12-04-2021, 06:15 AM
I am a Science Fiction fanatic and have been for most of my life. I am also trying to become a Science Fiction author, as I transition out of teaching. But I am getting quite frustrated about how little the laws of the Universe as we know them get into Science Fiction films. I am wondering, in fact, if many deserve the label 'Science Fiction' at all.
Plenty of things in recent times have annoyed me, from Carlton's drafting policies to the incredible stupidity of some of our former top politicians, but this one hurts me where I live, if you will. As my teaching career is slowing down and I head towards 'retirement', I have felt the urge to air some of my frustrations. Whether that is good or not, I can't really tell, but my feelings are heart-felt and they are supported by by knowledge as a teacher of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics.
When it comes to recruiting, I am an amateur who is not privy to all the information available. In this topic, I am a professional with 38 years experience.
What got a bee in my bonnet? After many years, I finally watched the remake of 'Total Recall' in full. I am not quite sure how I managed to watch it all, to be honest. It was that bad.
It wasn't the special effects: they've come a long way since Arnie's version of 'Total Recall'. It wasn't the acting, although I have read some complaints about that over the years. It was the plot. The plot to the original was not its strong point, but this version was a shocker.
Taking the colony on Mars out of the picture was a serious error. Having a society that is so technically advanced not being able to detoxify the planet, but able to travel through the core regularly is laughable. There was no obvious protective barrier between the 'no-zone' and the inhabitable parts of the planet. That was a shocker. The behaviour of the their gadget that goes through the core was laughable. A year 11 Physics student could tell them about the mistakes they made. That a pressure similar to that on the surface of our sun didn't squish them defies belief.
The basic premise is too stupid to work. It lacks the ability to believe it.
There were other plot elements that didn't make sense. For example, I cannot recall any time the the chief executive of a nation would physically lead an invasion on another state. Generals haven't done that for centuries, Presidents or PM's never have.
Honestly, had I plotted a story so ridiculous, it would deserve every rejection it got.
The original film used material from Phil Dick, an author who died in the 1960's. He was never good at Physics: he was a writer of the 'New Wave' where scientific accuracy was not as important as literary style. Even so, he produced a story that was reasonable, a story of a state seeking independence from another which was repressing it.
The Arnold Schwarzeneggar vehicle of 1990, directed by Paul Verhoeven, had its problems, but it wasn't the Physics so much. In fact, it had the best Mars effects of any film to that time. The only real problem it had on that level was the gravity: they couldn't afford or didn't think it important enough to worry about the way people moved and, especially, fall in 37% gravity.
The end was also a major problem: creating an atmosphere for Mars in a couple of minutes of screen time would have come close to shattering the planet. The force of the atmosphere escaping would have been like a jet engine, moving the entire planet out of orbit. Every person on the planet would have died in the shock wave, not use the breaking of a few windows.
Also, Arnie should die: once his body has experienced as much damage due to the lack of pressure on the surface of Mars, he would be in real trouble. He would, at least, need serious hospitalization.
I find I simply cannot list all of the Physics errors in the 2012 version. But the gadget to take people through the core was the Pièce de Résistance. The technology required to build such a thing would be incredible. It's behaviour while it is travelling through the planet, is mindboggling. There simply was nothing remotely believable about any of it
Now, I know I am picking on some of the worst cases here, but there is so much about modern SF that appears to be ignoring simple Newtonian Physics.
For example, one of my favourites of the recent SF is 'the Expanse'. It is a 6 season long saga based on a series of books, and it covers them a lot more closely than 'Game of Thrones' did after that 1st season. (For the record, I also loved Game of Throne and did before it came to TV). The characters feel their ships accelerating, for example. But even that plays fast and loose with something as simple as how long it takes to get from one planet to another. At least, it makes an attempt to address orbital mechanics. So many don't.
The last couple of Alien films, for example, don't even try. About the only thing they get right is the heat of entering the atmosphere.
Probably my all time favourite for getting the Physics right is '2001: A Space Odyssey'. I still show the scene where Dave enters the ship without his space helmet in class. It is brilliant. (I don't have to say that not taking his helmet is one of the stupidest things I can imagine. No sane astronaut would consider such a thing.) Since 1968, when 2001 was made, there has never been a scene that shows better the effect of being in vacuum for a short time.
So why has basic Physics being ignored so badly in film, where the film makers must know better?
Plenty of things in recent times have annoyed me, from Carlton's drafting policies to the incredible stupidity of some of our former top politicians, but this one hurts me where I live, if you will. As my teaching career is slowing down and I head towards 'retirement', I have felt the urge to air some of my frustrations. Whether that is good or not, I can't really tell, but my feelings are heart-felt and they are supported by by knowledge as a teacher of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics.
When it comes to recruiting, I am an amateur who is not privy to all the information available. In this topic, I am a professional with 38 years experience.
What got a bee in my bonnet? After many years, I finally watched the remake of 'Total Recall' in full. I am not quite sure how I managed to watch it all, to be honest. It was that bad.
It wasn't the special effects: they've come a long way since Arnie's version of 'Total Recall'. It wasn't the acting, although I have read some complaints about that over the years. It was the plot. The plot to the original was not its strong point, but this version was a shocker.
Taking the colony on Mars out of the picture was a serious error. Having a society that is so technically advanced not being able to detoxify the planet, but able to travel through the core regularly is laughable. There was no obvious protective barrier between the 'no-zone' and the inhabitable parts of the planet. That was a shocker. The behaviour of the their gadget that goes through the core was laughable. A year 11 Physics student could tell them about the mistakes they made. That a pressure similar to that on the surface of our sun didn't squish them defies belief.
The basic premise is too stupid to work. It lacks the ability to believe it.
There were other plot elements that didn't make sense. For example, I cannot recall any time the the chief executive of a nation would physically lead an invasion on another state. Generals haven't done that for centuries, Presidents or PM's never have.
Honestly, had I plotted a story so ridiculous, it would deserve every rejection it got.
The original film used material from Phil Dick, an author who died in the 1960's. He was never good at Physics: he was a writer of the 'New Wave' where scientific accuracy was not as important as literary style. Even so, he produced a story that was reasonable, a story of a state seeking independence from another which was repressing it.
The Arnold Schwarzeneggar vehicle of 1990, directed by Paul Verhoeven, had its problems, but it wasn't the Physics so much. In fact, it had the best Mars effects of any film to that time. The only real problem it had on that level was the gravity: they couldn't afford or didn't think it important enough to worry about the way people moved and, especially, fall in 37% gravity.
The end was also a major problem: creating an atmosphere for Mars in a couple of minutes of screen time would have come close to shattering the planet. The force of the atmosphere escaping would have been like a jet engine, moving the entire planet out of orbit. Every person on the planet would have died in the shock wave, not use the breaking of a few windows.
Also, Arnie should die: once his body has experienced as much damage due to the lack of pressure on the surface of Mars, he would be in real trouble. He would, at least, need serious hospitalization.
I find I simply cannot list all of the Physics errors in the 2012 version. But the gadget to take people through the core was the Pièce de Résistance. The technology required to build such a thing would be incredible. It's behaviour while it is travelling through the planet, is mindboggling. There simply was nothing remotely believable about any of it
Now, I know I am picking on some of the worst cases here, but there is so much about modern SF that appears to be ignoring simple Newtonian Physics.
For example, one of my favourites of the recent SF is 'the Expanse'. It is a 6 season long saga based on a series of books, and it covers them a lot more closely than 'Game of Thrones' did after that 1st season. (For the record, I also loved Game of Throne and did before it came to TV). The characters feel their ships accelerating, for example. But even that plays fast and loose with something as simple as how long it takes to get from one planet to another. At least, it makes an attempt to address orbital mechanics. So many don't.
The last couple of Alien films, for example, don't even try. About the only thing they get right is the heat of entering the atmosphere.
Probably my all time favourite for getting the Physics right is '2001: A Space Odyssey'. I still show the scene where Dave enters the ship without his space helmet in class. It is brilliant. (I don't have to say that not taking his helmet is one of the stupidest things I can imagine. No sane astronaut would consider such a thing.) Since 1968, when 2001 was made, there has never been a scene that shows better the effect of being in vacuum for a short time.
So why has basic Physics being ignored so badly in film, where the film makers must know better?
Live Long and Prosper!
