Science Fiction and Fans’ Logic

Nitpicking movies, or TV series, is fun. Some people spare some of their time just to point out some small part, often times unimportant, sometimes crucial, just to breathe free from the itch to tell the logic, or the science, behind the presented ‘flaws’. It is a part of the fun. I follow many movie goers, sci-fi addict who like to do that. I always watch new clips from Cinemasins or Honest Trailer. What I enjoy the most usually the problem with the science, such as what Neil deGrasse Tyson do to Interstellar

However, it makes me think again about science fiction genre. Was it this way back then? How was it, the old science fiction? I have not got the luxury to read many of old science fiction, because I did not have many resources back then when I was still in Indonesia, and my English only recently improved. But I know that there are famous name such as Jules Verne, H.P. Lovecraft, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and Isaac Asimov. And I also know that there are books like Frankenstein, John Carter of Mars, or Alice in Wonderland. So forgive me if my next remarks is utterly rubbish. I’m open to any correction, and, please, introduce me more.

So, I’m studying Science Education, and happened to encounter C.P. Snow’s writing that inspired me to write this (and a conversation in twitter about Legends of Tomorrow arguably plot hole related to Atom’s Suite technology): The Two Culture. Basically this is one of many writing that contribute to ideas about the dividend between science and non-science. In this writing, he mentioned about H.G. Wells contribution on literature: The Time Machine. At that time in the late 1800s, as vague as I could remember, not that I was there, in England, Science could be seen as a hobby, eccentric field, exclusive, by which only certain people understand and care. Meanwhile, literature was praised more in society, which at that time was a mix of story and knowledge.

Despite not being regarded enough in literature community, as Snow was upset and criticise about, Wells’s imagination was one of those which beyond the capability science achievement. In similar genre in the same era, Alice’s Adventure in Wonderland is also another thing science-y, the concept of the Wonderland is about another dimension. Frankenstein, bringing back the dead. I, Robot, is basically about AI. It might be considered horror stories or mere fantasy, but it is science fiction, and all of them are imagination.

Come a little bit earlier, we have Star Trek for example. By that time, only USS Enterprise have such phenomenal communication devices. It was still impossible for watchers at home to actually have the real thing. But now everyone is busy with their own communicator. Even Harry Potter’s magically crafted Cloak of Invisibility has been developed by the technology.

How was it? It was fun. It does not need to be very accurately scientific, but readers and viewers remember it. It becomes a dream. It might influence some people to actually work on the impossible science in the stories. It is the catalyst for tomorrow’s achievement.

How about now?

Some people were very uneasy about scientific inaccuracy. So bad, to the point that movie makers consulted to physicist firsthand to make sure that they got the science right. For example, Interstellar is said to be the most scientifically accurate movie. To be fair, that is what Nolan wants, since he is a huge physic fan. However, before that, there was Gravity, which also have many scientific explanation. I just wonder though, if this is what our future science fiction going to be, the result would be people with brain fairly satisfied and casual movie-goers be like ‘what was it I watched?’.

I won’t be too surprised if the story then go to oblivion.