Does Bad Science Make Sci-Fi Movies Worse?

Culture

from the does-it-really-matter? dept

Roland Piquepaille writes “Science fiction movies can be fun, and sometimes boring, when Hollywood producers want to show us a 2 1/2 hour film when 90 minutes would be enough. But what about the “science” behind them? BBC News says it’s pretty bad in “When sci-fi forgets the science.” For example, the metamorphosis of Bruce Banner into Hulk, based on work of marine biologist Greg Szulgit from Hiram College, Ohio, about sea cucumbers, is qualified by himself as “really awful”. The article looks at many other recent movies like “Matrix Reloaded” or “Spiderman”, before returning to old ones, like “The Incredible Shrinking Man.” This sidebar to my blog contains additional excerpts from the article.” Is it just me, or does this seem like annoying nitpicking in most instances? Sure, it’s nice when the science follows real science – but for most people, they just want a good story. The real complaint (and this might be valid) is that when sci-fi movies attempt to use real science, and then use it badly, you have to wonder why they even bothered in the first place.