Witty

I recently browsed through a discussion forum for the new movie "The Core." The posters there seemed to be of two types: those who could not enjoy the movie because of all the glaring scientific inaccuracies, and those who told them to just shut up and enjoy the movie.

The ones who advocated suspension of disbelief mostly seemed unable to grasp just how jarring these inaccuracies are to the scientifically literate. Their arguments mostly seemed to be that it's fiction, so it doesn't matter if the science is right, wrong, or just plain ludicrous. It's a movie, and meant to entertain, and doesn't have to be accurate.

However, one wonders how incensed those people would be if they went to a football movie where the team discussed plays for getting more homeruns, players got penalty shots for being fouled, and the team wanted to win so they could get to the world championships in Wimbledon? After all, it's just fiction, so they shouldn't be bothered by "minor" inaccuracies in the film, right?

Scientifically literate people don't rip on these disaster blockbuster movies because they're being stuck up or snobbish. They rip on them because (to them) the inaccuracies are so glaring that they break the immersion in the movie, and don't allow them to enjoy it.

Comments?

Ab_Normal

I concur. Everytime there's a computer in a movie, I end up muttering under my breath, and my husband kicks me in the ankle.

elwoodblues

On an interesting note, apparently the producers of the film in question went to greater lengths than normal to keep the film scientifically accurate (relatively). Compared to most scifi movies out there, the science isn't entirely off-base in "The Core", even though it looks silly and stupid in the trailers.

But I haven't seen the movie myself; this is just second-hand from a number of sources.

bocajeff

For the scientifically literate (I'm not):

Are the scientific inaccuracies in a movie like Star Wars so glaring they take away from your suspension of disbelief?

Just wondering. Because I bet the quality of the movie has something to do with it. If the Core were good, with intriguing characters and plotlines, I bet the the scientifically literate wouldn't be so jarred by the inaccuracies. It just so happens that it sucks, and when someone isn't pulled into the world of the movie, then suspension of disbelief is nearly impossible.

beastmaster

I think audiences are willing to accept any deviations from reality provided that the deviations conform to a reasonably clear and internally consistent "story logic." The fact that Star Wars shows explosions and sounds in space don't bother us, because Star Wars sticks to a "logic" that is reasonably clear and internally consistent, even if it is not realistic.

From what I hear about the Core, it is not internally consistent (e.g., the heroes need a special craft to withstand the internal pressures of the Earth, but they wander outside the craft in ordinary space suits when they get to the center.)

I've seen other movies where the story logic is changed to conveniently permit any twist or turn. That's aggravating.

Huginn

It is perfectly possible both to be scientifically literate and not be bothered by scientific innacuracies in films.

I'm an arachnologist and I really enjoyed Eight-Legged-Freaks despite poor research (which I'm sure they did after they wrote the screenplay).

fando

There's a big difference between a movie that doesn't take science seriously and one whose central premise is heavily scientific and requires much suspension of disbelief to swallow. Star Trek and Star Wars don't take science seriously, they both center around human drama.

dangin

You mean like space craft making flight sounds in vacuum?

Or like spacecraft flying balistically in vacuum?

Or like han solo getting out of the Millenium Falcon in ESB with only a mouth cover connected to an air hose, but he is inside the throat of a space worm that lives in a vacuum.

bocajeff

Exactly. That scene in ESB has always bothered me, even when I was a kid. That and the lack of gravity.

But I guess it doesn't bother me too much since I'm a huge SW nut

Ensign Steve

I think another key difference between SW, ST and the like, vs. The Core or Armageddon or whatever, are that SW and ST are supposed to be either in the future or in a galaxy far far away. Maybe in the future we will invent devices that do things that are impossible with today's science. Maybe in a galaxy far far away, space is curved differently. The sound-in-space idea really bugs me, but the rest of it I can deal with.

But if a movie wants to take place in present-day Earth, or in the very near future, it had better be close to what I know about our current scientific laws and possibilities. It's harder to suspend my disbelief if the city on the screen looks just like the city outside. If you want me to suspend my disbelief, you had better transport* me to a fantasy world.

*no pun intended