Do science fiction films need to have realistic science?

[philmophlegm]

“An American physicist is calling for Hollywood producers to tone down the fanciful science in movies - and restrict themselves to just one scientific flaw per film.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8530405.stm

So – how real should the science in science fiction be?

Discuss.

Personally, as long as the fictional setting is internally consistent, I’m not overly bothered by fanciful ‘science’ in science fiction. I think science fiction should be more about the fiction than the science.

Comments

[purplecat]

I once read a description of the difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy which ran "In Science Fiction you can have mermaids if there is a good reason for your world to have mermaids. In Fantasy mermaids, bless 'em, just are."

I'm not sure the "reason" has to be totally scientifically plausible. But I think I prefer my science fiction to at least attempt to signal somehow whether it's extrapolating from known science or just making stuff up. It's when the latter is mistaken for the former that a lot of confusion arises that can be damaging to science. Hollywood films are usually clearly making stuff up, even the ones that don't call themselves Science Fiction.

There's also the "bounce you out of the fiction" problem. When something in a story is "just wrong" it can be very distracting and difficult to overlook especially if the bit that is wrong is related to something you are passionate about. People who are keen on history have similar problems with a lot of historical fiction that scientists do with a lot of mainstream SF.

I don't know quite what the answer is. It's difficult to know what someone is going to find distractingly out of place, or consider damagingly misleading.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

Your point about history is an interesting one. Mistakes in history do bother me a lot more. I can't explain why.

[skordh.livejournal.com]

Yes I feel that sometimes, and try & overcome it. I like "Jonathan Strange and Mr Norell" but occasionally the descriptions of early 19th century politics seem wrong to me. On the other hand, it's an alternate world so I should probably just simmer down and enjoy the story.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

What's that film where a Royal Navy submarine that captured an Enigma machine is replaced by a US navy submarine? That sort of thing bothers me.

But then I also think that adaptations of Shakespeare plays should use approriate costumes and not modern clothes. So what do I know? (Not that I'm into Shakespeare.)

[sigisgrim.livejournal.com]

I've seen a number of Shakespeare adaptation (both stage and screen) that used modern clothes, or more modern than circa 1600. I'm quite confident in saying that the period of the costume is probably less important than the quality of the adaptation and the quality of the acting.

As an example, take a look at Ian McKellen's Richard III, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114279/ This is one of the best adaptations of the play that I've seen, and I've seen about half-a-dozen different ones, only one of which I haven't got on with. The classic line, A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse works really well in the context. (RIII is a favourite of mine.)

One Shakespeare adaptation where the costume failed miserably was Henry IV (parts one and two) put on by the Chicago Shakespeare Company (I think it was that, it was certainly Chicago). What they got wrong was using modern fabrics for period clothes and imitation Laurence Olivier wigs for all the nobles. But it was also let down by the acting. It was dire.


For the record I also intensely dislike instances of US navy submarines being used in film when Royal Navy submarines should have been used, and similar.