When I was small ... Whom I cheat, and when I matured - too; I loved to mock the science of films. I shouted "How fake!" When a spaceship flew on the screen with a roar, or a slimy visitor was hunting for the main characters.
In the end, my exclamations turned into texts. Shortly after creating my first site (during the Dark Ages of the Internet in 1997), I thought that it would be fun to criticize science in films. And I dived into this occupation with zeal and glee. No film was safe, from Armageddon to Austin Powers.
I was right - it was fun. It was amazing just to take apart Hollywood realism, or its complete absence. Any mistake was worthy of an attack, a phrase with ridiculous mathematics would have been ridiculed with the same probability as the assumption on which the entire plot of the film was built. Exploding huge asteroid? Ha. They said "million" instead of "billion"? Well, how so? Shadows crawling in the wrong direction during sunset? I am already sharpening my poison-smeared keyboard.
The film went beyond the film, and I watched them all in the cinema, sitting somewhere on the edge, hunched over my notebook, with a ballpoint pen at the ready and — literally — with a red torch wrapped around my neck — just in case the scene where i'm going to spar will be too dark for the notepad to be visible.
And then, one day, a revelation happened to me. Well, actually, the revelation was shoved by me. I came to a meeting of professional astronomers and in the exhibition hall I talked with one gentleman who worked in a company for the production of telescopes for observatories. Our conversation eventually spilled over to the credibility of science in films. He asked me if I saw a movie called “Asteroid”. I replied that I watched it, and that scientifically the film was absolutely terrible. Over the next few minutes, I filled it in with examples to support my statement.
He listened to all this while being in complete silence, and then asked if I remember the telescope used in the scenes at the observatory.
“Of course,” I replied.
- What do you think of him? - He asked.
I replied that I considered him quite worthy, despite the fact that everything clearly looked like scenery, and it looked like a plausible re-creation of a telescope from a real observatory. In truth, it was the only realistic thing in the whole movie.
“I helped him do it,” my interlocutor answered.
- The studio called us and asked me to work with them on this part of the scenery. After we assembled the telescope on the spot, they asked me to add all sorts of parts and devices to it, so that it looked more convincing as sophisticated scientific equipment. So I added a bunch of electronic shields and other things to the telescope that carry absolutely no functionality.
He threw me a keen keen look, and continued:
- If you were deceived by this telescope, and even found it plausible, then why are you so worried about all the other inconsistencies and film errors?
I do not know what exactly my then-reaction was, but I suppose that I just hung up with a surprised expression on my face when I realized that he was right. It was a complete change in my attitude towards films and - just like in a bad movie script - it happened completely and suddenly because of this conversation alone.
I realized that I liked to watch films for the sake of subsequent criticism, and not to enjoy them. After that, I began to look at things from a different angle. I reconciled with the fact that despite the fact that science and believability are important for the day of NF, history and plot are more important. Don't get me wrong, I still want science to be believable. I firmly believe that a screenwriter who knows science (or even if he simply appeals to her through a scientific adviser in a team) will be able to deduce from her intrigues and plot twists that he would not have thought of on his own.
Science can and should lead history to where it should go. But in the finale, storytelling should take the main place.
In the end, acquaintance with bad science after good led to my development as a person. What good science after bad can do for yours?
From translatorI found it necessary to translate this article, because I myself came to similar conclusions. Yes, the scientific nature of the film is important. Yes, a scientifically believable film will only benefit from its scientific knowledge if it uses this stick from the end “it will allow something” instead of “that and that is nonsense and impossible”. However, very often I see some kind of ... caustic prejudice that science fiction is
an elite genre. That only believable fiction, not deviating from the known laws of physics, can be good. Contemptuous statements in the direction of Star Wars and other, even less realistic works, calls not to consider them NF, because "this is just a fantasy in space."
The situation is extremely strange. No other genre is not subjected to such scrupulous criticism from their own fans. Who cares about the realism of melodramas? No one grumbles that sports movie characters use uniforms from the wrong producers. There are no debates in the network about the incorrect display of firearms in action movies. Slasher do not understand on the subject of fatality and the consequences of injuries inflicted in them. Documentary films ... Well, they are
documentaries , everything is clear with them, they always correspond to the facts and are scientific.
After all the truth ? People who are well versed in these areas will certainly notice to themselves that this model of a pistol cannot shoot so many times, or that this injury would lead to a non-functioning hand and loss of consciousness from a painful shock ... but I have not yet seen a weapon expert, who would say that the movie "Predator" he did not like because of the incorrect use of M134.
Science fiction, above all, is a work of art. Not documentary, or scientific and educational. In other words - this is
fiction . And fiction is not obliged to correspond to reality. Deception and inaccuracy in the films are found at every turn. Scenes are not filmed consistently. Actors are hurt by make-believe (
most often ). The inscription on the screen may declare that the scene is Washington, and in fact everything was filmed in Vancouver. And we will not even take into account the kinolyaps, thousands of them!
I'm all about. You can disassemble films by bone. It is fun and entertaining, at times it is interesting to build your own stories, unpredictably twisting and avoiding the conflicts of the original through real physics or through holes in the plot and the unintended consequences of the assumptions introduced by the author. It is even more fun and interesting to try to recreate what is shown on the screen using only reality. But it must be remembered that the presence of an error does not make the product worse. There is no “elite club” of the NF, in which only respectable gentlemen who respect the laws of Newton and Einstein are allowed to be, and anyone who ignores their impudent upstart should be booed and driven out in disgrace. Science fiction is not about scientific credibility, it is about
science fiction . About the future, about possible potentials and open ways. It was Star Trek's unscientific nature that, in the end, inspired dozens of real scientific research - including the famous Alcubierre bubble.