Should movies just not explain the science?

[Bullgrit]

For instance: superhero movies

We know that when we go to a superhero movie, there will be fantasitical things, and we should enter fully willing to suspend our disbelief. And I usually can. But then, sometimes, for some usually unnecessary reason, the writers feel the need for a character to explain the "science." And they usually get it hilariously wrong.

It's not just superhero movies, either. Pretty much any sci-fi-type movie has this problem. A space ship travels a far distance, and we're all capable of accepting that idea. But then they say the distance is X light years and the ship's engineer explains to a new recruit how they travel faster than light.

The villain mastermind is a super genius, and really, we get that. But then a psychiatrist mentions how the villain uses a full 90% of his brain versus the usual 10% of a normal person.

There is a code for using the space teleporter, and ok. But then someone specifies that there are six numbers in the code, and a scientist says that's because to identify a point in space requires six coordinates.

Etc.

It seems that just about every time a sci-fi movie character has explained the science of the fiction, he/she gets it stupidly wrong. And most of the time we, the viewer, don't really need any explanation. We've already bought into the idea that sci-fi things will happen; they have us in the audience. Throwing in an unnecessary *and wrong* explanation just seems very foolish. People who have at least a high school level science understanding get, at least, jolted out of the experience for a moment, or at worst get kicked out of enjoying the whole show.

Should movies just not explain the science of the sci-fi universe at all? If a movie does require an explanation of the science, how hard is it really for a writer to look up the facts, or maybe ask a scientist?

What are some of the worst examples of bad and unnecessary science explanations in Hollywood movies?

Bullgrit

 

[PigKnight]

I think that simple explainations are fine (i.e. Star Trek), but sometimes when a story tries to explain something it ends up getting weird, is highly unnesessary, and ends up generating more questions (i.e. Star Wars and magic symbiotes).

 

[Morrus]

It depends on the movie. And, of course, Star Trek can't explain much of its science - but the technobabble should sound plausible.

 

[tomBitonti]

Mostly, the explanations are useless. Now, some descriptions are useful, e.g., the force as a field which encompasses and overlaps all living things, is a nice description. The label "vergence in the force", one presumes, describing Anakin Skywalker as a point of convergence of trends in the force, is OK. But presenting Mediclorians was total fail.

Some explanations are OK, as long as they don't try really to be explanations. Bruce Banner is superstrong because of an exposure to Gamma rays. Sure. Realistically, dead, dead, dead. But for a superhero, works fine for me.

Star Trek has always positioned its technobabble on the edge of current thinking. Not that it made sense, but was always colorful and entertaining.

The detail of needing six coordinates, yeah, that is a bit off. Actually, what was more off for Scotty for Star Trek: Into Darkness was the huge lack of precision in the numbers. Finding a tiny spec of a base in the whole of near Saturn space, which is what the level of precision implied, would be next to impossible.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Bullgrit]

The detail of needing six coordinates, yeah, that is a bit off. Actually, what was more off for Scotty for Star Trek: Into Darkness was the huge lack of precision in the numbers. Finding a tiny spec of a base in the whole of near Saturn space, which is what the level of precision implied, would be next to impossible.

The six numbers for coordinates was from Stargate [original movie]. Did ST:ID use a similar gimmick?

Bullgrit

 

[Umbran]

Here's where we get to the difference between "hard" science fiction, and the rest of the genre.

What it comes down to is this: if you're not going to do a good job of the science, don't explain it. Half-assed is bad. I'm perfectly willing to have you leave the science out entirely (like Babylon 5 did), or leave it at technobabble (like Trek). Wave your hand and say "it is nanotech!" just like Gandalf would say, "It's magic!" and I'm fine. But if you're going to speak real science terms, you better get them right.

The absolute most galling examples of this are where they *could* have used the real deal, but fail, and if they'd passed a thing in front of a science consultant, it would have been caught and corrected with absolutely no loss to the piece.

For example, I have the series "The 4400". In it, one character, having been missing for years, is returned to his life by whatever forces took him. He goes back to school. He has to write a paper for his biology class. And, clear as day in a couple shots is the front page of his paper, "The Mitosis Phase of Cell Division". Now, cell division does have phases. But "mitosis" is the name for the entire process, not for one of the phases. This was not plot relevant - it isn't like this paper holds the secret solution of a plot point, or something. They could have put a scientifically reasonable title on that damned paper, and chose not to.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

The explanation doesn't need to be accurate, although it helps, all that's really needed is for the handwavium to be internally consistent. It should also be well-thought out enough that it avoids stupidity.

At least that's my view on it.

 

[Janx]

I'm going to propose what is hopefully a different theory.

Generally speaking, I can look past wrong-science explanations. They really just don't bother me. I liked Star Gate and SG-1. I like Star Trek and all of its technobabble nonsense.

What I think is happening isn't the wrong-ness of the science. It's that you didn't like the movie and have found something that is indeed wrong, to point to as your reason.

There's been some studies that relate to perception of people and interviewing.

If I show you 10 seconds of a video from a candidate, vs. 10 minutes, your impression will be the same.

Your brain makes up its mind on first contact, and the rest of the time is spent justifying that decision.

As such, for 2 candidates who lack a skill you wanted, one candidate you'll dismiss because he doesn't know it, the other candidate you'll insist can learn it on the job.

I think a similar thing is happening with these movies. on some fundamental level, a person didn't like the movie. And they expend a great deal of energy detailing the flaws as justification for that.

Whereas, I can watch the same movie, and enjoy it while noticing the same flaws.

It's not the flaws.

 

[Umbran]

What I think is happening isn't the wrong-ness of the science. It's that you didn't like the movie and have found something that is indeed wrong, to point to as your reason.

Some folks may experience that phenomenon - that the science issue is either merely one aspect among several, or a rationalization after the fact of judgement. But, as a counterpoint I bring up my own point - I really liked The 4400! I went out and bought the DVDs so we can rewatch it. But, that one point of science, and a couple of others, were galling enough to lessen enjoyment.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

SWTOS > Trek for not explaining anything.

SWTPS < Trek for deciding to try to explain things.