Mistakes in Science fiction films..

Capt Lightning

Well-known Member
There is a long-running TV programme called 'The Sky at Night', which is as you would suspect about space and astronomy. On a recent 'question and answer ' episode, the presenters were asked what annoyed them about Science fiction. One interesting gripe was about inconsistencies in films. The speaker pointed out that in the film 'Titanic', as the ship sank, from the background of stars, you could deduce that whey were in the Caribbean sea, NOT the north Atlantic.

Another presenter pointed out that in films such as Star Wars, scenes of spaceships dodging its way through asteroid belts was totally unrealistic as asteroids were in reality miles apart and you could fly through without hitting anything.
 

Well, you need to consider that Star Wars isn't science fiction. It's a branch of fantasy called Sword and Sorcery and it just happened to be wrapped up in pop sci-fi tropes and trappings. Far closer to Robin Hood and Harry Potter than Jonny Quest.

Titanic was scripted and shot as a "crawling on the grass" dime store romance novel. There is hardly even a story there outside the outline used for many a schlock romance. The ship could have been made of chocolate and it changes nothing.

Some of the best hard science fiction live action media we've seen in decades was the adaptation to a TV series that The Expanse books received for 2015 release. The screenplays were quite faithful to the original stories, treating the books as rough drafts. For popular media, the science and technology portrayed was very close to realistic.
 

So why in the movie "Signs" did the aliens come to earth if they can't be around water? They can't touch it, and the planet is mostly water, and all the humidity.? weird.
That's a lazy critique. It's a story about coincidences that aren't coincidences.

If you want to be picky, consider the precedent of The Deadliest Catch where hard working people venture into a hostile environment to make a living acquiring seafood. Or people who settle so near active volcanoes. Or moved into North America to brave an unknown continent inhabited by dangerous animals, weather, and people.

You sound like that religious-nut woman in the grocery store in The Mist. :ROFLMAO:
 
Years ago, you were liable to see a Roman Centurion,
wearing a wristwatch, or a modern car in the background
in a Western Movie, also condensation trails from aircraft
in the sky in a historical film.

Not so much nowadays.

Mike.
 
Yes, those were incredible @Mike but it isn't only in films. I recall a few years back watching a news report about a (supposedly) very severe storm. The on-scene reporter was bundled in heavy foul-weather gear. Wind was blowing the torrential rain into her face. In the background you could see a gent is shorts and a light shirt casually walk his dog on the beach!! The whole thing was clearly faked. :ROFLMAO:

These days, when I see/hear anything on television, I remember that event. It's all about the $$$$. :mad:
 
When I was a young camera assistant on my very first series, and I commented on some stupid plot detail, the cameraman said, "You don't want to analyze these stories too closely."

I think my favorite such nonsense was on a "private eye" show where the detective was driving around, going to different locations in the Los Angeles area. But locations were so far apart that you couldn't possibly visit them all in a single day - - from the office downtown, to Malibu on the coast, to Pasadena 30-something miles inland, back to Malibu . . .
 
Most common in outer space movies is audio sound in battles within vacuum space. There will be sound when debris hits space craft but not the way directors create such. Typical is some spaceman with a weapon firing at another spaceman in a warring craft. When ammunition hits the distant space craft, fake exploding audio sound occurs instead of just light flashes..
 
But it's science FICTION. Clearly, Star Wars was not a documentary. Audiences knew that goin' in.

As for Titanic, "based on actual events" means "this film does not depict the actual events" or "historic facts"...meaning some of the stuff you see in the film is made up, and they made it up to make the event more entertaining. Hopefully, as entertaining as it is devastating, but at least entertaining enough to make it worth the price of a ticket.
 
Science fiction has gotten some people interested in actual science. There's nothing wrong with that. That's a win for science.

I remember a debate going on while the first Star Wars movie was still in theaters about whether shots fired and crashes in outer-space would produce a sound or not, when millions of lay-people found out for the first time that outer-space is a vacuum, or a near vacuum, or has no gravity....until it does. 🤪
 


Back
Top