Bad science in fiction Hall of Shame

[antipro]

merged to a thread with different purpose.

Edited January 4, 2021 by antipro

[Gargamel]

Overlapping threads have been merged. 

[Mukita12]

" Bad science in fiction"

Hmmmmmm Oh yeah. i know what's up

The flipping Scorpion MBT from Halo. Halo itself has a novel so technically it counts as Sci-fi so yeah. Anyways
 

Here's a long chart that i made in Quora when debating someone on why the Scorpion is a stepbackward for MBT
 

Spoiler

M8O8B Main Battle Tank "Scorpion"

Weight: 66 Metric Tonne (Eh like the average MBT)

Tops speed: 54Km/h (Abrams is faster than that)

Armour: Titanium Ceramic Armour (What the heck why?)

Armament: 90mm Smoothbore gun (For a futuristic main battle tank, sure is weaker)

One Crew Member

|

->--- (What could possibly go wrong)

|

Four Independent Set of Tracks

Let's go with their cons

Gun

90mm APHE sure is a weak gun considering the last time we saw them in Action with an MBT was in 1950

Nowadays we only saw them in IFV or Force Recon vehicle although they upgraded it to 105mm'

I mean it makes sense if it were a light tank but... the weight is 66 and the designation is 66 tonne

"a 90mm round can gut a fully shielded wraith." wow that Wraith armour sure is weaker than most modern MBT including the leclerc And then we have the ammunition used by the Scorpion. APHE? Ah yes last time i saw them was like what? 1950?also smoothbore? Pfft, Musket would probably have better accuracy than it. Now we know the composition of the 90mmAPHE shell from Johnson line in Halo 3

"Hey, How does 90mm of tungsten strike ya."

Although eh... It's based with reality considering japanese did the same with their APHE round back in WW2.. in WW2.

In game Scorpion could kill Infantry and Armour efficiently without ammo change... Ingame... WHy uses APHE when High Explosive Anti Tank (HEAT) could do a better job

Also.. APHE isn't that Explosive... like for real.

To quote FAQ from Spookston video:

"If you can make a future 90mm that is more effective than a modern 120mm, why would not make a future 120mm and make it exponentially more powerful than a modern 120mm? A 120mm is, by principle, more powerful than a 90mm, regardless of the timeframe. The same goes for the ammunition. HEAT and APFSDS is, by principle, more effective than AP/APHE. A 90mm APHE shell has less explosive potential than a hand grenade, while a 90mm HEAT shell had around 7 times the explosive potential of an APHE shell, and has the added benefit of being much better at penetrating armor. In Halo lore, it's confirmed that the Scorpion's 90mm isn't seen as adequate by the existence of the Grizzly, which has two 120mm cannons firing HEAT shells. If the Grizzly's armament is what is seen as necessary to be adequate or surpass Covenant armor, then the Scorpion should at least have one 120mm firing HEAT. The existence of the M820 Scorpion with a 152mm ETC gun also confirms this."

Now let's go with the tracks and suspension

I mean yeah, the Quad Tracks are what made the Scorpion Iconic.

There's also not a lot of disadvantage or advantage with quad tracks... unless you put them separately

Not only it will causes a mechanical issue, it also worsen their off track performance as to quote Spookton

"you want your track to be aligned with your hull. If the Scorpion tried to climb a steep hill, the front tracks would begin climbing, but since they have free range of motion, the hull would not angle to crest the hill. The hull would dig straight into the hill while the tracks tried to keep ascending. Not to mention that making a mechanism which would be capable of transferring power to the tracks while they are freely rotating would be difficult and a maintenance nightmare."

Now let's go with the crew

One crew design? really? Although the amount of crew in tanks has decreased from 8 to 4/3 since their inception in Modern Warfare.

There's a reason why they use 4 or 3 crews. For example who shoots the gun? Who drives the tank? Who command those tank? Who reloads the gun (unless you're using autoloader)

"Hurr hurrr but less crew meaning less casualties" Granted but that'll mean you give more stress to the crew which do more harm than good.

Also it will be impossible for the Scorpion to do maintenance as only one person there to check a large ass main battle tank

"Hurr durr but computers" yes but who will do the maintenance of that as well?

Also the hatch. The hatch opens vertically and uses computer or electric help to opens it unlike tanks that today uses.. this maybe futuristic and cool and stuff, but if an EMP hits it. The crew would be stuck inside the tank making it a grave yard

"And the Scorpion can tank 3 plasma mortars.

MBTs don’t.

The Scorpion can be airdropped.

MBTs don’t."

I mean we don't have plasma gun as of right now to test it out but i have a feeling modern mbt would be shielded just fine especially if they're able to disperse the heat evenly

And air drop? As of right now, we don't have the helicopter or the plane that can air drop a tank in the middle of combat

Many militaries around the world have experimented with this with the most popular being the russian with their A-40 flying tank. and guess what it do more harm than good

the only reason i can think off why Scorpion can be airdropped is the Pelican cargo capacity

aand there's more reason

[DDE]

2 hours ago, Mukita12 said:

Four Independent Set of Tracks

Relevant - Object 490

Spoiler

http://btvt.info/2futureprojects/490_21vek.files/image006.jpg

http://btvt.info/2futureprojects/490_21vek.files/image016.jpg

 

[Mukita12]

12 hours ago, DDE said:

Relevant - Object 490

  Hide contents

http://btvt.info/2futureprojects/490_21vek.files/image006.jpg

http://btvt.info/2futureprojects/490_21vek.files/image016.jpg

 

the problem with scorpion is that the four independence set of track is not in the hull but rather outside the hull.

[kerbiloid]

90/120/152/etc is a whole shell diameter. The penetrator is just 20..40 mm.

So, maybe they have some effective gun or powder to use narrower sabots.

[lemon cup]

On 12/23/2020 at 6:22 PM, Mukita12 said:

Scorpion MBT from Halo

In my opinion the Warthog is even more nonsensical as a front line fighting vehicle. Firstly it is classified as a reconnaissance  vehicle - why in year 2500 is there a need for wheeled scout vehicles when unmanned drones and orbital imagery are readily available wherever the UNSC goes? Second, if it is in fact a scout vehicle, why shoehorn it into a role as a fighting vehicle, but then proceed to not modify it in any way to do this? No uparmor, fully exposed cabin, fully exposed glass windshield. And the gunner must stand in the back of the bed with zero protection to fire the gun, yet even today we have fully remote controlled weapons stations.

The list goes on; flat-bottomed hull despite being in active service during a major terrorist insurrection where IEDs were commonplace, front row seating only (not counting your red-shirt gunner in the back). BUT, the Warthog gets a pass because it is iconic.

[Gargamel]

7 hours ago, lemon cup said:

why in year 2500 is there a need for wheeled scout vehicles when unmanned drones and orbital imagery are readily available wherever the UNSC goes? Second, if it is in fact a scout vehicle, why shoehorn it into a role as a fighting vehicle, but then proceed to not modify it in any way to do this?

Change That to 2010 and it will all make sense.   The military industrial complex will always cause confusion.   I've seen first hand accounts of front line soldiers compared over the centuries, and if you adjust for the vernacular of the times, they all read the same.  

[DDE]

On 12/24/2020 at 9:46 AM, kerbiloid said:

So, maybe they have some effective gun or powder

It's confirmed. The Battle Rifles use the Soviet 9x39 mm rifle rounds... only instead of being subsonic by design, they are supersonic.

12 hours ago, lemon cup said:

In my opinion the Warthog is even more nonsensical as a front line fighting vehicle.

You could stop right there. It's a technical-style vehicle getting shoved into situations it shouldn't be in.

12 hours ago, lemon cup said:

why in year 2500 is there a need for wheeled scout vehicles when unmanned drones and orbital imagery are readily available wherever the UNSC goes?

These things get inevitably nerfed in any sci-fi.

12 hours ago, lemon cup said:

The list goes on; flat-bottomed hull despite being in active service during a major terrorist insurrection where IEDs were commonplace

It rides the blast wave /s

Spoiler

But anyway, this is how you do it properly

 

[kerbiloid]

15 minutes ago, DDE said:

You could stop right there. It's a technical-style vehicle getting shoved into situations it shouldn't be in.

MT-LB ?!

Spoiler

 

[DDE]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

MT-LB ?!

  Hide contents

 

Spoiler

 

[kerbiloid]

Yes, but still in XXV century?

[Mukita12]

I wrote an insanely detailed post on why the Scorpion is a bad tank in quora

Quote

time to get dirty using IRL Physics and basic logic than using picture without an explanation nor Ingame lore that can be debunked using again IRL physics

> Take the Abrams for example. Show it to someone from WWII, and they will say that the Maus carries more firepower. But wrong, their guns are about the same size.

While the diameter of their cannon are the same (I.E 120mm). It’s not the same cannon nor does it have the same amount of firepower as the L/44 equipped on the Abrams. Take a look at their muzzle velocity. The cannon used in the Maus is
950 m/s (3,100 ft/s) while the L/44 has an estimated muzzle velocity of 1,580 to 1,750 m/s (5,200 to 5,700 ft/s). And not too mention, the Maus advance munition at this point is AP shell with their variant (except Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot or just the Discarding Sabot) and HE. While the L/44 fire APFSDS, HEATFS for Anti Tank which makes it deadly, and Canister round for infantry. Not to mention that the APFSDS was more effective, powerful, and deadly than the MAUS could ever field.

> Most battles in Halo are apparently short-ranged combat, with LDA (long-distance artillery) being practically extinct due to artillery being capable of targeting anything at further ranges than LDA, and the ground tends to be riddled with pits and craters due to said artillery.

Bringing an Abrams into this situation would be like trying to use trench warfare against a guerrila army.

*cough* The battle of 73 Easting was close-range combat between Soviet Made T-70 and US Abram and the only casualties in that combat was a Bradley taken out by the T-70. The Abram only suffers minor damages and that damage wasn’t even considered damage in some nation’s tank doctrine so I don’t get what you’re saying.

If halo’s futuristic warfare, then a towed artillery by this point would be severely outdated. I would opt for an SPG instead. Do a better job.

Your metaphor is easily debunked considering That’s How the US currently dealing with Insurgency forces in the middle east and not too mention they use an excessive trap that puts trench warfare to shame.

> The Scorpion vs an MBT has the similar issues.

bUt ThE mG gUnNeR iS eXpOsEd

Yes, however, explain this:

BuT tHe FoUr TrEaDs MaKeS iT eAsY tO tHrOw

If the rear treads are free, the Scorp can get out.

If the front treads are free, the Scorp can get out.

If all four treads are stuck, the Scorp can (at least in theory) claw itself free.

That’s a huge advantage, especially when the field is riddled with craters from this:

First, of all, the T-90 crew would only use that MG incase the Secondary armament located co-axially right next to the main armament is toasted. The M1A2C which is the latest variant of the Abram heck even variant before this already fixed this issue by using a remote control for the gun in their TUSK package. Secondly, Although the 4 Threads could have an exponential ground pressure performance. By separately putting those tracks with an axle, you’re causing too much stress to that axle. Even if you could build a large warship in space, physics is physics, and you can’t change it. Even if you create a working small replica, the Square Cube Law will immediately render that replica useless. Let’s go back to the track, now if the track ain’t separated, your explanation would work. However, by separating the track, that explanation will not work as the Track would move freely. Spookston once said “you want your track to be aligned with your hull. If the Scorpion tried to climb a steep hill, the front tracks would begin climbing, but since they have free range of motion, the hull would not angle to crest the hill. The hull would dig straight into the hill while the tracks tried to keep ascending. Not to mention that making a mechanism which would be capable of transferring power to the tracks while they are freely rotating would be difficult and a maintenance nightmare.”.

Now with the pic that uses. Yes, the Abram have difficulties in muddy terrain. However, you’re forgetting (or ignoring more correctly) that the Abram is designed to be used everywhere across the world. It’s also designed to be low profile to fit their philosophy of “You can’t kill us if you can’t spot us.” and basically finding their enemy before their enemy did. However, many other MBT such as Leopard 2 already went around this problem and have Upgrade Package to deal with the terrain, for example, the Revolution Package used by the Singaporean Leopard 2 and the Indonesian Leopard 2RI.

> The Scorpion makes use of a 90mm gun, however, its not puny.
The Scorpion is capable of penetrating a Scarab’s armor. For reference, its equal to two meters of battleship-grade naval steel.
“Why bother using 90mm when you can use more powerful 120mm”

The Scorpion has a 90mm gun, yes, but it carries far more ammo.

The 90mm gun has enough firepower for most situations, but carrying a lot more shells then an MBT of today will give the Scorpion a larger advantage in battle.

If the Scorpion can penetrate two-meter battleship-grade naval steel especially with their gameplay mechanics which the 90mm have a muzzle velocity of a subsonic speed, then Bungie and Eric Nylund literally miss their calculation A LOT. Using an educated guess, the mass of the 90mm munition used by the Scorpion is around 19 kg while the mass of the M829A3 has a total mass of 22.3 kg (49 lb) and length of 892 mm (35.1 in).

So therefore a rough calculation of Kinetic Energy without accounting the material used by each side and how the shape of the munition is then it should be like this:

90mm:
Kinetic Energy=1/2 x Mass (19kg) x Speed (273m/s)
=9.5x273m/s
=2,593.5 KE (Kinetic Energy)

M829A3:
Kinetic Energy=1/2 x mass (22.3kg) x speed (1,555 m/s)
=11.5x1,555m/s
=17,882.5 KE

The amount of Kinetic Energy in the US Sabot literally is better and better is an understatement. And when we take into account the material used by each shell (I.E Tungsten for the 90mm and Depleted Uranium by the M829A3 Sabot), The M829A3 literally cut clean the Forerunner metal, due to it being pyrophoric material, it will generate sparks that could basically explode any munition or fuel inside. While the Tungsten would basically mushroom inside the armor when penetrating. And if we’re getting too cozy, let’s take into account the shape of the shell. The APHE used by the Scorpion has the same shape as a regular outdated APHE, while the M829A3 Sabot has the shape of a long rod with a fin on the back to stabilizes its trajectory midair. With the shape of the rod, all of the energy is concentrated on the front of the Sabot which could create more damage than a regular-shaped shell which distributes its energy along the shell.

And now with the amount of Ammo carried. The US did experiment with this using the HSTV-L back in the 70s. It fires 2 shot for every 1 second, carries more round than the Abrams. However, it turns out. The Abram out-performed the HSTV-L in every single way possible. and not too mention. The abram only carries enough ammo for a mission that they’re assigned to. More than that then it’s a waste of space and ammo and not to mention it decrease the survival rate of the crew when in combat. Just look at how the US uses their Abram and how the Iraqi uses its abram. The Iraqi over filled the ammo compartment with excessive ammo that they don’t need and look at what happened. The tank burst up like a Roman candle.

> The Scorp uses Titanuim-Ceramic armor.

But its not weak.

Just about everyone makes the mistake of thinking of the Scorp as a big ceramic cooking pot with a glass lid.

No, its not.

Extract from Halopedia:

The M808's thick ceramic-titanium armor can withstand a direct hit from a Covenant fuel rod cannon and survive with enough armor to keep fighting.

A fuel rod cannon, from Halo, fires a heavy rod at 72m/s.

That will surpass far in exess of any Arr Pee Gee of today.

Now although Titanium-Ceramic armor is used in today’s MBT, like the Leopard 2 for example which used this type of armor in their later variants. But since the Halo universe takes place 5 and a half centuries ahead of our universe, they sure don’t develop or uses a futuristic one. Also compared to the M1’s Armour, the Leopard 2’s armor is uh… eh I guess compared to the US Chobbam that’s complemented with an extra DU layer in front of it. Depleted Uranium armor outperformed the Titanium armor so yeah.

Also if the M808 can tank a covenant fuel rod that has a velocity of 72m/s, then with kinetic energy, in THEORY, the Abrams could tank the covenant fuel rod. The Radiation may have an effect although the Abram is shielded enough from radiation and heck they’re entire armor and munition uses Depleted Uranium,

“hurr durr but I don’t see any Abram tank a fuel rod”
that’s because they don’t exist you mumbo

And not to mention, The US-made TOW 2 ATGM, surpassed RPG Performance by a metric tonne.

And also. talking about armor, in the previous post, you mentioned that the Scorps could tank again plasma. the IRL version of plasma is a HEAT Warhead. why? It used shaped charges that literally create a super-sonic plasma to penetrates tank armor. and not too mention it has a copper on its tip that melts to help penetrates the armour. However, HEAT is considered useless against MBT Armour specifically NATO tanks. Hence why most NATO Vehicle uses Sabot to deal with Anti-Tank and HEAT to deal light armour.

> Next: crew.

The Scorpion has a three-man crew.(one driver, one gunner, one machine gunner)

That would be equal to a T90.

Next up: mantainence.

And no, its not a mantainence nightmare.

If you can make 907 million metric tons of Titanium 5,6 kilometers long hover soundlessly with no visible propulsion system whatsoever, then you can do anything.

Okay the Crew is nice, although it may underperform when it comes to a regular maintenance compared to the Leopard or the Abram, but still it’s nice

The mechanical issues, however, the Scorpion has more con in IRL tank design than it has pros. From its track, to how the gun’s automatic reloader works, it’s a maintenance nightmare. Just because you can create a large warship in space doesn’t mean you don’t have to deal with maintenance and reliability problem. Most of UNSC warship have thousands upon thousands crew maintaining its complex design, while the scorpion only have 3 to maintain its flawed design.

> Next up: turret mounting.

It has a low profile, with a very small turret that extends above the main hull. This allows for great use of cover while exposing the minimal amount of target to the enemy. It uses a fast autoloader to facilitate this.

The turret mounted far back is due to the turret being unmanned.

Modern tanks mount the turret in the center to facilliate acess and ease of loading and mounting, because the turret is crewed. That, however, coupled with an autoloader and the ammo down below results in (scroll to 3:50)

yes no joke thing sent the turret with two poor guys flying, no pun intended.

The Scorp mounts its ammo so that no, it cannot explode jack in the box.

First off, by how the Scorpion’s turret mounted, one shot in the turret ring will render the gun USELESS. It has an exposed turret ring compared to modern MBT that literally puts T-70 to shame. And by how the Autoloader is designed and how the Ammo is placed, the Scorpion has a worse Auto-loader than the Merkava or the Russian tanks. Yes, the Ammo is mounted outside, but you’re forgetting the fact that the Auto-loader will have to reach the ammo one way or another which increased design complexity, which resulted in more unreliable performance. The Merkava has a better design than the Scorpion, in general, it's literally designed to save crew with anti-tank capabilities.

> Next up: Targeting.

Scorps mount a REALLY advanced gyro.

I once used the main gun as an AA gun, to SMAC Ghosts, whack Banshees, and smash Phamtoms.

I’ve played a lot of War Thunder and I don’t recall an Abrams being used as an AA gun.

Next up: Speed.

The Scorpion, in addition, posseses a top speed of 60mph.

It will outrun far in exess of any tank of today.

TLDR, the Scorpion will outclass far in exess any tank of today on a Halo battlefield.

And vice versa.

First off, I will take for granted that the Scorpion does indeed have a really advanced Gyro (it’s literally set in the future duh). Secondly, A skilled MBT Gunner could take out any attack aircraft flying at low speed or any rotor-wing aircraft. And thirdly, the Abram wasn’t designed to be used as an anti-air vehicle. The US would pick chaos and total air supremacy before putting their ground troops and even if Air Superiority isn’t achieved, SHORADs MEDRAD, SPAAG could deal with those. Now yes, just because the Scorpion can be used for anti-air That doesn’t mean it’s a good anti-air or tank. Hell, flipping tank ace Otto Carius shot down a Yak back in WW2. and also, you literally uses a broken game that isn’t even realistic compared to milsim games to prove your point while im here using IRL knowledge to debunk those

Now for mobility, this is a good design. No MBT can top this. Only IFV and APC can. so this is the only point that I give to you

TLDR: Scorpion is only good when you ignore physics, how Tank warfare works, how combat even works, and how maintenance even work.

 

literally complete with calculation

 

[kerbiloid]

Expanse,  s05e05, the very end (and other episodes)

When they are under overacceleration in the Razorback, why do they just make heroic faces instead of looking like a Japanese demon mask?

Spoiler

 

[kerbiloid]

Yesterday, before I had given a watch to the Meteor Moon (2020), I was erroneously thinking:

1. That if a meteor hits the Moon and changes its axis, the Moon shouldn't fall down.
Maybe yes, maybe no. Depends on the plot writer producer.

2.  That there is no need to ride a black sportcar right into a four-engined HTHL shuttle cargo bay, even when you are in hurry saving the Earth.
That even  in this case it's better to stop aside and get into the shuttle by ladder.
But no, it's actually better to drive into the bay, because later you can ride this sportcar in vacuum.

Though, I still keep thinking that it's better to fix it with ropes.

[Mitchz95]

No one's mentioned The Midnight Sky yet?

- An Earth-like moon (with plant life and an oxygen atmosphere) orbiting Jupiter that Galileo apparently missed; also, they keep calling it a planet rather than a moon

- "Uncharted space" in the inner solar system, which the Aether has to traverse after going off course

- Giant asteroid clouds that sit in space like icebergs for the ship to hit

- Real-time communication across interplanetary distances

- Dust storms on Earth that apparently reach up into orbit

They clearly weren't even trying.

Edited January 3, 2021 by Mitchz95

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, Mitchz95 said:

No one's mentioned The Midnight Sky yet?

- An Earth-like moon (with plant life and an oxygen atmosphere) orbiting Jupiter that Galileo apparently missed; also, they keep calling it a planet rather than a moon

- "Uncharted space" in the inner solar system, which the Aether has to traverse after going off course

- Giant asteroid clouds that sit in space like icebergs for the ship to hit

- Real-time communication across interplanetary distances

- Dust storms on Earth that apparently reach up into orbit

They clearly weren't even trying.

Cringe as in how bad can we make this. 
 

 

On 1/2/2021 at 6:19 PM, kerbiloid said:

Expanse,  s05e05, the very end (and other episodes)

When they are under overacceleration in the Razorback, why do they just make heroic faces instead of looking like a Japanese demon mask?

  Hide contents

 

Making the actors look like demons is kind of bad for the actors image. 
 

 

[kerbiloid]

7 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Making the actors look like demons is kind of bad for the actors image. 

But this series is famous for its realism...

[YNM]

1 hour ago, Mitchz95 said:

They clearly weren't even trying.

I honestly wonder if we should have another category for "films-that-have-some-SF-but-not-necessarily-hard".

8 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Making the actors look like demons is kind of bad for the actors image. 

I mean, lots of actors have raked up popularity by playing evil characters...

[magnemoe]

28 minutes ago, YNM said:

I honestly wonder if we should have another category for "films-that-have-some-SF-but-not-necessarily-hard".

Like Star Trek?
Star Wars is not even attempting, note you can still call out Star Wars then it breaks its own logical rules like you can in any fantasy universe or why did not everybody used hyperspace anti ship missiles thousands of year ago. 
Now spaceballs is an parody and get away with pretty much everything because its just fun. 

28 minutes ago, YNM said:

I mean, lots of actors have raked up popularity by playing evil characters...

Agree and yes taste might differ: trying out WOW for the first time, looking at races. Gnomes looks cute, wait: exotic babe with hoofs, horns and a tail: select
The only downside with Dranai females was that the tail was a bit short. 
Most has other options  
 

 

Edited January 3, 2021 by magnemoe

[Kerminator K-100]

Has anyone mentioned space camp yet?

My family had to force me to leave the room when we watched that. I couldn't stop laughing at all the bad physics and fake science. 

[YNM]

10 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Now spaceballs is an parody and get away with pretty much everything because its just fun. 

One of the reasons why I like the parody/comedy stuff more (ie. HHGTTG, I'd add in Flash Gordon). And if I am being honest, why can't we have tropes ? I mean if people start to believe that films are in any way real then that's more alarming than what's in the film itself. (although there are films that turn real as well, and ofc there are documentaries.)

But yeah, like, a few times, a film might have bad sciences in it, or in reverse terrible plots, but they have other bits that makes them remarkable, like Contact or Interstellar (I know the latter would raise quite a number of eyebrows but trust me if you focus on the father-daughter connection it makes much more sense than focusing on the sci-fi).

[DDE]

5 hours ago, YNM said:

And if I am being honest, why can't we have tropes ?

I used to have a little tirade prepared on this (not tropes - inaccuracies). Basically, no, people do tend to assume things work as they do in the movies - they don't usually have a different reference point for something beyind their day-to-day life.

This has repercussions beyond merely spreading misconceptions. It's also what I termed ensnarement: since actual spaceflight is terribly dull, or was anyway...

...it loses squarely in the competition for interest compared with fiction. This loss leads to outright disappointment. Sci-fi today is, by and large, not what it used to be fifty or more years ago, when it was mostly about the then-plausible future, as if many authors have given uo and now use it as fantasy and/or as a vehicle for social commentary (which, don't get me wrong, it always was).

We're loosing a lot of kerbanauts to Captain Picard - or so my theory goes.

[VoidSquid]

I know only of one single SCIENCE fiction move (Andromeda Strain, 1971), all the others are science FICTION, imo.

Not mentioning Apollo 13 or Салют 7 here, these are more docudramas but science fiction.

[YNM]

50 minutes ago, DDE said:

It's also what I termed ensnarement: since actual spaceflight is terribly dull, or was anyway [...] it loses squarely in the competition for interest compared with fiction. This loss leads to outright disappointment. Sci-fi today is, by and large, not what it used to be fifty or more years ago, when it was mostly about the then-plausible future, as if many authors have given up and now use it as fantasy and/or as a vehicle for social commentary (which, don't get me wrong, it always was).

We're loosing a lot of kerbanauts to Captain Picard - or so my theory goes.

That's a good point. Films need a plot point - a way so that a conflict exist and could be resolved. In some cases this might have some basis in science (or at least partially), then we'd call it "science fiction". If you have a plot point that doesn't involve something imaginary, then it'd just be a documentary, in a way - like sure, I've seen lots of documentaries about a project (say construction or tech development), and it's almost a proper film in a way, if all the obstacles and hurdles are documented well, and is explained well enough.

I guess we'd just have to accept that, if you want a fictional plot point, (vaguely) based on science, and it could sell, it would need to be not quite right. If it was entirely right, it'd be a scientific paper.

Though I'd add that one more point that might affect how something is perceived is the presentation - that is, is it live-action or animated. I think most of us know that we're fine with completely whimsical fantasy animation, but a live-action one can be harder to swallow most of the time.

27 minutes ago, VoidSquid said:

Andromeda Strain, 1971

Assuming that the main plot point exist, but the point is that they don't really. I would agree that the way it's handled is very good in itself, at least based off the synopsis.

Edited January 4, 2021 by YNM