Bad science in fiction Hall of Shame

[L0NE_PH4NT0M]

Holy crap, this forum loathes Interstellar. I thought it was fine, and I loved it (as with the soundtrack), but to each their own. I definitely agree there are some flaws in the science and the plot here and there, though.

[kerbiloid]

You can see that there is no place in whole internet more sceptical about space exploration, space colonization, and star ships.

Only brutal hardcore realism.

[cubinator]

I suppose Apollo 13 is probably the most accurate space movie, being tightly based on real events. Or maybe it's Apollo 11, being composed entirely of historical footage.

[Jacke]

3 hours ago, L0NE_PH4NT0M said:

Holy crap, this forum loathes Interstellar.

Rightly so.  It's a excrementse film that has real crap science all over.

 

3 hours ago, L0NE_PH4NT0M said:

I thought it was fine, and I loved it (as with the soundtrack), but to each their own.

As mentioned in some video, often sounds like Hans Zimmer fell asleep on his keyboard.   I did like some of the sound track.  I wish it had been used on a better film.

 

3 hours ago, L0NE_PH4NT0M said:

I definitely agree there are some flaws in the science and the plot here and there, though.

The science and engineering is so bad I really didn't like it at all.  Another case of Hollywood not even bothering to do a bit of effort to get things right.

[Nightside]

3 hours ago, cubinator said:

I suppose Apollo 13 is probably the most accurate space movie, being tightly based on real events. Or maybe it's Apollo 11, being composed entirely of historical footage.

Nah, Apollo 13 was unrealistically short. The film should have been 6 days long.

[cubinator]

13 minutes ago, Nightside said:

Nah, Apollo 13 was unrealistically short. The film should have been 6 days long.

I've got it: NASATV is the most realistic space movie.

[mrfox]

What really disappointed me about interstellar was that there was such potential for a much greater and meaningful story - the trailers for the movie (especially no.1 and 3) still gives me goosebumps, and manages to take my imagination further than the actual movie itself ever did.

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by mrfox

[L0NE_PH4NT0M]

I mean, I did read Kip Thorne's (the film's chief astrophysicist consultant/advisor) companion book, The Science of Interstellar, which I thought was even better. The guy really breaks everything down and makes it easy to understand some of the details and design choices the film took. He does explain, however, that at some points in the film, Nolan chose to sacrifice realism/rationalism for something that's considerably easier for the audience to understand (i. e., toning down the black hole's visuals, cutting out the IMBH-slingshots for simplicity, among others). I would've preferred the opposite to be honest, but not everyone in the audience is an astrophysicist or a rocket scientist, so you gotta take that into account when critiquing the film. Then again, the film itself is already pushing 2, almost 3 hours, and even I (who greatly liked the film, if it weren't evident already ) thought that it dragged on at some points.

One of the main critiques I personally have about it is the whole subplot about love being a rational scientific force. When the characters brought it up, I couldn't help but snicker, considering the whole cliche of "all you need is love," but I do understand that it shouldn't be taken literally. Seeing that many push Interstellar as a hard sci-fi film, that whole idea felt rather out of place. Figuratively speaking, if I were Nolan, I would've 'rerouted' some of the budget that went into developing the love-subplot into the realism department. By that, I mean actually show off how exactly the Rangers and the Endurance have so much Delta-V, rewrite some of the more idiotic and obvious decisions/dialogue, etc.

Just my two cents. I personally love the film, but I do agree with some of the points this thread have brought up. I'm just not used to seeing it receive tons of flak when most of the internet seems to praise it. Again, to each their own - I'm not trying to force any viewpoint.

[mrfox]

From my reading of the same book - Nolan, from his statue in hollywood, pretty much took over the creative writing once he came onboard the project. He decided crop blight to be the reason to abadon the planet not because it made sense, but because he had a thing for the depression era dust bowl imagery. The rest of the plotline as presented in the book seems to follow the same pattern of putting the (this will look good on the screen) cart in front of the (make the physics and story fit around the above) horse.

[Nightside]

40 minutes ago, mrfox said:

seems to follow the same pattern of putting the (this will look good on the screen) cart in front of the (make the physics and story fit around the above) horse.

It’s all been downhill since Kubrick overruled Clarke and kept radiators off the Discovery. 

[kerbiloid]

11 hours ago, Jacke said:

15 hours ago, L0NE_PH4NT0M said:

Holy crap, this forum loathes Interstellar.

Rightly so.  It's a excrementse film that has real crap science all over.

Like almost always when professional scientists put their noses into the high art of sci-fi production.

The more scientific a movie tries to be, the more pathetic it looks finally.

Would anybody mention Flash Gordon as "bad science"?

Edited August 8, 2020 by kerbiloid

[mikegarrison]

3 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Like almost always when professional scientists put their noses into the high art of sci-fi production.

The more scientific a movie tries to be, the more pathetic it looks finally.

Would anybody mention Flash Gordon as "bad science"?

The problem is that the more that a work of fiction tries to "get all the science right", the more that they open themselves to being judged for not getting all the science right.

The same is true of other kinds of fiction, such as historical fiction.

Even made up science and history can be judged lacking, if the author fails to be consistent about it. (In book 4, Dartel's father's father was "Joel", but in book 7 he's named as "Joe". Fail!)

Edited August 8, 2020 by mikegarrison

[kerbiloid]

If you need to interrogate a specialist, don't torture him. Just make him watch the movies about his work.

[KSK]

3 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

The problem is that the more that a work of fiction tries to "get all the science right", the more that they open themselves to being judged for not getting all the science right.

The same is true of other kinds of fiction, such as historical fiction.

And the more they get right, the more the mistakes stand out.

[mikegarrison]

Often this is where "willing suspension of disbelief" is supposed to kick in. Like when everything is supposed to be scientifically accurate except the plot needs FTL, so FTL there is.

[L0NE_PH4NT0M]

It's almost unfair, to be honest. Since one of Interstellar's main selling points is its focus on realism, people tend to criticize its scientific flaws even harsher than other 'softer' sci-fi films. But it does make sense. If they're focusing on realism, then they should probably make it as realistic as they originally promised.

[mikegarrison]

43 minutes ago, L0NE_PH4NT0M said:

It's almost unfair, to be honest. Since one of Interstellar's main selling points is its focus on realism, people tend to criticize its scientific flaws even harsher than other 'softer' sci-fi films. But it does make sense. If they're focusing on realism, then they should probably make it as realistic as they originally promised.

Let's face it, "physics realism" and "a plot dependent on time loops" is pretty much a lost cause right from the start.

I enjoy a well-crafted time loop story, but I never imagine I'm reading a physics textbook.

Edited August 8, 2020 by mikegarrison

[kerbiloid]

When I had seen the Gargantuan library , my first impression was that they had gotten into the L-space from the T.Pratchett's Unseen University library, where students sometimes get lost.
The main hero face also was looking like he is about to start talking "Ook! O-ook!"

[DDE]

9 hours ago, Nightside said:

It’s all been downhill since Kubrick overruled Clarke and kept radiators off the Discovery. 

Don't forget this gem with orbital propellant depots and a slingshot maneuver to match velocity.

Spoiler

 

[kerbiloid]

... and its Space Shuttle made of titanium, and a rover equipped with 6-barrel Vulcannon, to pass through the shuttle wall if the door is locked.

Actually, this movie is just too perfect...

***

Did the Rangers have 6-barrel vulcannons? No, just a stupid lego-robot.
And somebody says something about the Interstellar realism... Flying to another galaxy, they forgot even a gatlingun at home.

Edited August 8, 2020 by kerbiloid

[tater]

Looks like garbage:

 

[Jacke]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Looks like garbage:

[ "Away" video ]

I'm reminded of a comment by Mr Nobody, breaking the 4th wall, about the DC series "Doom Patrol" 1st series, paraphrased: You've put up with 13 hours of pretentious character development, here's the 2 hours of action you've been waiting for.  And the Neil Armstrong biography film just recently as well.

There's good stories that can be told about space exploration.  Alas, it seems most of them are overdramatic.

[benzman]

I recently watched 'the astronauts' , based on a very early balloon flight.  They took a wind indicator that was showing a constant breeze!  You can't feel a breeze in a balloon.

  I also saw the Armstrong movie recently.  I feel quite strongly that the American space program does not need any sort of fictional dramatics. The true story can easily stand on its own. 

I just watched that trailer for 'Away' and had to fight down waves of nausea.

 

[mikegarrison]

10 minutes ago, benzman said:

I recently watched 'the astronauts' , based on a very early balloon flight.  They took a wind indicator that was showing a constant breeze!  You can't feel a breeze in a balloon.

  I also saw the Armstrong movie recently.  I feel quite strongly that the American space program does not need any sort of fictional dramatics. The true story can easily stand on its own. 

I just watched that trailer for 'Away' and had to fight down waves of nausea.

 

I believe you mean The Aeronauts.

[kerbiloid]

Technically, the windicator could show the wind shift.

Say, they stuck in midair without wind, and it suddenly starts blowing.

***

Away.
Hillary Swank is great herself, but almost always is starring in dull dramas, so it was clear from trailer.

Edited August 10, 2020 by kerbiloid