This piece stems from the Slice of SciFi #179 interview with Ben Bova. Having read many of Ben Bova’s books, it was a real treat listening to the all-too-short interview. And, just as most of his books did, the interview got me thinking. It made me want to comment on a few subjects discussed during the interview (please, contain your joy). I’ll touch on each of them in turn over the next few submissions.
This piece comments on the following: Science Fiction movies today do not inspire people (“whole generations” was the term used) toward space exploration because they are not really science fiction movies. I assume they were referring to Science Fiction movies specifically dealing with space travel and exploration, and that’s the movies I’m talking about in this piece.
I can agree with that… somewhat. True, most do not deal with rigid science. But if they did, they would be called Nova, or Discovery Science. Movies are entertainment, and they provide it through conflict, action, resolution, drama, comedy, and relate to human nature, human troubles, and human emotions; in short, movies must be, and are, about humans. It’s how we can relate to what is happening on the screen. At first glance this defense of Science Fiction movie failure to inspire science-based dreams may seem contrary to earlier pieces where I railed on movies for playing fast and loose with basic physics. I still feel the same way. But while getting basic science wrong sometimes ruins the movie, within the science fiction framework getting the science slightly wrong hurts no more so than anything else movies take liberties with.
Science Fiction movies cannot be just about the science; at the core of every movie is the story. Some movies can survive a mediocre story by employing dazzling special effects. Effect laden movies with no story, such as the Star Wars movies, have mediocre staying power and hold little interest outside the rabid (if sad) Star Wars fan community. Likewise, 2001: A Space Odyssey is generally considered a classic, but I know at least one person who has yet to sit through a complete viewing without falling asleep. They might have gotten the science “right”, but it was not enough, in itself, to carry the movie. Good characters would have helped. Oh yeah… it might also have helped if the ending had made any sense at all.
The background of the movie, much like in a play, is there to provide a reference, and although it is sometimes flawed and distorted (called “artistic license”), its only purpose is to anchor the characters so they can interact. Having said that, I reserve the right to rip into movies that blatantly violate the basics of the world around us. So, for instance, the depiction politicians as honest and principled persons would strain my credulity to the point of ruining a movie.
I certainly think science fiction movies are better when the science depicted, even if theoretical, is correct. The problem is that the “real” is often not engaging enough, nor does it allow for decent pace to hold the interest of the audience. Not for science fiction, not for westerns, not for drama, comedy, or any other genre of movies, plays, books, or other entertainment vehicle.
I’m a big fan of Firefly and the movie Serenity. My desire for multiple viewings is not fed by the science of the show (which is flawed), but rather for the interaction of the characters. Now, I admit the setting is more palatable to me than if it was the same story set in the 1700s (it would be pirates and a merchant vessel roaming the sea), but I suspect the characters would be just as engaging… except the dialog would be out of place with the period. The story is what inspires people, and movie stories are just the retelling of tales we already know both from fiction and from personal life. We know of the struggles, hopes, dreams, tragedies, and triumphs of the human race.
Let’s be clear; outside a fleeting wistful daydream or two, Firefly and Serenity are not going to inspire anyone to do anything along the lines of what is depicted in the movie. Inspiration that might be gleamed from a given entertainment source relates to the example set by the characters in the story being told. We learn of honor, honesty, loyalty, and courage… and the opposite of all those.
Even if there is no overt message to a movie (No Country for Old Men), we still see part of ourselves in the characters. Except, I hope, the psycho killer with the bad hairstyle and pneumatic herd thinner.
It can certainly be argued The Untouchables might have inspired kids to become eventual G-Men, but I contend they were not inspired by the job itself, but by the perceived traits of the characters depicted. It is argued that interest in forensic careers was spurred by the success of the various incarnations of CSI. Sadly, in that particular case, we must now feel sorry for all the people who entered the field only to discover a considerably less glamorous job than was depicted in the shows.
So while there are cases where shows and movies might inspire people toward pursuing certain career choices, I contend Science Fiction movies about space travel are the least likely to inspire a vocation; at least not directly.
The big difference with Science Fiction movies is opportunity. It’s a huge burden to charge Science Fiction movies with the task of inspiring a kid to become a space-faring adventurer and explorer when the reality is that there is zero chance it will occur within their lives. Certainly we don’t expect the Harry Potter movies to inspire kids to become sorcerers, so why saddle Science Fiction movies with an equally impossible task?
Science Fiction movies, like every other genre of movies, are entertainment vehicles that amplify and exaggerate the human traits of the hero and villain to tell a story. Sometimes there is an associated message, sometimes it is pure escapism, and sometimes they reflect the daydreams of many. But primarily they are entertainment, and I don’t expect much more from them. I certainly don’t expect them to lead humanity to the stars.
Sam Sloan says
I would agree with you, but only in part. It is an established fact that countless young people were inspired to enter the NASA space program as a result of the 1960’s Star Trek television series. Many of those youngsters are now space engineers, military jet pilots, and even current serving astronauts living in the International Space Station and flying the Space Shuttle. If it weren’t for Star Trek and the work of its actors like Nichelle Nichols and James Doohan there wouldn’t be as many engineers or any women or people of color currently orbiting this blue orb called Earth. So, good science fiction, regardless of how loosely it plays with real science, did, does and will continue to inspire future generations of young people to opt for careers in the space sciences.
ejdalise says
There is no denying that happened, but that would imply that the 60’s Star Trek was the culmination of space faring movies. Because if we look strictly at movies, then the statement that today’s movies don’t inspire is followed by the statement movies have gone down hill since Star Trek was made.
I would instead pose the arguments that Star Trek was influential in part because of what it was, but in larger part because of the times. I don’t think that same show these days would have the same impact as it did then.
In the 60’s that show played to an optimism toward a Utopian future while at the same time addressing social issues that were already openly being challenged. And it also showed us an optimistic view of technology applied to the benefit of all.
As optimistic as I am (unbelievable, I know), I have to admit the promise has not lived up, that similar social issues exist to day (only we don’t openly talk about them), and technology – despite tremendous advances – has not shown itself to be an answer to the ills of the world because it is wielded by flawed human beings, organizations, and governments, and caters to short term priorities of humans at large. I think that far away Utopia, that long term vision is shared by fewer and fewer people, and what we see in movies is no longer viewed as a possible future except by very few of us. I don’t know about the others, but for me it’s getting harder to hold on to that vision.
Maria says
I think Ben Bova is way to intelligent to suggest that scifi movies should inspire people to take up space-related jobs. What scifi movies did, and dont do anymore, is inspire people to look toward the skies and wonder. To not want the space exploration missions to stop. A few years back, this started to change. We didnt care that the space programm was nixed, SETI gone. We knew that it was too expensive, cold war was so over, etc, but this wouldnt have stopped us before to care. There are no good scifi movies being relesed (milestones that you would remember 20 years later) that would inspire us to want space exploration to continue. Oh, and I have to say this: What do you mean ‘… Effect laden movies with no story, such as the Star Wars movies, have mediocre staying power…’ Gulp! You are not talking of the original two movies, because they are strongly and fondly remembered by everyone in the western hemisphere, including you I’m sure, dear ‘..Having read many of Ben Bova’s books..’
ejdalise says
You are correct, of course . . . I do fondly remember the Star War trilogy. I even own it in a couple of media formats.
But I found out something last year when my wife and I were looking through our library of movies for something to watch. “Star Wars! We haven’t watched that one for years!” I said as I fired up the Laserdisc player and carefully pulled the massive disk from it’s sheath. We settled in, and within 20 minutes we both agree to stop it, and move on to the next one, the fabled Empire Strikes Back.
That lasted about 10 minutes. We did not even try the last one. So yes, I have fond memories; but the movies themselves have little staying power. At the time the cinematography was novel, the effects were innovative, and the shine of watching something new hid a whole lot of flaws. Not so 30 years later. The character were/are thin, the plot was/is thinner, and the action was/is mediocre.
I will not watch any of them again because I do not want to spoil the memory of what it felt like to sit in the theater 30 years ago.
Of course, that’s just me. Then again, I also don’t see the attraction of vintage cars; I like how they look, but the vehicles themselves are vastly inferior to what we have now. Some cars, movies, books, TV shows, and music have emotional value that cannot be measured, but that often augments, for some people, the value of the thing itself. For other people (us cold, calculating types), those are just things that stand or fall on merit alone.