AAAS 2010 - San Diego

[Ltd]

At the recent AAAS (American Association of the Advancement of Science) meeting in San Diego, CA, there was talk, if im not mistaken from the SanSFIS group about only allowing future Hollywood movies to have 1 sci-fi element (e.g. Star Wars only having the ability to travel at the speed of light. Every thing else must be based on plausible science).

I'm sure their arguments are just in jest. But their intent appeared serious enough to start a lobbying group to campaign against overly exaggerated sc fi movies, their main point in case, The Core; a movie were by a series of nuclear explosions restart the earths 'electro magnetic field' (?!). Crazy on many levels I know, so you can see why they chose this movie as their main argument.

So I guess its my question to ask what movies do you believe would benefit from more accurate science?

 

[OleNewt]

So I guess its my question to ask what movies do you believe would benefit from more accurate science?

Stricter adherence to the science in "science fiction" will utterly ruin the genre.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

...So I guess its my question to ask what movies do you believe would benefit from more accurate science?

Any movie that is trying to make a broader statement but using known Science.

So, movies like "The Day After Tomorrow" and others of its ilk need to pay special attention to science since they're not focusing on "science fiction" but, instead, are focusing on some broader message.

Science Fiction is.. SCIENCE fiction. It uses fictional science-related concepts to tell a story. Often, these stories have broader messages in them. But, let's say an environmental movie or a movie about Big Medicine like "Coma" that is more focused on the message but uses science fiction as an afterthought needs to pay particular attention to known science. The messages in these movies are sometimes very important. That's not a problem.

But, if they hopeless crap-up what science we do possess with some single-minded determination to communicate their message at all costs, then everyone ends up suffering for it. You end up with well meaning people believing neutrinos are going to destroy the world or that any old has-been hacker can upload a virus to an alien spaceship and save the world!

 

[MeteorWayne]

I was disappointed in Eddington and Einstein (HBO, I think) for that reason. They skipped unsuccessful Eddington campaigns to prove the bending of light predicted by Einstein, including IIRC one that would have shown Einstein wrong. Then most insultingly (to science) they showed the whole eclipse (from ingress to totality) taking only 5 minutes. Ridiculous.

 

[StarRider1701]

So I guess its my question to ask what movies do you believe would benefit from more accurate science?

Let us first and foremost remember one truth. Science Fiction is FICTION first. In many cases it is called Science Fiction merely because the story set in a different place and/or time than modern day Earth. Or the setting is mod Earth where unlikely event(s) take place. Whether that setting is reached via Time Travel or Space Travel of one type or another (spaceships, wormholes, etc) the simple fact remains that it is a fictional story. That the author might try to explain the future science using pseudo-scientific jargon is immaterial. Its not a Science story it is a Fiction story.
We have been spoiled by the fact that some of our SF authors have also been scientist and therefore been able to give better, more realistic such explanations. This has elevated our expectations, in some cases beyond reasonable levels.
I think people get too caught up in the imaginary "science" and forget that they are reading or watching FICTION!
Its a story, people. It was NOT created in order to win some Science Award! It might have been created in hopes of winning a FICTION award - The Hugo.

 

[Ltd]

I agree. Science fiction has provided us with some of the greatest ever stories. But the early points on 'environmental' films for example, the Day After Tomorrow was just so inaccurate it was ridiculous. But if real science was to have been applied the film wouldn't have existed and made millions. So swings and roundabouts eh!

 

[StarRider1701]

I agree. Science fiction has provided us with some of the greatest ever stories. But the early points on 'environmental' films for example, the Day After Tomorrow was just so inaccurate it was ridiculous. But if real science was to have been applied the film wouldn't have existed and made millions. So swings and roundabouts eh!

Most books or movies start out kinda like this: "I wonder what would happen if..."

Ok, the writer of The Day After Tomorrow was not a Meteorologist. If I remember correctly, a year or 2 before that movie came out we found evidence of a very quick freeze happening at some point in our past. I thought that movie was someones guess of a possible scenario and what would happen to us if it happened now.