I think how scientific the science needs to be depends on the time period of the setting. If it's current or near future then I want the science to resemble current science. If it's further in the future, or involving more advanced aliens (etc.) then it can be more fanciful.
The three examples given in the BBC article you referenced would have been sufficiently far fetched for me to be less happy with the film. Indeed the third one I avoided the film because the science was just plain wrong!
All that said, I'm quite happy for Stargate to have it's stargate, and for Star Trek to have transporters and replicators, and Firefly to have its Terra-forming.
I do take CSI's (and similar) enhancing of images with a pinch of salt, but that doesn't particularly bother me most of the time, though I do grumble about it occasionally.
no subject
The three examples given in the BBC article you referenced would have been sufficiently far fetched for me to be less happy with the film. Indeed the third one I avoided the film because the science was just plain wrong!
All that said, I'm quite happy for Stargate to have it's stargate, and for Star Trek to have transporters and replicators, and Firefly to have its Terra-forming.
I do take CSI's (and similar) enhancing of images with a pinch of salt, but that doesn't particularly bother me most of the time, though I do grumble about it occasionally.