Science in TV series and cinema

[czokletmuss]

Here is the most accurate and very interesting TV series I've ever seen, 3 hours of a good entertainment on youtube:

Based on NASA's Mars Design Reference Architecture 5.0:

(http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2009/12/nasas-latest-manned-mars-missi.html)

In contrast to some corny American movies with a Hollywood attempt to add drama to space (gum-chewing tough guy, weird geek, focused military man, main hero, action girl and love interest or any other standard team of protagonists) in this TV series there ain't no drinking, no sex, no stupid backstories (Bruce Willis and his daughter in "Armageddon"), no pathetic aliens (like in this dumb Mars movie with Carrie-Anne Moss) and no one liners. No explosions, no screaming, no quick montage. Team sent to Mars are scientists for whom having a good time means playing chess (!). Sounds interesting?

Well, it is. Although budget wasn't big and actors aren't that interesting to watch (but they shouldn't be! such mission would be rather boring) and there is some unnecessary drama, this is still lightyears ahead of most what we can watch on TV. "Prometeus" or this last blockbuster with Tom Cruise ain't even close to this. Even despite some silly things like CanadArm, but ok, this is a Canadian production so I get it that they wanted to show what they got.

But why s-f movies or TV series based on reality (hard s-f, if you will) are almost nonexistant? I mean, compare the "Race to Mars" if you watched it to this piece of crap:

http://youtu.be/aifSgUNLsfQ

Just one scene but you can easily tell how dumb it is (look at the interior of this ship! how much water they are using, how bad is acting and what morons USA sends to multitrilion dolar mission). And the rest of the movie is much, much worse (exploding bugs on Mars when you can breathe - wtf?!).

So, what do you think about this? Why do most movies and TV series in space are just crap?

Edited May 25, 2013 by czokletmuss

[Jokurr]

"Hard Sci-fi" is rare, quite simply because it doesn't sell. Mainstream audiences have very limited knowledge on physics or the realities of space travel, nor do they care. They don't have the patience to learn it either. Because of that, it's much more entertaining (and thus profitable for movie makers) to watch big explosions while sexy actors/actresses get involved in some heavy drama that makes little sense in reality.

I watched the first 3 minutes or so of the movie you posted and I will have to watch it when I have time, looks quite interesting.

[czokletmuss]

I understand that transfer windows, inclination and delta V aren't really popular and "sexy" things to sell to the public. But this still doesn't explain why the scripts and acting are bad and mostly they are. I'm not talking about mindless blockbusters like "Transformers" or movies which only use s-f as a decoration like "Firefly". Even this movies which are supposed to be entertaining and are set in space mostly, well, ain't - lazy writing, one dimensional characters, cheesy dialogues and of course aliens. Why? Only good movie more or less about space which I remember is "Contact" with Jodie Foster (yes, there are aliens but opening sequence is mind blowing) and "2010".

It's not surprising that the general population doesn't care about space when all they see is explosions on a futuristic ships while fighting alien species. Or worse, they think that we can do this easily and therefore we will start colonization in 10-20 years, which is equally ignorant. Without sound knowledge there won't be support and without public support the only space program which will have enough funding is the Chinese one, since China isn't a democracy.

[Jokurr]

I think that most people (except the most ignorant perhaps) realize that Hollywood movies are fiction and unrealistic, even if they do not fully understand why or how it really works. Hollywood makes **** up all the time, across all genres of movies. Unrealistic movies are not unique to the sci-fi genre. I'd go so far as to say that it is common knowledge that Hollywood movies should be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to assessing how realistic the movie is. I very much doubt unrealistic Hollywood movies affect how much funding the space program receives. There are many reasons for the average person's rather apathetic view towards space, but unrealistic movies isn't one of them.

[czokletmuss]

very much doubt unrealistic Hollywood movies affect how much funding the space program receives. There are many reasons for the average person's rather apathetic view towards space, but unrealistic movies isn't one of them.

Not directly perhaps but if you don't get interested in space as a kid you probably won't get interested later. Lack of good s-f or space as a theme in culture means less people are interested. Look what's happening with the comic's superheroes - there are an increasing number of movies and franchise because kids who loved this movies are now 20-40 years old. In 90' and last decade fantasy was much more popular than space, so when in the 10-20 years from now these children will have smaller incentive to support space exploration than if they get more s-f. As long as space programs are funded by the government in democracies attracting attention of the average Joe and his kid is worth effort. And crappy s-f movies (not only phycis, but as I said acting, script and so on) aren't really helping.

[PakledHostage]

I think that most people (except the most ignorant perhaps) realize that Hollywood movies are fiction and unrealistic, even if they do not fully understand why or how it really works.

Sadly I have to disagree with you. I soak up everything I can about past, present & future space missions, and I love to talk about it with anyone who even so much as feigns interest. In my experience, people imagine the realities of space travel are more like a Hollywood movie than reality. One example that springs to mind is a university classmate of mine. We were both studying mechanical engineering, yet he asked me "what planet the [space shuttle crew] was on" when we saw a story about them on the news. He got mad when I laughed at him, telling me he had no interest in space flight so how should he know. He's since graduated and works as a professional engineer, so he's obviously a smart guy with a strong technical background... If it is possible for someone like that to have such misconceptions, then how bad is it among the majority of people who have no interest in space flight?

[EatThePath]

So, what do you think about this? Why do most movies and TV series in space are just crap?

Quite simply, because most movies and TV series are just crap. Most forms of entertainment are a sea of bad to passable with the rare standout.

The related question seems to be, roughly, 'why aren't any of these hard SF?'. Well, I think the answer to that is that hard SF by itself only appeals to a very small market. To make it appealing to a large market, and if you're making a movie to make money, that's what you want, you have to make it more accessible. You make it about human drama, or about explosions. And if you've got effective human drama or explosions, most of your audience isn't going to care if the SF is hard as cotton candy, so why bother with it? It might not actually get in the way, but if you don't need it to satisfy the majority of the audience, you might as well just ignore it from the outset.

[karolus10]

IMHO, one of most shameless spaceship designs (and there is more sharing ever lower place - Armageddon, I'm looking at You ;p) I remember are "messiah" from deep impact.

It looks like shuttle being duct-taped to some random Russian stages with few shuttle/titan SRB's strapped around, but movie is pretending that this craft is propelled by "nuclear" rocket thingy... what the hell's wrong with these people !?

Race to Mars was pretty decent movie .

Edited May 25, 2013 by karolus10

[PaleoGamer]

Check out Europa Report. It's a "found footage" type movie coming out about a mission to Europa but the spacecraft and science in it look to be pretty realistic. (OK, there's probably a monster on Europa, but beyond that...

They have a pretty good teaser website

http://www.europaventuresllc.com/

And a trailer

[karolus10]

First half of Europa report trailer was quite cool but then I start to feel horrible scent of Apollo 18.

Maybe I'm just grumbling now, but anyone of You guys felt tired of all this cliché structure in movies and games that everyone is dying (or lived before we come), collapsing, burning, full of thrilling scenes and action ?

Why not once we get some "nice" place to explore/experience some adventures and not kill/run of adversaries on some rubbles of once mighty city ?

Edited May 25, 2013 by karolus10

[nyrath]

So, what do you think about this? Why do most movies and TV series in space are just crap?

Todd Boyce explained it to me the reasons why this way:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/prelimnotes.php#id--On_Shaky_Ground--Hollywood_Reasons

[PaleoGamer]

First half of Europa report trailer was quite cool but then I start to feel horrible scent of Apollo 18.

Yeah, there's a reason I have the rolleyes Kerbal on there...

I think just having a movie about exploring an amazing place would be great (travelogues are popular, right?) but Hollywood doesn't seem to think that we will be interested unless a monster or something shows up. The main reason why I've stopped waiting for the Rendezvous with Rama movie to ever show up.

[czokletmuss]

Todd Boyce explained it to me the reasons why this way:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/prelimnotes.php#id--On_Shaky_Ground--Hollywood_Reasons

Very interesting - how could I miss it while reading your page? Thank you.

However, this doesn't close the discussion. "The Right Stuff" and "Apollo 13" (not to mention "2001 Space Oddysey") - very good movies with decent pacing, drama, characters and script and all this without blasters, warp drive and aliens. You do not these to make a good movie. Take a look at Star Wars:

http://youtu.be/_h_DMjfY7ZU

Goofy space battles but screw science, there are knights with telekinetic powers and laser swords. The script and characters are poorly writen - why? Is it because s-f have amazing views and breathtaking CGI ("Avatar")? Reasons why science is ignored in Hollywood are sound (although I gave few examples of a movies with realistic setting), okay, but why everything is so bad in most cases? You can have space dreadnought and good story but usually you don't.

"Europa Report" probably will containt some aliens beneath the ice, with some crew killing or driving them insane telepathicly included. Shame. But there is another good (I hope) space movie coming this year:

Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) is a brilliant medical engineer on her first shuttle mission, with veteran astronaut Matt Kowalsky (George Clooney) in command of his last flight before retiring. But on a seemingly routine spacewalk, disaster strikes. The shuttle is destroyed, leaving Stone and Kowalsky completely alone--tethered to nothing but each other and spiraling out into the blackness.

Hopefully no aliens or other silly things. Alfonso Cuarón directed "Children of Men" which was a good s-f movie, so my hopes are high. Although the first cliches are already visible (why ALWAYS there few days before retirement left?) it deserves a chance I think.

Edited May 25, 2013 by czokletmuss

[Thaniel]

What would be fun, in 3-5 years time would be a movie about the Kerbal Spaceprogram, complete with female kerbals and Kerner von Grun, with realistic physics, and no humans. The possibilities for a good movie is there, and hollywood would love it, lots of explosions and aliens. Although I hope they'll be kept away from it.

Anypooh, another movie in the spirit of "race to mars" would be nice. There's nothing wrong with fantastic CGI as long as the vista portrayed could exist in reality, nor is there anything wrong with drama, as long as it could happen on a real flight. And I consider the incident with the faulty monoxide sensors to be a very good example on how drama can be both realistic and dramatic, something hollywood don't seem to understand.

Edit: My bad, it wasn't the sensor that was faulty, but...... Not spoiling this, if you have watched the movie, you know, if you haven't, you should.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Thaniel

[czokletmuss]

Anypooh, another movie in the spirit of "race to mars" would be nice. There's nothing wrong with fantastic CGI as long as the vista portrayed could exist in reality, nor is there anything wrong with drama, as long as it could happen on a real flight. And I consider the incident with the faulty monoxide sensors to be a very good example on how drama can be both realistic and dramatic, something hollywood don't seem to understand.

Exactly. Good cinema is the goal - you can focus on visuals or story or characters but this should be done good. "Avatar" is a visual masterpiece but scientifically and storywise it's just crap. "Race to Mars" is very scientific accurate but lacks the visuals and interesting characters. The point is, there is no reasons to concentrate only on big explosions and lasers - as "Right stuff" proves, excellent movie can be made almost without fireworks (no pun intended).

[MBobrik]

Most of the "Sci"Fi movies are just prolefeed. And this will be so until the public will get a clue about science. = not until after this "civilization" blows itself up, and a new, better one is started.

[Sof]

" (not to mention "2001 Space Oddysey") - very good movies with decent pacing

lololololololololololololololololololololololol

I guess its been a while since you saw that movie.

[Holo]

It's because most people, including me, don't analyse movies for character development, just sit back and watch them.

[Kerbface]

lololololololololololololololololololololololol

I guess its been a while since you saw that movie.

Yeah, the pacing is certainly atypical, though it's very deliberate, it's not just because they weren't really thinking about getting it right.

[Canopus]

One of the best and more realistic sci-fi movies is 2010 the year we make contact. I even prefer it over 2001.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34MXGB83heI&list=FLSiy1IfJmYJmd3BGnmGl5eg

[czokletmuss]

lololololololololololololololololololololololol

I guess its been a while since you saw that movie.

It's perfect for the purpose of the movie and its story. It's not a movie for those who prefer shaky camera and quick montage, that's for sure.

Most of the "Sci"Fi movies are just prolefeed.

That's a little harsh (not everybody who watches dumb movies is dumb) but yes, most of the popcultural products are of very low quality.

One of the best and more realistic sci-fi movies is 2010 the year we make contact. I even prefer it over 2001.

I prefer "2001" but it's just my opinion. Though the scene when they use "Discovery" as a booster isn't well done; however EVA and aerobraking are great.

Edited May 25, 2013 by czokletmuss

[Canopus]

I prefer "2001" but it's just my opinion. Though the scene when they use "Discovery" as a booster isn't well done; however EVA and aerobraking are great.

Just out of interest why do you think this scene isn't well done?

[czokletmuss]

First of all, the Soviet spacecraft has a big connector/clamp just the size of the "Discovery"; than they use it to connect two ships and fire the engines of the american ship. I doubt that the center of mass was were it should be to prevent flipping. Try to do this in KSP: connect your rocket to the booster attached to the middle section of the hull but few meters from it and fire it. You won't go straight ahead.

[Canopus]

The center of mass offset could probably be explained by thrust vectoring or powerful gyros but the convenient clamp is a bit suspicious unless the ship was designed with that purpose in mind.

[Karriz]

Is there any movie that takes place a couple hundred years in the future when mankind has colonized the entire solar system? No warp drives or other star systems. It would be an interesting setting. Cities on Mars, maybe beginning the terraforming process etc.

There's just so much potential, but for some reason monsters. Monsters everywhere.