A Reel Opinion: Science and the Movies

There is a theory (and not necessarily an axiom), in storytelling concerning science fiction that can either enhance a movie experience or ruin it. The theory that all good science fiction is based upon good science. If the movie (or book) is based upon good science, then the science-FICTION elements can and will be believable on some level. It can be argued that if a film is built on a foundation of faulty science, then that film is forfeit.

One of the fine gents over at www.aintitcool.com recently penned an article challenging the science of J.J. Abrams’ recent STAR TREK film. The writer, who is an actual scientist, knows his craft very well and seems dead-on in poking holes all over the film; using scientific principles to prove that a lot of occurrences should not have happened the way they did. The article was not meant to be a slam on Abrams or the film (the author claims to love the film), but to rather point out that the film was not based upon good science.

So the question that comes to this Blogger’s warped little mind is, if the science around a film is faulty, do we, or should we really give a shit?

STAR TREK in the 1960’s introduced this thing dealing with matter colliding with anti-matter. It was a theory that would take nearly 50 years to become reality. Suppose it never did become reality, would that make the entire TV series, the spinoffs, and all the movies a bunch of unwatchable bollocks?

Scientists today, while well-intentioned, will laugh their asses off watching Michael Bay’s ARMAGEDDON, as the notion of landing space shuttles on an asteroid to them is totally ridiculous. They’re probably right, but so what? The crash-landing scenes were pretty spectacular and made for good cinema. In INDEPENDENCE DAY, the massive city-sized saucers hovered above Earth with no apparent suspension or lift. Scientifically impossible, but who’s complaining?

It seems that the uncompromising rules of science would make movies boring. What would the opening scene of STAR WARS (1977) be like if they decided to not have sounds travel through space?

What it probably comes down to is scientists not liking movies infringing upon their territory and pissing on their pocket-protectors. At the same time, movie-fans don’t like nerds ruining their movie experiences. This Blogger believes that while science should be respected, it’s stringent rules should not take away from the entertainment/enjoyment/integrity of a film; just don’t make the damn thing boring.

Now, every individual can obviously choose for themselves how they want to view their sci-fi (by the rules of science, or not), but whatever rule they choose should apply to all; if walking on an asteroid is stupid in ARMAGEDDON, then it’s stupid in STAR WARS too. Two sets of rules can be more annoying than the most powerful math-nerd.

What say you?