What Makes a Science-Fiction Movie Feel Scientifically Believable?

[Alextann]

Science-fiction movies often take ideas from real physics and technology, but some films feel much more believable than others.

[Mentor Note: The bulk of this thread start text has been deleted for now because it was 100% written by AI. That can be allowed in the General Discussion forum, but only when attribution is given. Since the OP did not provide attribution and has not responded to DMs asking for it, we have deleted the bulk of the OP text. Thread will be reopened, since it is an interesting topic and has already generated good responses.]

What science-fiction movie do you think does the best job of balancing real science with entertainment? Does scientific accuracy make a movie more enjoyable for you, or is consistency within the fictional world more important?

 

[.Scott]

An entertaining story works because the story tellers and the audience cooperate.
The writers create something that is understandable, interesting, and fit for the target audience.
The members of the audience suspend disbelief and allow themselves to become involved with the characters and the plot.
In the case of science fiction, the author uses pseudo-science to provide and eliminate plot options. If that pseudo-science is constant throughout the story, less story time will be needed to explain it. And for those who are analytically-minded, we can admire the characters and/or the plot by making creative use of those rules.

This is similar to what happens with a mystery - a mystery foretold by clues and patterns is more interesting once the mystery is revealed. It's part of the "mystery story" contract - the audience can participate in the story by trying to discover the mystery before the reveal.

Sci-fi stories also have a contract. The pseudo-science is expected to be predictable - or at least to appear predictable. It's bad form to resolve a major plot component with new, previously undescribed pseudo-science. More importantly, most scifi audience members expect the kind of tempo you see in Star Trek or Dr. Who - where, for the most part, you get a new problem, a struggle, and a resolution in a single episode - or if not a single episode, in some well-define prearranged time.
I have watched soap-opera fans watch Star Trek. A character contracts a fatal illness. He asks how long he has to live. 36 hours. The soap-opera fans are stunned and appalled - they were expecting 36 months.

"Under the Dome" killed itself by breaking this sci-fi contract. It was suppose to be one summer (2013). By the end of the summer everything should have been resolved. But it was such a hit that mid-season they decided to amend the story line so that the problems would not be fully resolved so quickly. They quickly lost their audience and after three seasons it was cancelled.

 

[DaveC426913]

"Under the Dome" killed itself by breaking this sci-fi contract. It was suppose to be one summer (2013). By the end of the summer everything should have been resolved. But it was such a hit that mid-season they decided to amend the story line so that the problems would not be fully resolved so quickly. They quickly lost their audience and after three seasons it was cancelled.

Is that what happened... Huh.

It did have a very weird story arc. I assumed it was trying to copy "Lost"'s wild success.

 

[berkeman]

Thread is closed for Moderation.

 

[berkeman]

Apologies for the delayed reopening of the thread; this could be a really interesting thread. The OP used AI to generate the thread start and did not include attribution for which AI they used. We need to wait for that attribution in order to reopen the thread. Hopefully by tomorrow...

 

[berkeman]

Update: after a good suggestion by @.Scott the OP has been edited down for now (until the OP provides the AI attribution), and the thread is reopened.

 

[DaveC426913]

Does scientific accuracy make a movie more enjoyable for you,

Yes. Inaccuracies I become aware of rip me out of the story and restore my disbelief.

or is consistency within the fictional world more important?

Yes. The science must be internally consistent.


That is not to say there can't be sci-fi elements. Warp drive technology contradicts neither requirement above.

 

[.Scott]

Re "Under the Dome":

Is that what happened... Huh.

It did have a very weird story arc. I assumed it was trying to copy "Lost"'s wild success.

Most of us may never know whether they originally intended to follow King's original story line - which was pretty dystopic. But their reaction to the unexpected record-setting success that first month was very unskilled.

My thought at the time was that they should have continued that season (2013) as they had planned, and allowed everyone to die off if that was the plan. Meanwhile, go back to King for three more months of new script for a completely new story - but that followed the same basic rule set. Then, for 2014, bring back the same actors but in the completely new roles. So you would have "King's Summer 2013: Under the Dome" followed by "King's Summer 2014: Over the Rainbow" (or whatever).

Re: "Does scientific accuracy make a movie more enjoyable for you"

Yes. Inaccuracies I become aware of rip me out of the story and restore my disbelief.
Yes. The science must be internally consistent.

That is not to say there can't be sci-fi elements. Warp drive technology contradicts neither requirement above.

My reaction is a bit different. I never expect SciFi to be believable. For me, the default is to expect significant variations from real science. In fact, when I notice something accurate, my first thought is "where will this go?" - in full expectation that things won't stay true for very long. After all, it's not a Physics course.

My disbelief is never restored. And it's totally on me to choose to suspend the disbelief and continue enjoying the story for what it is.

If I had to pick a Star Trek that was in-your-face unbelievable, TNG: "Parallels" comes to mine. Their play on Quantum Mechanics is entertaining - if for no other reason than it's so absurd with the Physics.

 

[DaveC426913]

. I never expect SciFi to be believable.
For me, the default is to expect significant variations from real science.

Are these mutually exclsuive though?

Hyperdrive isn't known science but that doesn't make it unbelievable in a future story.

 

[.Scott]

Are these mutually exclsuive though?

Hyperdrive isn't known science but that doesn't make it unbelievable in a future story.

Whatever "hyperdrive" is, how is it on the conservation of momentum?
Basically, it means the story line requires us to move much faster - even though there may be risks or costs.
Of course, given enough time, someone will invent something that generates more thrust than the usual methods - and will call it "hyperdrive".

 

[DaveC426913]

Whatever "hyperdrive" is, how is it on the conservation of momentum?

We don't know, which means we cant say its impossible. It's just beyond us.

Of course, given enough time, someone will invent something that generates more thrust than the usual methods - and will call it "hyperdrive".

Most concepts of hyperdrive don't depend on thrust.

My point is that sci-fi that is obviously ahead of our time doesnt have to explicitly violate what we currently know.

What I object to is stuff we currently know. Like Superman speaking on he Moon or such dumb sh*t.

 

[Ken Fabian]

Imaginary technology is one thing - internal consistency about it matters more to me than actual 'scientific' believability. But getting known physics or astronomy etc wrong makes suspending disbelief much harder. The popular ducking and weaving through an asteroid belt is one example.

Another - Gravity was hyped as showing zero gee like it really is but when the Clooney character tows the Bullock character behind him like a dinghy behind a boat... WTF? That would make them twirl around each other at the ends of their tether or if aligned well enough, crash into each other; should have lashed themselves together into a single mass I am thinking. Which could have offered some opportunities for some risque humour depending on the arrangement.

Then... locating their chosen destination and simply aiming at it just made it worse.

Is that the best they could do? Couldn't they have consulted with someone who had some idea how to move in zero gee? It wouldn't have messed with the flow of the story to get it right. Could even have shown a simplified example of how changing orbits in space works - slowing down takes you down, speeding up takes you up. His spacesuit could have had some navigation software - or even have her do the calculations...

The wrong ruined it for me.