Worst Movies for Science

[dystopian]

What about the film 2012? 2 hours of lava and exploding houses, all justified by the immortal lines

The neutrinos! They're mutating!

The comedian Bill Baily does a particularly good commentary on this.

Now I want to watch this commentary, but searching youtube for ´bill bailey 2012´ doesn´t exactly narrow it down...

 

[dystopian]

If they use more than two impossible-to-modern-science plot devices, we're into a fantasy world. Which works whether they're elves or Vulcans, magic or FTL, the Realm of the Gods or a hollow Earth....

I disagree with this definition, it would exclude the vast majority of far future sci-fi. I´d struggle to come up with an always applicable dividing line myself, though. It´s one of those ´I know fantasy when I see´ type deals I guess.

 

[barbos]

Any space based movie that does not explain how waste heat is removed in a vacuum and the unavoidable temperature rise cooking the crew is un realistic.

What seems to be the problem here?

 

[Keith&Co.]

If they use more than two impossible-to-modern-science plot devices, we're into a fantasy world. Which works whether they're elves or Vulcans, magic or FTL, the Realm of the Gods or a hollow Earth....

I disagree with this definition, it would exclude the vast majority of far future sci-fi.

I would suggest that depends on how you frame 'impossible.'
We have robots, so sentient robots may be a logical extrapolation.
We have spacecraft, so some form of space travel would be logical, not impossible.

I agree, that definition in 1940 would have made the X-files a Fantasy show, but then, it would also make any cop drama fantasy. Phones without wires? Computers that fit in a car? DNA analysis? Who builds worlds like this?

 

[steve_bnk]

Any space based movie that does not explain how waste heat is removed in a vacuum and the unavoidable temperature rise cooking the crew is un realistic.

What seems to be the problem here?

I don't have a problem with scifi films, I am questioning the premise of the op.

May The Farce Be With You.

 

[steve_bnk]

I remember there being a literary saying that there are only 3 or 4 basic plots.

Love being one of them.

Lord Of The Rings was really a story of fraternal love between a group of men. Strider the outsider finds his way back to wholeness, and gets the girl.


Star Wars was an update of the original western serial movies.

Solo has his native sidekick. Solo isthe morally gray gunslinger part outlaw who finds redemption in the end, and gets the girl

The emperor is the evil western land baron oppressing the simple farmers. With Vader as his number one gunslinger. Luke and company mount a peasant rebellion and the universe is set right.


Yoda the mystic warrior in thewilderness who imparts esoteric 'native wisdom' to Luke. And so on.


In scifi science provides plot devices.The original Star Trek series managed to address very sensitivesocial issues and got away with it. James Doohan said he got letters for years from people who were inspired by his character to go into science and engineering. ST certainly shaped my view of science.


Ursula Le Guin's Left Hand Of Danknessdealt with sexuality using scifi and probably could not have done it in may other form in the times.


Moon Is A Harsh Mistress was a study inhuman sociology and conflict.


There is a lot more to scifi as a medium than scientific accuracy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In general, it doesn't qualify as science fiction at all. It is space fantasy in my opinion.

I read some editorial in a scifi magazine. He divided science fiction from fantasy by the number of impossibilities.
A completely science-factual work would be a documentary, or a textbook. And it would be dated, as the impossible becomes possible fairly often.

If they take one impossible thing and see how the world would be different with that, it's science fiction. Say if they only add FTL travel, or aliens, or telepathy, matter transmission.

If they use more than two impossible-to-modern-science plot devices, we're into a fantasy world. Which works whether they're elves or Vulcans, magic or FTL, the Realm of the Gods or a hollow Earth....

I thought science fiction was supposed have a scientific avenue which addressed moral or social issues, The Time Machine for instance, looking at labor in the late 1800s and how it would shape our future. Contact looks into the social aspects of our first contact with an intelligent alien race.

 

[bilby]

Do many people still believe that we use only 10% of our brain? The idea is just so stupid for so many reasons.

Indeed, when someone brings this claim out I typically ask how well they think they would do if we removed 90% of their brain.

Peez

I suspect that for many of them, this has already happened.

 

[bilby]

I remember there being a literary saying that there are only 3 or 4 basic plots.

Love being one of them.

Lord Of The Rings was really a story of fraternal love between a group of men. Strider the outsider finds his way back to wholeness, and gets the girl.


Star Wars was an update of the original western serial movies.

Solo has his native sidekick. Solo isthe morally gray gunslinger part outlaw who finds redemption in the end, and gets the girl

The emperor is the evil western land baron oppressing the simple farmers. With Vader as his number one gunslinger. Luke and company mount a peasant rebellion and the universe is set right.


Yoda the mystic warrior in thewilderness who imparts esoteric 'native wisdom' to Luke. And so on.


In scifi science provides plot devices.The original Star Trek series managed to address very sensitivesocial issues and got away with it. James Doohan said he got letters for years from people who were inspired by his character to go into science and engineering. ST certainly shaped my view of science.


Ursula Le Guin's Left Hand Of Danknessdealt with sexuality using scifi and probably could not have done it in may other form in the times.


Moon Is A Harsh Mistress was a study inhuman sociology and conflict.


There is a lot more to scifi as a medium than scientific accuracy.

LOL at "Original western serial movies".

Guy with sword rescues princess - and you think 'Western' is the original form of that basic story?

Poor old Shakespeare. All those ideas in his head, and he had to wait three centuries for a setting. Still, it could be worse; the author of Beowulf had a thousand years to wait.

It is hard to think of a genre less original than the Western.

Holy crap, what do they do in American schools? 'Cos apparently 'teach' isn't high on the list.

 

[J842P]

I prefer the Bradley Cooper movie Limitless about the drug that allows him to access more of his brainpower. It just made him smarter and sharper, not a supernatural character.

I liked that movie, I should watch it again.

That said, I don't necessarily mind the whole "hidden superpowers in the brain" kind of movie if done properly. The 10% line just ruins it though.

Agreed. I don't mind the hidden superpowers in the brain trope, but that line just kills it for me.

 

[Emily Lake]

LOL at "Original western serial movies".

Guy with sword rescues princess - and you think 'Western' is the original form of that basic story?

Poor old Shakespeare. All those ideas in his head, and he had to wait three centuries for a setting. Still, it could be worse; the author of Beowulf had a thousand years to wait.

It is hard to think of a genre less original than the Western.

Holy crap, what do they do in American schools? 'Cos apparently 'teach' isn't high on the list.

They're all Arthurian Legends or Legends of Charlemagne in one form or other. If you pick up Bulfinch's Mythology, pretty much all the stories are in there already

 

[KeepTalking]

LOL at "Original western serial movies".

Guy with sword rescues princess - and you think 'Western' is the original form of that basic story?

Poor old Shakespeare. All those ideas in his head, and he had to wait three centuries for a setting. Still, it could be worse; the author of Beowulf had a thousand years to wait.

It is hard to think of a genre less original than the Western.

Holy crap, what do they do in American schools? 'Cos apparently 'teach' isn't high on the list.

They're all Arthurian Legends or Legends of Charlemagne in one form or other. If you pick up Bulfinch's Mythology, pretty much all the stories are in there already

The direct inspiration for Star Wars is said to be Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress. Interestingly enough, there are a number of westerns that are even more direct rip-offs of Kurosawa's Samurai flicks. And, Kurosawa's last film, Ran, was based on King Lear. There really are no new ideas when it comes to the movies.

In interest of bringing this back to the OP, I nominate Plan 9 From Outer Space. It's not just a bad sci-fi movie, it is one of the worst movies of any genre, ever.

 

[bilby]

They're all Arthurian Legends or Legends of Charlemagne in one form or other. If you pick up Bulfinch's Mythology, pretty much all the stories are in there already

The direct inspiration for Star Wars is said to be Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress. Interestingly enough, there are a number of westerns that are even more direct rip-offs of Kurosawa's Samurai flicks. And, Kurosawa's last film, Ran, was based on King Lear. There really are no new ideas when it comes to the movies.

In interest of bringing this back to the OP, I nominate Plan 9 From Outer Space. It's not just a bad sci-fi movie, it is one of the worst movies of any genre, ever.

I'll see your Plan 9 From Outer Space, and raise you a Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.

 

[doubtingt]

NOVA is sscience fact and theory at times stretching the speculations.

Science fiction, the key word is fiction.

No, "science" is central to the phrase because that defines the sub-genre of fiction that it is supposed to be, namely taking science and extending it to create yet unknown events, organism, worlds, futures, etc.. That is not the same as contradicting basic facts of science to create a surreal world than we know doesn't exist. The emotive and cognitive impact of sci-fi rests in its ability to pull you into the world and experience it as though its happening. When it centers upon things you glaringly know can't happen, then you don't get pulled in.

Any space based scifi movie that uses a light at the rear of a spaceship as an engine or has sound effects in a vacuum is unrealistic.

Sure, but those are tiny visual devices with no central importance to the plot, premise, or characters.

Any space based movie which has those wonderful FTL engines without an apparent energy source is unrealistic.
Any space based movie that does not explain how waste heat is removed in a vacuum and the unavoidable temperature rise cooking the crew is unrealistic.

Most or all scifi space based movies violate the laws of conservation in some form.

Again, how central these things are to the plot and characters determines their impact. That's why I actually get more annoyed by violations of psychological plausibility than physics, technology, etc.. Psychological implausibility undermines the actions of the characters which are almost always the center of the movie and its plot.
Also, failure to explain something is not as bad or detracting as asserting a clear falsehood, and falsehood are even worse when it something you know is false but also know that many people wrongly believe is true and is often claimed in real life.
It would be like a movie whose central premise is requires you to believe that evolution requires total randomness and that the Earth really is only 6,000 years old. It would understandably ruin it even for people who generally enjoy sci-fi and even absurd fantasy about novel made up worlds. Its one thing for an idea in a movie to be wrong, but another for it to be a wholly unoriginal, widespread falsehood believed and touted by numerous imbeciles. The 10% thing qualifies.

 

[barbos]

The direct inspiration for Star Wars is said to be Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress. Interestingly enough, there are a number of westerns that are even more direct rip-offs of Kurosawa's Samurai flicks. And, Kurosawa's last film, Ran, was based on King Lear. There really are no new ideas when it comes to the movies.

In interest of bringing this back to the OP, I nominate Plan 9 From Outer Space. It's not just a bad sci-fi movie, it is one of the worst movies of any genre, ever.

I'll see your Plan 9 From Outer Space, and raise you a Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.

"Santa Claus Conquers the Martians" is better worst movie than Plan 9?
I need to watch it then.

 

[doubtingt]

Ironically, modern neuroscience often shows that superior cognitive performance arises from reduced activation in much of the brain relative to the brain regions needed for optimal and undistracted performance on that particular task.

Anyone with full activation of the whole brain would be a blithering idiot incapable of coherent thought or action, and likely having seizures.

 

[bilby]

I'll see your Plan 9 From Outer Space, and raise you a Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.

"Santa Claus Conquers the Martians" is better worst movie than Plan 9?

I think so. YMMV.

- - - Updated - - -

Ironically, modern neuroscience often shows that superior cognitive performance arises from reduced activation in much of the brain relative to the brain regions needed for optimal and undistracted performance on that particular task.

Anyone with full activation of the whole brain would be a blithering idiot incapable of coherent thought or action, and likely having seizures.

Yeah, but Jim Carey already made that movie.

 

[doubtingt]

"Santa Claus Conquers the Martians" is better worst movie than Plan 9?

I think so. YMMV.

- - - Updated - - -

Ironically, modern neuroscience often shows that superior cognitive performance arises from reduced activation in much of the brain relative to the brain regions needed for optimal and undistracted performance on that particular task.

Anyone with full activation of the whole brain would be a blithering idiot incapable of coherent thought or action, and likely having seizures.

Yeah, but Jim Carey already made that movie.

Ha!! Reminds me of this joke about Vin Diesel movies.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I can only hope with the success of the movie Gravity, that they will stick to the science more in The Martian.

Interesting that you should say that about Gravity, because it was one of the least scientifically accurate movies that I have ever seen, with virtually every critical plot element requiring the physically impossible to occur.

 

[Emily Lake]

Interesting that you should say that about Gravity, because it was one of the least scientifically accurate movies that I have ever seen, with virtually every critical plot element requiring the physically impossible to occur.

Really? Oh do enlighten me! I saw it... but I was actually kind of bored to death by it. I was too busy trying to be a good guest and not fall asleep, and apparently I don't know enough physics to have caught the faux pas. I sort of assumed that part of it's tedium was due to it being far too realistic.