A bunch of my SiBlings have been considering which science gets the rawest deal from makers of science fiction movies (and writers of science fiction stories).
I’ve been reflecting about it a bit, and I think maybe my needs when it comes to science fiction are pretty simple.
When I consume science fiction, I’m not looking for an entertainment that will blow my mind with the weirdness of its technology, or of its flora and fauna. For that, I can find what I need by looking at what actual technologies are being created, and what flora and fauna are being discovered either in remote bits of our world or in the fossil record.
Indeed, when the makers of science fiction go into a lot of detail about the wild new capabilities in their fictional world, trying to show us how very smart they are with the scientific grounding for these gizmos, they tend to lose the suspension of disbelief I was prepared to spot them at the beginning. It’s often more effective, in my view, to just specify that in this story, people can do X, rather than trying to sell us on the plausibility of an explanation for how they can do X.
What I find more interesting, frankly, is how relatively small technological advances from where we are right now could have big impacts on the way we live. Gattaca and Never Let Me Go both fall into this category for me. It makes it easier to get involved in the story if you can imagine yourself in that world — or if you can see a trajectory by which your world could become that world.
And really, if science fiction writers and filmmakers feel the need to take some element of our existing world and change it up completely, can I suggest that basic reworking of societal structures are far more intriguing (and potentially plausible) than just screwing with the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology? Put us in a world with characters recognizable as humans who are interacting with each other in significantly different ways. Not only will this set us to wondering what our humanity amounts to, deep down, but it will hold off the nitpicking from the astrophysicists and the physiologists.
Max Headroom, perhaps?
I always thought the most interesting part of sci-fi was the “what if” aspect. It seems to me that the best stories are about the people involved, so in sci-fi the story is about how people respond to the technologies/science that exist in their world. It provides a laboratory for human reaction to science and technology that do not now, and may never, exist. The stories tend to be scarier if the technology is more realistic and seemingly with-in our grasp, but I am perfectly willing to suspend belief and not worry how so many habitable moons and planets can orbit the same star, if I can watch Nathan Fillion and Adam Baldwin while I do it.
Additionally, I’ve always thought it interesting as to what exactly qualifies for sci-fi status. Fahrenheit 451 is suppose to be classic sci-fi, but there isn’t any real science driving the plot (to my rusty recollection), but then you turn around and have something like Jurassic Park where the science premise (cloning dinosaurs) is what supplies the plot line. Yet they can both be considered sci-fi. And then there is the whole stigma associated with the label, which is apparently a death knell for anything hoping to achieve mainstream status/success (cough *Lost* cough). Just my $0.02.
I agree, the closer and more familiar the sci-fi world is to us, the more impact it has. Good science fiction isn’t about aliens in the future, it’s about humans in the present (even if it uses aliens in the future to make its point sometimes). I would add “Primer”, “Children of Men”, and “Infest Wisely” to your list.
Philosophers in Science Fiction.
I rather enjoyed the scene of “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure” (1989) in which Keanu Reeves as Ted Logan and Alex Winter as Bill S. Preston, Esq., go back two millennia in the time machine of George Carlin as Rufus, to meet (and kidnap) Tony Steedman as Socrates. They address Socrates as “So Crates” and act out the opening verse of the song “Dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind” by Kansas. Socrates gets excited — is he thinking about Democritus and the Atomic Hypothesis? Who knows?
This fine and brilliantly written film (writers: Chris Matheson and Ed Solomon) is deeply philosophical; and we rather like the portrayal of Socrates.
There are plenty of Science Fiction films with Technocrat/philosophers and Prophet philsophers, and Jesus Christ (allegedly the greatest Philosopher according to George W. Bush). Are there other examples?
May I suggest: Polaris, by Jack McDevitt.
Sci-fi, even the bad stuff, offers an opportunity to open a discussion about science: what it is, who does it, and how it works. We can also talk about the role of sci-fi, which occasionally explores but more often exploits fears about science and technology. For example, take Spider Man. In the original Marvel comics version, Peter Parker gains his powers after being bitten by a radioactive spider. In the wake of the nuclear bombs dropped during WWII, fears centered on mutually assured destruction and radioactive mutants. Hence, Spider Man as another unforeseen consequence of our nuclear tinkering. In the newer version, Peter is bitten by a genetically modified spider – and where are our fears focused today? GMOs.
Like I mentioned earlier, sci-fi can also be used to launch discussions of the current state of the real science featured in the film. For Spider man, obvious topics are such as genetic engineering (for example, the production of human insulin by E. coli) and gene therapy.
One more example. There are a lot of stereotypes surrounding scientists, and while these are fun to play with, most of them are fairly negative. In discussing who does science, I think Real Genius provides a nice range of archetypes. While exaggerated in the film, I have met milder forms of many of these characters in real life: Jerry Hathaway as the elitist ivory tower dweller; Mitch Taylor and Kent as well-meaning and sniveling (respectively) socially inept nerds; and Chris Knight as a multi-dimensional scientist with a sense of humor and (gasp!) social skills! While scientists are smart, we’re not all superior snobs or bumbling bookworms. To quote Chris Knight, “You know, all brain, no penis.”
The list goes on, but I think some great discussions could be initiated, particularly between scientists and non-scientists, by going from “that would never happen!” to “here’s what it’s REALLY like.” As Dr. Free-Ride notes, reality is often more interesting than fiction in that respect.
I’m with the Argonaut. Except I’d go a step further. Science fiction is probably the best PR science (if not scientists) could have. Yes, it’s often inaccurate, but it sparks curiosity about what would really happen or what theoretically could happen in the future. I can’t tell you how many fields of science or scientific theories I became interested in because I saw something in a sci fi movie or television show or read about it in a science fiction short story or novel. If you watch Trekkies and Trekkies 2, you’ll see quite a few scientists talking about how they fell went into science in large part because of Star Trek. Books like “The Physics of Star Trek” or “The Science of Star Wars” provide a great link between the imaginary worlds we love and the real world we live in. We sci fi nerds really love to hear about how it really works or would work or wouldn’t work, as long as we can still suspend disbelief for a moment while 7 of 9 is on the screen.
I recently saw “Children of Men” and (apparently like pete above^) I think it is one of the best Sci-fi movies I have seen in a while.
The “science” in sci-fi, to me, means a responsibility to reality. I can grant a few breaks for the sake of the set-up, but you need to stay grounded.
For me, the most compelling sci-fi is treated like a period piece. Meaningful technology is ubiquitous and requires no exposition.
I always think of Philip Dick when on this topic: even though he created some totally laugable stories (amatuerish even) the “sci-” was always completely mundane. His was the Future of suburbia. The 3.50 phone call from the space station; the coffee-tea-or-me en route to mars. I think this is why his work influenced so many other more known writers.
Perhaps our workaholic culture has some of the blame–other grad students claim that they don’t have time to read which sort of makes me feel bad for ever having my nose buried in a book.
I hear that. I get that from a couple of men I work with – it’s like they’re extra cool for staying up all night, for doing something unnecessary but supadupa technical, for being hyperactive online trivia readers. As if it somehow isn’t good to try to get enough rest, read a book, try to be thoughtful and efficient instead of caffeinated.
All I want from science fiction
I agree, I read/watch for more than the mile-a-minute gee whiz. I’m more interested in how current or near-current innovations might change our culture, laws, and interactions.
I think that’s true of many people. I’ve been looking at some NSF and NEA survey data on reading genre fiction. The NSF found that those who aren’t interested in science/technology aren’t likely to read *most* sci fi, but they *will* watch Star Trek and X-Files. To me, that says that the human dimension or a suspense storyline will get people to cross over into sci fi even if the whiz bang doesn’t do it for them.
Hope I didn’t just leave you a non-sequitur comment. I had 2 windows open, and I thought I saw something from another blog paste into this comment box just as I hit Send.