Bad science in fiction Hall of Shame

[YNM]

57 minutes ago, Aperture Science said:

nitpick science in fiction

Not much point in it being "fiction" then.

The problem now is that people put up "sci-fi" and not just "fiction" too often. True it might sound too broad or too imaginative, but that's the point of fiction.

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, Aperture Science said:

this is why we don't nitpick science in fiction

The spotlight scene just knocked me.

2 hours ago, YNM said:

The problem now is that people put up "sci-fi" and not just "fiction" too often. True it might sound too broad or too imaginative, but that's the point of fiction.

That's because that old sci-fi is now a dull reality, while the nowadays SCI-fi is almost invisible. Clever things, GMO, stronger materials, MFD or voice interface intead of dials and levers.

[wumpus]

12 hours ago, Aperture Science said:

this is why we don't nitpick science in fiction

One of my favorite authors is L.E. Modesitt Jr. released "Solar Express" in 2015 (KSP 1.0 dropped in 2015, I don't know the lead time for novel, but it is considerable).  Without KSP I would have only groaned at "partial space elevators".  After playing KSP, I pretty much groaned at every plot-significant orbital mechanics failure in the book.  Since it primarily centered around "torch-ships" (high acceleration ships that go faster than Hohmann), it was unlikely to be so blatant to anyone before the "started playing KSP" on the "knows orbital mechanics vs. time" graph.

I may have mentioned it before.  But literary sci-fi has always been held to a higher standard than TV or movie (which tends to have all the scientific rigor of Star Wars).

[peewee69]

In the new "Lost in Space" on Netflix, in the first episode during the scene with the ship crashing, the computers display a distance to impact in meters, but the computers voice reads out in feet, both of which have the same numerical value. 

Not exactly scientifically inaccurate, but an error which caused me to not bother watching it anymore...

[Superfluous J]

20 minutes ago, peewee69 said:

In the new "Lost in Space" on Netflix, in the first episode during the scene with the ship crashing, the computers display a distance to impact in meters, but the computers voice reads out in feet, both of which have the same numerical value. 

Not exactly scientifically inaccurate, but an error which caused me to not bother watching it anymore...

You missed out. Not only was it a good show, it had several more groaners.

Like a ship with literally enough fuel to *just* get into orbit on a *perfect* launch (literally. They said they had 200 pounds to spare and decided to use it up putting a second person on the ship), exploding on the way up and a critical chunk ending up in orbit anyway.

[magnemoe]

7 hours ago, wumpus said:

One of my favorite authors is L.E. Modesitt Jr. released "Solar Express" in 2015 (KSP 1.0 dropped in 2015, I don't know the lead time for novel, but it is considerable).  Without KSP I would have only groaned at "partial space elevators".  After playing KSP, I pretty much groaned at every plot-significant orbital mechanics failure in the book.  Since it primarily centered around "torch-ships" (high acceleration ships that go faster than Hohmann), it was unlikely to be so blatant to anyone before the "started playing KSP" on the "knows orbital mechanics vs. time" graph.

I may have mentioned it before.  But literary sci-fi has always been held to a higher standard than TV or movie (which tends to have all the scientific rigor of Star Wars).

Moves focus on action this can be hard to make realistic, not only because things have to be safe, cheap enough and look good so you get fireball explosions, teleporters and visible lasers in space. But also pacing will have to be high so you prefer close combat there thing happen fast, shells from an battleship will hit target at once as you don't want to wait two minutes for them to travel 20 km and most unrealistic people find parking spots at once

Books can do thing slower and still make it interesting, they also has no special effect budget. Also errors is more visible in writing than something who just show in an second in an movie 

[Gargamel]

14 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Also errors is more visible in writing than something who just show in an second in an movie

On the flip side of this, a movie's greatest special effect may only be one simple line in a book, as they leave the reader to imagine the scene.   Case in point, the first Harry Potter film/book.  In the book, it was nothing more than "Hagrid touches the wall with his wand, and the bricks start to fold back", something like that.    A simple, easy to understand, easily imaginable scene.  In the movie, the scene is very impressive, with the bricks folding back to open a portal to alley, a very well done scene. 

So while books usually win out in descriptions and such, sometimes a movie can trump a book with the special effects (if done right). 

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, peewee69 said:

In the new "Lost in Space" on Netflix, in the first episode during the scene with the ship crashing, the computers display a distance to impact in meters, but the computers voice reads out in feet, both of which have the same numerical value. 

That's how they've lost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter and maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Polar_Lander.
Nothing changes...

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

Case in point, the first Harry Potter film/book.  In the book, it was nothing more than "Hagrid touches the wall with his wand, and the bricks start to fold back", something like that.    A simple, easy to understand, easily imaginable scene.  In the movie, the scene is very impressive, with the bricks folding back to open a portal to alley, a very well done scene. 

Btw about magic and virtual reality magic.
Why almost every time when they show somebody's magic classes, the pupils are always heavily pushing like they are sitting on toilet?
Does it really help?  (I mean in magic, not in toilet)

Upd.
Except Keanu Reeves and his virtual kung-fu in Johnny Mnemonic and Matrix.
He is probably the only one who can hack computer systems with Kinect and kung-fu kicks.

Edited May 29, 2018 by kerbiloid

[wumpus]

11 hours ago, Gargamel said:

On the flip side of this, a movie's greatest special effect may only be one simple line in a book, as they leave the reader to imagine the scene.  

I remember reading about a movie (I think it was "Poltergeist", long before the CGI era), that had a single line "and then the house imploded".

So they had to carefully build a scale model house on top of an industrial-sized disposal, and then suck the house down and grind it up faster than it collapsed.  Very expensive line of text.

[magnemoe]

5 hours ago, wumpus said:

I remember reading about a movie (I think it was "Poltergeist", long before the CGI era), that had a single line "and then the house imploded".

So they had to carefully build a scale model house on top of an industrial-sized disposal, and then suck the house down and grind it up faster than it collapsed.  Very expensive line of text.

Yes Poltergeist the Spielberg horror, the one with the girl and the white noise TV.

Now my movie was the Exorcist, teen home alone party watching scary movie, some guys was down in the basement trying to find an barrel of wine his parents had forgot. 
Just as the girl puked on the priest guy living there killed power for fun, totally random unless he seen it multiple times and timed it. (yes its plausible) 
Coming back up with an 25 liter keg of wine made him an legend  
 

[DAL59]

In Star Trek ID, the Enterprise falls from the moons orbit into the atmosphere in a minute. 

[wumpus]

13 hours ago, DAL59 said:

In Star Trek ID, the Enterprise falls from the moons orbit into the atmosphere in a minute. 

Which is one of the reasons KSP uses a planet with unobtanium density, to keep the player from getting bored.  You can keep the audience involved with a multi-day "falling from Moon orbit" in Apollo 13, but the Enterprise is a sturdier ship.  Better get the whole process done quickly.  A better question is why the Enterprise orbits planets at all?  Simply parking over one spot requires a ton of delta-v, but that is still minimal compared to what the Enterprise is almost always pumping out.  Presumably sci-fi fans were very familiar with orbits in the late 60s and expected orbits around a planet.  Travel beyond the Earth could be done however they wanted.

[p1t1o]

14 hours ago, DAL59 said:

In Star Trek ID, the Enterprise falls from the moons orbit into the atmosphere in a minute. 

Star Trek has never been sci-fi, its space-opera.

[mikegarrison]

1 hour ago, wumpus said:

Which is one of the reasons KSP uses a planet with unobtanium density, to keep the player from getting bored.  You can keep the audience involved with a multi-day "falling from Moon orbit" in Apollo 13, but the Enterprise is a sturdier ship.  Better get the whole process done quickly.  A better question is why the Enterprise orbits planets at all?  Simply parking over one spot requires a ton of delta-v, but that is still minimal compared to what the Enterprise is almost always pumping out.  Presumably sci-fi fans were very familiar with orbits in the late 60s and expected orbits around a planet.  Travel beyond the Earth could be done however they wanted.

In many sci-fi stories, ships that are capable of other things sometimes enter orbit simply because it is convenient. It allows you to turn off the engines, which may give you a chance for maintenance or just save money, etc. While we don't actually see much of a money-based economy in Star Trek, presumably there is some cost to running the ship's engines.

[Bill Phil]

1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

Star Trek has never been sci-fi, its space-opera.

Well, they use their science and technology to solve their problems. There are many examples of some kind of use of science as a major story element, and their equipment has its limits.

There's a whole episode dedicated to proving that a seemingly god-like being is just someone with sufficiently advanced technology.

I'd argue that what constitutes sci-fi is more than just realism. Theme also plays a role. Star Trek's big theme is the benefits of science and technology and how these are some of our greatest tools to solve problems. In Star Wars, it's about the Force and balance, and technology is even painted as "the bad guy", symbolized by the technologically advanced Empire. Even Vader says that the Force is more powerful than their technology. Compare this to Star Trek, where they rely on their science, intelligence, and technology to accomplish their goals. The science and technology aren't real, but they are recognizable as science and technology, at least generally.

[wumpus]

1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

Star Trek has never been sci-fi, its space-opera.

The original series was as close as it came.  I'm pretty sure Harlan Ellison's Star Trek episode was just as sci-fi as his other works (New Wave had low standards).  TNG was more like "space soap opera" with added "tech the tech" lingo.  Producers quickly got the message that real sci-fi leads to cancellation.  Star Wars is classic space opera.  As far as movie or TV "real" sci-fi there's what?  The Martian.  Maybe 2001.  Maybe Blade Runner.  I haven't seen any of "The Expanse", maybe it.  A few "Twilight Zone" episodes, but certainly the minority.

I strongly doubt that Ellison was aware that since warp drive worked, the Trekverse was inherently non-causal and could justify his plot as hard sci-fi (they have to stop Bones from saving the woman that prevents US involvement in  WWII).  But I'm glad that Trek gets that one thing right (if almost nothing else).

You can pretty much put "Hollywood itself" in the bad science fiction Hall of Fame.  The exceptions are few and far between.

[DAL59]

2 hours ago, wumpus said:

The original series was as close as it came.

I agree.  They avoided using technobabble too much and didn't introduce bad science for no reason.  Yes, there is artificial gravity, but this was the 60s, so they didn't have a choice, but they didn't explain it.  And there are examples of things they do not completely wrong, like using a magnetic tool to handle antimatter.  

[p1t1o]

3 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Well, they use their science and technology to solve their problems. There are many examples of some kind of use of science as a major story element, and their equipment has its limits.

There's a whole episode dedicated to proving that a seemingly god-like being is just someone with sufficiently advanced technology.

I'd argue that what constitutes sci-fi is more than just realism. Theme also plays a role. Star Trek's big theme is the benefits of science and technology and how these are some of our greatest tools to solve problems. In Star Wars, it's about the Force and balance, and technology is even painted as "the bad guy", symbolized by the technologically advanced Empire. Even Vader says that the Force is more powerful than their technology. Compare this to Star Trek, where they rely on their science, intelligence, and technology to accomplish their goals. The science and technology aren't real, but they are recognizable as science and technology, at least generally.

Force is just faith, the power of spirituality over physical force, they just make faith a physical force too. Todays religious would say faith was more powerful than technology. Luke is Jesus.

Star Trek and Star Wars could both be set in present day, or even in the past, and the story could be the same. Light Sabers ferchrissakes!

 

This isnt a criticism of either though, just that neither of them lose anything from their scientific innaccuracies and that that is how I personally seperate sci-fi from "story set in the future/space/some other thing".

 

PS: I love it when the English language makes me say things like "that that"

 

 

Edited May 30, 2018 by p1t1o

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, DAL59 said:

I agree.  They avoided using technobabble too much and didn't introduce bad science for no reason.  Yes, there is artificial gravity, but this was the 60s, so they didn't have a choice, but they didn't explain it.  And there are examples of things they do not completely wrong, like using a magnetic tool to handle antimatter.  

And you do not explain technology in space opera, yes you can use worlds like the dilitium crystal is broken so we can not go into warp. 
Now in hard sci-fi you can explains technology if you want, you might want if you do stuff who don't make common sense. All KSP players understood the ship strategy in Martian, most movie goers would not. 

You want the world to be coherent however and this is equal true for fantasy. 

[mikegarrison]

6 hours ago, wumpus said:

The original series was as close as it came.  I'm pretty sure Harlan Ellison's Star Trek episode was just as sci-fi as his other works (New Wave had low standards).  TNG was more like "space soap opera" with added "tech the tech" lingo.  Producers quickly got the message that real sci-fi leads to cancellation.  Star Wars is classic space opera.  As far as movie or TV "real" sci-fi there's what?  The Martian.  Maybe 2001.  Maybe Blade Runner.  I haven't seen any of "The Expanse", maybe it.  A few "Twilight Zone" episodes, but certainly the minority.

I strongly doubt that Ellison was aware that since warp drive worked, the Trekverse was inherently non-causal and could justify his plot as hard sci-fi (they have to stop Bones from saving the woman that prevents US involvement in  WWII).  But I'm glad that Trek gets that one thing right (if almost nothing else).

You can pretty much put "Hollywood itself" in the bad science fiction Hall of Fame.  The exceptions are few and far between.

To some extent, you are being a snob in terms of what you allow "real SF" to be.

Anyway, The Expanse is certainly real SF. So was Babylon 5. Firefly. The Twilight  Zone did a lot of adaptations of classic SF stories. In fact, Star Trek did some too (e.g. "Arena"). There have also been a number of non-space SF shows on TV, like Seaquest and Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea.

If you get away from the US, you also open up shows like Doctor Who, Red Dwarf, UFO, Thunderbirds, and a personal favorite of mine, Star Cops.

Edited May 30, 2018 by mikegarrison

[DAL59]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

And you do not explain technology in space opera, yes you can use worlds like the dilitium crystal is broken so we can not go into warp. 
Now in hard sci-fi you can explains technology if you want, you might want if you do stuff who don't make common sense. All KSP players understood the ship strategy in Martian, most movie goers would not. 

You want the world to be coherent however and this is equal true for fantasy. 

Yes- what irked me in non-TOS is that they could reroute some tachyons through the main deflector or something to do literally anything, so it never felt like there was danger.    

[Bill Phil]

7 hours ago, DAL59 said:

Yes- what irked me in non-TOS is that they could reroute some tachyons through the main deflector or something to do literally anything, so it never felt like there was danger.    

So you haven't seen "Best of Both Worlds."

They do something to reroute stuff through the deflector and... it doesn't help at all.

[kerbiloid]

Maybe that's because deflector is to deflect, rather than reroute something through it?
Otherwise it would be named something other.

[wumpus]

17 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

If you get away from the US, you also open up shows like Doctor Who, Red Dwarf, UFO, Thunderbirds, and a personal favorite of mine, Star Cops.

Don't leave out Blake's Seven, it was Firefly at least a decade before Firefly.

There has been a movement to rename SF "speculative fiction", and it is probably a good idea.  Blake's Seven has basically no science whatsoever but simply posits an overwhelming galactic empire and explores the means required to control and the the means available to rebel, so great speculation and freedom to craft a story.  Link to probably the origin of *Science* fiction snobbery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctpvd2VvukQ

Probably the most extreme case of SF snobbery was Niven's first published work.  It relied on Mercury being tidally locked, but Niven wasn't aware that was already known to be false.  When he learned of this, he offered to withdraw the work (it wasn't accepted).

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, wumpus said:

Don't leave out Blake's Seven, it was Firefly at least a decade before Firefly.

There has been a movement to rename SF "speculative fiction", and it is probably a good idea.  Blake's Seven has basically no science whatsoever but simply posits an overwhelming galactic empire and explores the means required to control and the the means available to rebel, so great speculation and freedom to craft a story.  Link to probably the origin of *Science* fiction snobbery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctpvd2VvukQ

Probably the most extreme case of SF snobbery was Niven's first published work.  It relied on Mercury being tidally locked, but Niven wasn't aware that was already known to be false.  When he learned of this, he offered to withdraw the work (it wasn't accepted).

Make some sense, now steampunk it an setting there the Victorian sci-fi authors was right. Fallout is in an setting there the 1950 sci-fi writers was right. 

Now on the other hand then you watch WW2 documentaries like the end of Yamato as some who saw star wars long before youtube it feels like star wars, and this is correct Star wars is WW2 fighter combat as it is the visual most interesting one. In fact the death star run is pretty identical to the dam-buster run. 
An war there all release their weapons below the horizon is not as interesting to watch. 
On the other hand staffing with the gun on fighters has got an serious combat simply with an software update who link the autopilot and the gun sight, and yes the autopilot know all about side wind and updraft, more than accurate enough to hit an machine gun nest or even an moving car. 
On the gripping hand this would be a lot like Luke let the autopilot do the run for him.