (whether scientifically accurate or not), rather than the accuracy itself? i was talking about the accuracy (or lack thereof) of science-fiction films.

[mariaClara]

Fiction gani..

[rodsky]

i'm also confused about your main point. so you actually feel strongly about a movie's plot (whether scientifically accurate or not), rather that the accuracy itself? i was talking about the accuracy (or lack thereof) of science-fiction films.

Of course it's all about plot--isn't that what people go to movies for? For the story? Sure, there are people who just want to see a bunch of special effects splashed on a big screen, but I still believe that the general public, the majority of the populace flock to movie houses expecting to be drawn into a compelling story. And if that story is marred by inaccurate representation of the world I live in, yes it ruins the willing suspension of disbelief at least for me.

-RODION