How much bad science/astronomy can you forgive?

[Eirik]

Since a lot of us are driven crazy by horrible science in the movies, I wonder what is the general tolerance level that people here have for bad science? If the actors in a movie make a glaring error does it ruin the movie for you? Does it usually take more than one, or can you forgive all if you're having fun? Does it vary from movie to movie? One set of standards for a Star Trek, another for a movie about a contemporay trip to Venus?

For me, personally, it depends on the quality overall of the movie I'm watching. I'm able to fogive some pretty large holes in a movie like "Signs" because I found it to be an effective thriller, where I'm unable to forgive holes in a movie like "Mission to Mars" because it felt like sitting in a dental chair while watching it.

[TriangleMan]

For me the overall quality of the movie does impact how much I am willing to forgive Bad Science. For example:

I loved Dark City despite the implausibility of things like injecting entire sets of memories in one syringe.

I loved Star Wars despite errors like the Kessel Run/parsec line.

I did not really like Independence Day. Potentially good movie but wrecked by an overload of Bad Science.

I hated Lost in Space. Bad movie compounded by Bad Science.

[Glom]

Obviously, bad science marrs the overall enjoyment. The more enjoyable it is, the more I'm willing to forgive, of course.

But it also depends on what I'm watching.

Star Wars is fantasy so I'm not all that concerned with scientific accuracy.

Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are magic fests so I don't really care (although, have you noticed the Newtonian motion of those broomsticks during the quidditch matches?)

Star Trek... I'm going through a difficult stage with it at the moment.

Stargate SG-1 is sci-fi and I do expect to have some accuracy. Episodes like 'Red Sky' are ruined for me because of the bad science. 'A Matter of Time' featured weird relativity but Carter did admit something quirky was up. A cop out, yes, but it helped me enjoy the episode more although featuring the gravity wave was stupid. I've never been too keen on the episodes that are all about roaming around on Goa'uld ships because they are too fast. I prefer stargate ones. Although, I have no problem with any technology of the Asgard because they're cool and I like the idea of them seeming godlike.

The Matrix is totally screwed up. It really marred my enjoyment of the first film, but I'd learned to accept it as almost cartoonish by the second and so I really enjoyed it. More Agent Smiths!

[Eirik]

Obviously, bad science marrs the overall enjoyment. The more enjoyable it is, the more I'm willing to forgive, of course.

Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are magic fests so I don't really care (although, have you noticed the Newtonian motion of those broomsticks during the quidditch matches?)

That's kinda funny, but as much as I love magic in the movies, I don't always forgive bad magic. When the magic used is internally inconsistant to the point where it's clear the writer or screenwriter just used it as a "get out of jail free" card all the time, it ruins my enjoyment.

Basically, I can suspend my disbeleif only so far. I'm willing to beleive in dragons and warlocks, as long as you don't give them powers-as-needed or play fast and loose with the rules you've set down.

[mike alexander]

I'm doing better since my son and I decided to do Mystery Science Theater on the bad stuff. Stargate SG-1 is an especially rich field for this endeavour.

[Ilya]

That's kinda funny, but as much as I love magic in the movies, I don't always forgive bad magic. When the magic used is internally inconsistant to the point where it's clear the writer or screenwriter just used it as a "get out of jail free" card all the time, it ruins my enjoyment.

Basically, I can suspend my disbeleif only so far. I'm willing to beleive in dragons and warlocks, as long as you don't give them powers-as-needed or play fast and loose with the rules you've set down.

Can you give some examples of "good" (internally consistent) vs. "bad" magic fantasy?

[Powa]

No matter what kind of a movie I watch, if there's something in it which doesn't feel right (bad science, or bad anything) it brings my oveall enjoyment of the movie a notch lower. When I'm thinking about a particular mistake in a movie I don't follow the story. I also prefer a movie with more realism, like in 2001, and less CGI and explosions like in Lost in Space (BTW, what were they thinking with that cartoonish space monkey thing?).

I have to say my tolerance for bad science in a movie is quite low I'm afraid (those aliens in Independence Day should've had their virus definitions updated for human viruses, huh?).

[darkhunter]

That's kinda funny, but as much as I love magic in the movies, I don't always forgive bad magic. When the magic used is internally inconsistant to the point where it's clear the writer or screenwriter just used it as a "get out of jail free" card all the time, it ruins my enjoyment.

Basically, I can suspend my disbeleif only so far. I'm willing to beleive in dragons and warlocks, as long as you don't give them powers-as-needed or play fast and loose with the rules you've set down.

As we used to say in one of my D&D groups "I want some Reealism in my Fantasy"

[The Shade]

I have to say my tolerance for bad science in a movie is quite low I'm afraid (those aliens in Independence Day should've had their virus definitions updated for human viruses, huh?).

I've always loved the idea that the aliens were running their equipment on Windows 95.

[Eirik]

That's kinda funny, but as much as I love magic in the movies, I don't always forgive bad magic. When the magic used is internally inconsistant to the point where it's clear the writer or screenwriter just used it as a "get out of jail free" card all the time, it ruins my enjoyment.

Basically, I can suspend my disbeleif only so far. I'm willing to beleive in dragons and warlocks, as long as you don't give them powers-as-needed or play fast and loose with the rules you've set down.

Can you give some examples of "good" (internally consistent) vs. "bad" magic fantasy?

Well, a couple above examples work as generally internally consistant, like Lord of the Rings. IIRC, Willow was reasonably constant (or at least my problems with the movie weren't because of the internal inconsistancies). Ladyhawke was pretty good at staying within the rules that the writers put down.

My thoughs on bad magic/fantasy are usually printed, and in mass market areas tend to be stories in series that are too long for their own good. The later Xanth stories by Anthony started losing their coherence, and the last "Dancing Gods" story by Jack Chalker was a mess with continuity (to be fair, that series is a mild parody, but still...)

I can think of a couple b-movie examples from MST, for example, but it seems unfair to mention them since they weren't exactly top notch productions... but "The Undead" by diretor Roger Corman was a mess with magic and mystisicm. "Jack Frost", a Russo-Finnish co-production was a strange mix of all sorts of magical nonsense that changed as they needed it. A non-MST movie that had internal problems was "A Flight of Dragons", that seemed to change the nature of magic late in the game, implying that too much thinking about it along scientific terms made it go away. It's a cheat used in magical fiction all the time, and rarely used well.

[wedgebert]

For me the overall quality of the movie does impact how much I am willing to forgive Bad Science. For example:

I loved Star Wars despite errors like the Kessel Run/parsec line.

From what I understand of the accepted theories of how SW tech works, the faster a ship can travel though hyperspace, the closer it can come to gravity wells.

Thus Han boasting of doing the Kessel Run in under <blah> parsecs is a valid boast because it mean he could skim closer to navagational hazards like stars and black holes.

[Humphrey]

fir me i see it this way. If the movie knows it is doing bad things with science, thats ok with me. If they trey to pretend it is tottly acurate science then i have a big problem with it.


Ex. Spaceballs as the first, and The Core as the second.

[Ilya]

Well, a couple above examples work as generally internally consistant, like Lord of the Rings. IIRC, Willow was reasonably constant (or at least my problems with the movie weren't because of the internal inconsistancies). Ladyhawke was pretty good at staying within the rules that the writers put down.

Funny, I never liked Lord of the Rings much - and I mean the book. Mainly because of the "and the Evil was banished forever" ending - I do not like or believe in utopias, and much prefer the balance between Good and Evil to remain at the end of a story. But I also did not like Tolkein's take on magic - as far as I can tell, his magic was always minimal in actual storyline, but could be monumental when occuring off-stage. Gandalf defeated a Balrog single-handed, but had to resort to ventriloquism against three trolls? And never used anything but a sword against goblins? Come on!

My thoughs on bad magic/fantasy are usually printed, and in mass market areas tend to be stories in series that are too long for their own good. The later Xanth stories by Anthony started losing their coherence

WHAT coherence!?? Xanth was a parody from the start, and Anthony invented magical effects as he needed them. I think his biggest problem is that in the later books he forgot Xanth was supposed to be silly, and started taking it too seriously.

[ToSeek]

Somehow I am reminded of watching Independence Day with my wife. We enjoyed it, but then we spent the entire trip back home picking holes in the plot.

[captain swoop]

I've always loved the idea that the aliens were running their equipment on Windows 95.

Erm, sorry, it w3as MAC OS

[captain swoop]

Funny, I never liked Lord of the Rings much - and I mean the book. Mainly because of the "and the Evil was banished forever" ending - I do not like or believe in utopias, and much prefer the balance between Good and Evil to remain at the end of a story. But I also did not like Tolkein's take on magic - as far as I can tell, his magic was always minimal in actual storyline, but could be monumental when occuring off-stage. Gandalf defeated a Balrog single-handed, but had to resort to ventriloquism against three trolls? And never used anything but a sword against goblins? Come on!

if you had read the full cycle from the first age you would see why there were no great evils after Sauron who was the minor servant of the original great evil. Lesser evils would still exist. Also it is stated by one of the leads that even Sauron wasn't always evil.

As for Gandalf using ventriloquism against trolls, who is to say he couldn't have done more?

That was a different Gandalf and a different time. Remember, The Hobbit was written as a one off story for a young boy, Tolkien never intended to write a sequel, he was working on his elvish history. Only after being persuaded to write a sequel to the Hobbit did he expand it to include the 'greater' events of his mythology. In a way Gandalf didn't have all his extra 'magic' and certainly Sauron didn't exist until after writing started, he was the 'Necromancer' living in Dol Goldur' and was expanded to fit the role.

[Iain Lambert]

Its all about the consistency. Pulling bad science out of the hat as a Deus Ex Machina is annoying and jarring, but bad science established as part of the fantastic premise is pretty fine by me.

Independance Day was horrible, horrible, horrible. Appeared to be taking everything reasonably seriously, set up aliens in a cool way, used media presentation cleverly to make things seem sensible for the first hour. Then they start shooting and it all goes left at the lights - the dog survives, the aliens are infected by Apple viruses etc.

Goldeneye was great. James Bond jumps off the edge of a cliff and catches up with a plane before the opening credits have started, and we know that insane, impossible (but only just impossible) stunts are the order of the day, while at the same time allowing Q to inform us of exactly which Movie Physics gadgets Bond has this time round for us to go "sure, that'll work in Bondworld" in advance.

[Iain Lambert]

Gandalf using ventriloquism against trolls

Yep, Gandalf used ventriloquism against trolls. It worked, didn't it? Obi-Wan has a lightsabre and magic powers too, but isn't above talking his way out of a situation either. Right tool for the job and all that.

I'm reminded of Carrot's sword in the Pratchett novels. Its not magic, it can't sing, it doesn't do parlour tricks. Its just really, really sharp, and thats what makes it good.

[nebularain]

Besides, Gandalf was actually a Maia, the equivalent of an angel (of lesser order), as was Sauron (a "fallen angel" - but of greater power than the wizards, who are also called "the Wise"). "Wizards" were the name given them by man. Tolkein's "wizards" were definantly not the wizards of tradition, but of course neither were his elves and dwarves.

[TriangleMan]

For me the overall quality of the movie does impact how much I am willing to forgive Bad Science. For example:

I loved Star Wars despite errors like the Kessel Run/parsec line.

From what I understand of the accepted theories of how SW tech works, the faster a ship can travel though hyperspace, the closer it can come to gravity wells. Thus Han boasting of doing the Kessel Run in under <blah> parsecs is a valid boast because it mean he could skim closer to navagational hazards like stars and black holes.

Sounds to me like rather than admit the script had an error, SW Maniacs spent a whole bunch of effort trying to rationalize how it possibly could be correct. Lame. [-X

[ToSeek]

Goldeneye was great. James Bond jumps off the edge of a cliff and catches up with a plane before the opening credits have started, and we know that insane, impossible (but only just impossible) stunts are the order of the day, while at the same time allowing Q to inform us of exactly which Movie Physics gadgets Bond has this time round for us to go "sure, that'll work in Bondworld" in advance.

When I saw it in the theater, a member of the audience gasped "Oh, get real!" when she saw that opening stunt. I normally don't appreciate audience comments, but since it was what all of us were thinking, I had to forgive her.

[Iain Lambert]

I'll agree its monumentally daft (though nowhere near as much as when Charlies Angels rip the stunt off mercilessly in 2), but it sets the tone for the film. Bad science is at its worst by far when it hasn't had its groundwork laid from the start.

For instance, (a certain popular thriller) has a 'twist' of the lead being dead all along. Now, if this had just turned up out of the blue it would have been a rip-off, as we don't think ghosts exist, and even if we did, we might expect the person to remember having died, but the plot has clearly explained all along that ghosts exist, and they don't know they are dead. Thats good writing. Signal your plot devices in advance, or they'll just be cheats.

[The Shade]

I've always loved the idea that the aliens were running their equipment on Windows 95.

Erm, sorry, it w3as MAC OS

Oops! My bad. #-o

[The Shade]

Besides, Gandalf was actually a Maia, the equivalent of an angel (of lesser order), as was Sauron (a "fallen angel" - but of greater power than the wizards, who are also called "the Wise"). "Wizards" were the name given them by man. Tolkein's "wizards" were definantly not the wizards of tradition, but of course neither were his elves and dwarves.

When Gandalf took on Human form, not all of his Maia wisdom could stay with him. In going from a higher divine form to a lesser human one, he aquired some human flaws in order to help him carry out his mission, which is why he says he bungled things more than once. This also explains why Saruman could be consumed by his greed for the One Ring, and why Radagast is said to have abandonned his mission in order to spend more time with nature.

Sauron was indeed originally a Maia of the order of Aulė. But he was seduced (not sexually of course :roll: ) by Morgoth and became the second most evil being in Middle Earth, right after his master. And yet, he is still highly regarded by Aulė and his order for his deeds before his turning to the Dark Side (so to speak).

[johnwitts]

Signs-good movie.

Independence Day-good movie.

Armageddon-good movie.

What the hell is so wrong in any of these films?

[Ripper]

I can forgive quite a lot if the movie is entertaining. But I do not forget. How do you know there are bad physics or science in a movie? If it is science fiction or action the physics are going to be bad. So you either have to deal with it or stick to romantic comedy. The producers hire technical advisors but I think that is just so they can have a name to put in the credits. I do not think they actually have any input into the movie. I have been in the military my entire adult life, so people often ask me what I think about this or that war movie. I almost always tear it apart. I think I know how Philip Plait feels when he watches most sci fi.

[Eirik]

I can understand that, because it's probebly true of *any* profession that appears on the large or small screen. I don't see it that often for mine, I'm an optometrist and that's just too dull to be included in entertainment, but on the very rare occations I see what I do portrayed it's rarely right. I can't imagine what Hollywood does to the military, for example, when entertainment is the key.

[Ripper]

It does not suprise me. You would think they would be careful of something like that because everyone who wears glasses would have some idea of what realy goes on. I guess doing a few minutes of research in the interest of technical accuracy is too much to ask

[Iain Lambert]

If you're widening to other professions, can I just give a quick congratulations to The Matrix Reloaded for being the first film ever to show a realistic computer hack - Trinity uses a genuine (if already patched now, let alone n years in the future) ssh buffer overflow to get into the unix system, and does it all from a standard shell, not one of these surreal 3d fancy things with giant lettering that every other film feels is necessary.

Of course, the physics of the whole human batteries thing is rather silly, but thats another matter.

[eburacum45]

Personally the whole idea of the Matrix is very sound, more convincing than many other views of the far future of mankind;
checkout Nick Bostrom's ideas on the subject...
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
the thing about the human batteries is sooo stupid, however, it makes you wonder how it wormed it's way into such a good story.

I expect this plot hole could be patched up easily, given the flexible nature of reality in this series of films.