Top Ten Update

About a year ago, I posted an article was released on the top ten most scientifically inaccurate movies. Due to absurdities in films since then, the list has been updated. Check it out here!

I especially like the suggested solution for The Matrix.

Good, I always suspected Heart of the Dragon was scientifically accurate.

Heh, I find these lists fun. I think movies like these say much about the current general public’s knowledge. I’m no scientist, and I realized perfectly well that there’s no air in space for those explosions in “Star Wars” to sound so thunderous when I saw it as a kid. On the other hand, there’s such a thing as artistic license- and who wants to listen to silent space battles anyway? :wink:

Personally, I’m of the opinon that since we don’t really travel through space there could be elements that create explosions in space that are used for space flight.

Oh, thank goodness for this list. Without it, I would never have known that Indy 4 was scientifically inaccurate!

So, the list was updated due to only one film being released in the last year.

A film which isn’t meant to be taken seriously in any way and is a nod to pulp serials of a bygone era.


This kind of lists reminds me of an article that I came across a while ago, mentioning a relatively new SF sub-genre: Mundane SF claims to bring “the scientific rigor and intellectual honesty” to the genre.
The advocates of Mundane SF assert that most of the mainstream Sci-Fi tropes should be reassigned to the Fantasy genre. FTL, aliens, computer consciousness, immortality, mind uploading, teleportation, time travel could be incorporated in the same realms as dragons and magic.
And to follow the scientific rules, we are stuck within this solar system. Oh, how mundane…

Yeah, lists like these are ridiculous. The idea of science fiction is to create a fictional story or idea that involves science, whether it is true or not. For the most part, it is ridiculous science which doesn’t apply to reality, and for some reason some people think these movies should be factual. I can see where calling them fantasy instead of science fiction comes from, because it is fantasy , or at least someone’s fantasy, with the word fiction behind science. You’d think it would be obvious to someone that a movie about giant ants is not trying to be scientifically accurate, but rather entertain and possibly provide commentary on the time is came out, among others.

Thing about the Matrix is, originally we were going to have people in pods so their brains could be used by the Machines as a neural network to give them an awesome amount of processing power (which also explains how escapees are able to bend the rules of the Matrix by wanting really hard: human minds are being used to run the program in the first place), but the executives thought that the audiences wouldn’t understand it and forced the Wachowski brothers to change it. Which isn’t an excuse for the sequels, but …

As for audible explosions in space … I’ve heard the idea of a ship’s internal systems providing the SFX, for the benefit of the crew. I mean, which would you prefer: a battle in total silence, or being able to “hear” where shit’s coming from?

Isn’t that what “Hard SF” does? I’m not really into SF, but I thought these guys liked their science rigorous (or possible at least).

I would describe the Mundane SF as Near Future Ultra Hard type Science Fiction. With Hard SF you can still have FTL drives, or computer consciousness (HAL 9000), but for Mundane SF these are taboo subjects.

If you are interested, here is a certain point of view on the “Mundane Vs. Hard SF” split.

Ah, thanks for the info.