Science Fiction involves buying into the premise of a scientific “reality” that often pushes, even shatters, the boundaries of what we know. As fans we accept this. As fans, we realize the vehicle need not be 100% feasible to transport us to good entertainment, with believable characters, and viable plots. I can buy into some things I know are not yet possible within our current understanding of science, and go with it for the sake of a well-told story.
What I find increasingly objectionable is the outright violation of science, as we know it. Humanity stands on the shoulders of countless individuals who painstakingly built the foundation for understanding the world around us. We owe them respect, not dismissal. Whatever premise we are asked to accept should build on this foundation, extrapolate it, even stretch it, but not tear it down for the sake of a “cool” visual.
Sci-fi movies should transport the viewer into new worlds of possibilities. Maybe one day we will know how to “warp” space, tap the energy of a star to create wormholes, or even “shift” in time and space. One can certainly hope so for the sake of the survival of our species. It is clear to me we are living on the eventual target of a passing celestial body, and it is just as clear humanity’s survival depends on our ability to leave this particular piece of cosmic real estate. Plus, I still hold hope for a visit from a “future me” bearing a gift of near-future winning lotto numbers.
So for instance, I’ll buy into the idea that in some none-too-distant future we will have mastered space travel. I will accept the premise that a space spore threatens to use humans as unwilling hosts. I’ll even entertain the apocalyptic view of a future Earth. And I’d be happy to explore each of those scenarios through the eyes of a flawed hero, or heroine, searching for a meaning of life, and a purpose to their existence.
But I get a Camaro that transforms into a mechanical being three stories tall, and I’m thinking, “Where is all that extra mass coming from?” Watching The Thing revert to human, and back again, also sets me to ponder on the transmutation of flesh to rock, back to flesh, and back to rock. Again, extra mass, lots of energy, and cells changing their chemical composition in milliseconds. Watching The Flame burn “hotter than the sun” makes me wonder if we could tap him to create wormholes . . . before I remember there is no such thing as a free lunch. Where’s all that fuel coming from?
My wonder and awe is considerably reduced when, after showing hook-like hairs sprouting from his skin, thus allowing Spiderman to cling to any surface, he covers them by putting on gloves; gloves that also cover the area of his wrists oozing “spider-web”. I could go on, but some may call me “picky”. Others may call me “kill-joy”. Those with a good vocabulary might accuse me of being pedantic. Others will then have to go look that up.
What is the point of this short piece? Just this; I see it as a duty of the science fiction fan to hold sci-fi vehicles to a higher standard. Science is an important part of our lives, and reasonably good science should be the first requisite of “Science” Fiction. Instead, I see science casually tossed aside for the sake of a plot point, or worse, for the sake of presenting a special effect in lieu of a plot. The unintended consequence is that it makes “real” science seem mundane, boring, and lame.
Sputnik inspired many kids to pursue careers in space science. All it did was beep, but it lit a spark in people who went on to help change our world. Science Fiction had, in no small part, primed those same people by stimulating their imagination. It’s hard to imagine the recent comics-based spate of movies doing much more than help sales of yellow Camaros.
GazerBeam says
I’ve thought of many of the same points, but I just chalked it up to Hollywood not bothering to understand the details.
Nick K says
I think we’re headed for a flaming discussion on what constitutes SF and what is more appropriately classified as fantasy. Instead of classifying Transformers or The Matrix or (my personal favorite) Final Destination as “science fiction”, perhaps they should be relegated to the category of “fantasy” popularized by Bewitched, The Flintstones, and My Favorite Martian.
Sam says
Since SF stands for “speculative fiction” then sci-fi, fantasy, horror, animation, comic heroes, etc., fits into it. But, I totally agree with Emilio’s op-ed about the need to stay true to the sci-fi genre as it relates to real science’s future possibilities.
Everything else in SF is open to the whimsical mind of its creator, but sci-fi should stay within the realm of scientific believability.
Skiznot says
I use the limited definition of Sci-fi that doesn’t include most comic books stories. I do appreciate when these stories do good science. Still comics for me fall more in the realm of mythology so I don’t expect much from comic movies in terms of science. It would be fun to see a comic book style Hero show that tries to get as close to good science as possible (conservation of mass, et al). Like if science could genetically enhance humans what are some of the most likely enhancements and what would be some of the drawbacks. When I think about how spiders really spin webs, I’m glad peter only has them coming out of his wrists, although in the comics the web is just some formula that Parker invented. On the other hand I get frustrated when some space shows/movies (like Firefly) don’t seem to know the difference between a Solar System and a Galaxy. I’m w/ Nick, it seems the article seems more about the liberal use of the term “Sci-fi.†And that can of worms starts to go off topic of the article.
Greg says
Lighten up, it’s just a movie.
Deven Science says
Sam,
This is a genuine question: When did “SF” Start standing for “speculative fiction”? The traditional “SF” stood for “science fiction”. It was Hollywood that used “sci-fi”, and because that term became associated with 50s nuclear cheese-fests, most science fiction authors preferred SF, to the point now where I use SF when on a book forum or conversation, and sci-fi when speaking of TV or movies. So who feels they have the right to arbitrarily change “SF” to “speculative fiction”? Come up with something else for that, as “SF” is already taken (and I don’t mean by San Francisco). “Spec-fic” or somesuch.
Sam says
That is still true Deven for its use in literary circles, however, over the last decade within the film media the term SF has slowly evolved (or devolved – depending on one’s viewpoint) to mean the generalized speculative speculation term, with sci-fi being the accepted term to be used specifically to clarify pure science fiction.
Sam says
As an added note: the SF terminology is so loosely thrown around by media writers today that it basically has lost most of its original intended meaning. But it is used here to mean speculative fiction since Slice of SciFi deals most specifically with non-literary genre, although we do have articles from time to time about novels and authors, but that isn’t our main thrust. That is reserved for our sister site DragonPage Cover to Cover.
Dana says
But…but…but…if characters ever have to stop coming back from the dead, scifi television writers won’t have a clue how to tell stories any more!! It’s a mainstay that not a single one of them can resist wallowing in.
Jack says
I agree with those who say that defining science fiction as a literary or media genre is beyond the scope of this article, but I would also say that the ambiguity a lack of definition brings is at the heart of the writer’s point. The creators of modern sci-fi have abandoned science because they can.
The meaning of Science Fiction, as traditionally defined and accepted, included an adherence to or logical extrapolation of know scientific laws (I would also include well tested theories). The reason for the delineation of sub-genres was in response to popular fiction that appeared to be sci-fi, but did not meet that strict definition – space opera (Buck Rogers / Star Wars), soft sci-fi (Time Machine / Star Trek / Matrix ), and sci-fi horror (Black Destroyer / Alien).
This expansion led to a shift in popular expectations of sci-fi away from an interesting literary development at its birth (Frankenstein / 20,000 Leagues), to fodder for pulp magazines in the 30’s and 40’s and then brainless 50’s drive-in flicks. Today that low brow image is made worse by the inclusion of fantasy, which for most people, despite the sophistication of LOTR and Alice in Wonderland, still means children’s bed time stories.
Now throw in the almost wholesale abandonment of established scientific fact or axiom, and we have a current definition of sci-fi that includes any story not set in present time or acceptable past historic context, and dealing with common issues and events. Add in the pervasive delusion that “anyone can write the stuff”, and science fiction is brought to the end result we live with today: a ghetto where fine literary and cinematic work goes to die along side the trash and filth produced purely for popular consumption (for proof see the devolution of the Star Trek franchise).
The disdain of critics is a reality that will always be with us. The dissolution of science fiction as a pure and distinct art form is also a regrettable fact. For those of us who love and practice that art, we have only our self-respect to keep us honest. If we abandon that along with science to the whims of popular fashion there will be no need for a definition. Science Fiction as anything meaningful and distinct will no longer exist.
ejdalise says
Interesting comments. Thanks for the feedback, and . . .
. . . let me say I do enjoy the movies even when they grossly err in their representation of even basic science. For instance, I do think it is cool to see the hero(s) outrun (in slow motion) the fireball of an explosion (moving in even slower motion). Still, that nagging little voice in my head tells me they should be dead (watch the Military Channel when they show explosives – that fireball is pretty quick).
The two examples I mentioned in the article were specifically chosen because they are not purported to deal with fantasy as I understand it (i.e. magic). And while they are based on comic books, they are rooted in the physical world (same as Batman, I might add, which does a much better – if not perfect – job of handling physical limits).
I am not very familiar with the Transformers franchise, but one can loosely make a statement that it is about mechanical beings. There is no indication they are in possession of any magical powers, and all of their “neat†properties are rooted in very mechanical processes. My objection there was that they could have been “closer†in mass had they all disguised themselves as large trucks. Choosing a sport car seemed strictly a marketing idea.
I am somewhat familiar with the Spiderman franchise, and remember that early on Peter was often shown in a lab, wearing a white coat, and developing gadgets to help him fight the arch-villain. But I wrote specifically about another aspect that always bothered me.
Neither spiders, nor Spiderman, defy gravity or employ magic, so one has to assume there is some physical force at work with their ability to cling to walls. A normal spider has about 600,000 points of contact (very fine hairs on their legs) with a flat surface. There is a weak attraction (called the Van der Waal force) between molecules, and by increasing the number of contact points this force allows creatures to run up walls and stick to ceilings. Spiderman (according to the movie) “grows” these hairs, hinting he uses the same principle. Even neglecting the disproportionate number of hairs he would have to grow because of his much denser frame, the wearing of the gloves negates this premise.
Some maintain the hairs go through the suit, but that means they are rather “stiff”, and sharp (I may be remembering wrong, but the movie might even have showed them as barbed). Again, this would negate the effect by actually reducing the amount of contact with a surface. Not to mention scraping everything he touches, including his precious Mary Jane. And of course, he should be looking all hairy, and such. Plus, he wears boots; mighty powerful hair indeed.
Let me repeat that I can, and do, ignore inconsistencies, and just enjoy movies for what they are. I just wish I’d have less to ignore. Instead it seems every year I have to switch off larger parts of my brain just to get through some movies.
rogerdugans says
I agree with the piece, in general…
However, I think that Hollywood (and anyplace else that makes a movie) has never shown much of a need to stick to facts, or science when pursuing entertainment.
I do prefer movies that retain some semblance of science, though, and at least try to provide explanations for those things that we are asked to accept that are impossible according to current scientific belief. Even moreso, I prefer books that do this.
Back to motion pictures (or TV): science fiction periodically surges in popularity, and it seems to me that each time it does, science takes a bit more of a “hit” to gain mainstream acceptance.
And here I am, largely agreeing and yet making excuses for the movies…
Yes, I am frequently heard making comments while watching tv or movies; comments like “That wouldn’t work”, “No air in space, no wild explosion like that” and even the classic “In space, nobody can hear you scream.”
I find fault all over the place, but do manage to accept it when the overall story is good enough.
Of course, these movies are not the ones that usually make it into my own library.
Great article, in any case.
Michael Natale says
Good article, you make some good points.
However, I do believe that regardless of the media, when the science gets in the way of telling a good story, everyone loses.
At World Fantasy this year, they had a panel entitled “When Fantasy Becomes Science-Fiction and Science Fiction Becomes Fantasy” they discussed this very point. They were talking about books, but whether its film, TV or books, I think the same arguments apply.
The panelists were: Joe Haldeman, Nancy Kress, George RR Martin, L.E. Modessit and Walter John Williams. Martin set the tone for the evening by stating at the start that there is no distinction between Science Fiction and Fantasy, that a story is just a story and that only the “furniture”, or trappings of the story differentiate it by genre.
Many of the other panelists disagreed, but Martin defended his assertion well, being frank and outspoken about his opinions. Of the authors there, only Martin has written in science fiction, fantasy and horror genres with great success his entire career (3 Hugos, a Nebula, a Bram Stoker Award, Six time Locus winner, World Fantasy Award, etc etc)
Meanwhile L.E. Modessit took the opposite position, arguing that science must be plausible and explained to the reader in great detail. He then went on to try and make a point how when he writes space opera type sci-fi he makes sure that galactic economics are explained in excruciating detail to the reader. YAWN.
This is one of the primary reasons that most ‘hard’ Sci-Fi turns me off. I want a good story first, then a physics lesson second. Thump me over the head with it, and I’m out.
Jack says
So, what I’m reading tells me most of us would say “It’s the entertainment, stupid.”
Louise B. says
Emilio, great article. Many good points.