Spider Star
The human colony on the planet Argo has long explored and exploited the technology left behind by an extinct alien race. But then an archaeology team accidentally activates a terrible weapon...
Read More.Praise for Star Dragon
"Seldom does a storytelling talent come along as potent and fully mature as Mike Brotherton. His complex characters take you on a voyage that is both fiercely credible and astonishingly imaginative. This is Science Fiction."
-- David Brin"Star Dragon is terrific fare, offering readers a fusion of hard science and grand adventure."
-- Locus Magazine"Star Dragon is steeped in cosmology, the physics of interstellar travel, exobiology, artificial intelligence, bioscience. Brotherton, author of many scientific articles in refereed journals, has written a dramatic, provocative, utterly convincing hard science sf novel that includes an ironic twist that fans will love."
-- Booklist starred review"Readers hungry for the thought-provoking extrapolation and rigorous technical detail of old-fashioned hard SF are sure to enjoy astronomer Brotherton's first novel."
-- Publishers Weekly"Mike Brotherton, himself a trained astrophysicist, combines the technical acuity and ingenuity of Robert Forward with the ironic, postmodern stance and style of M. John Harrison. In this, his debut novel, those twin talents unite to produce a work that is involving on any number of levels. It's just about all you could ask for in a hardcore SF adventure."
-- Paul di Fillippo, SCI-FI.COM
Search
Top Ten Science-Based Sci-Fi Movies
January 8th, 2008
Every top ten list is biased, and so is this one. My particular biases are that the movies have to strive for, and achieve most of the time, scientific accuracy. At least nothing too grossly wrong, and some instances of, “yeah, that’s not intuitive but that’s how it would work!” I’ll limit my list to the physical sciences and space-oriented movies. There are many fine movies that won’t make the list simply because they skimp on the science in one way or another, or I’ve never seen them. Apollo 13 was very scientifically accurate, but that’s a historical movie, not science fiction.
Here’s the list in chronological order, with a few words of explanation.
Destination Moon (1950). This movie was made with the involvement of the space community of the day and Robert Heinlein who wrote the story it was based on. Special effort was made for scientific accuracy and they got a lot of things right. Probably the biggest mistake was proposing that only private industry, not the government, would make it to the moon.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). A classic, and probably the film closest to error free in terms of the science. There wasn’t any sound in space, and gravity was supplied by rotation in a realistic fashion. Lots of good details that were right. Credit Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrik for listening and caring.
Alien (1979). Let’s give this one credit for also knowing that “In space no one can hear you scream.” This film isn’t heavy on the science, but we have slower than light vehicles that take many years to travel between the stars requiring humans to use hibernation. A planet with an unbreathable atmosphere requires air masks, as used, and not full space suits.
2010 (1984). Not as visually stunning or powerful (or slow) as 2001, but good science throughout, particularly with respect to working in freefall and vacuum environments.
Aliens (1986). This movie gets a lot of the same things right that the original did, along with having a smart plot and appropriate use of technology. One of my favorite films to boot.
Predator (1987). There were two great things in this movie. No, not future governors! Two nice science things. The first is the idea of an alien that sees in a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and having that actually play a role in the plot. The second was the camo suit, which is a technology we’re likely to develop this century at close to that level of effectiveness.
The Abyss (1989). This fine movie takes place underwater rather than in outer space, but it’s an alien contact story. A lot of the details of this exotic environment are treated correctly and play roles in the plot. I first watched this in Greg Bear’s basement at a party and it was fascinating to hear him give his commentary on some scenes. Another great Cameron film (but be sure to see the director’s cut).
Contact (1997). Probably the second-best movie on the list in terms of scientific accuracy. There are a few minor errors in it, but it gets so many things right including some concepts tough to convey to an audience. Credit Carl Sagan for helping here.
Deep Impact (1998). OK, this movie I didn’t love. I mean, we’re supposed to find sympathetic an annoying reporter vying for the first question at a presidential press conference? Some minor scientific errors here, but they tried and succeeded in getting a lot of things right, too.
Red Planet (2000). I was kind of surprised to see this movie on my list. While this isn’t a bad movie, it just goes to show how few movies out there are really based in science and make it part of the story. In any event, they did a good job with gravity on the space craft, fire in freefall, Martian gravity, and more. Taking along a robot with a “military mode” is just kind of dumb, but not bad science.
The much longer list of science fiction movies with bad science includes almost every space-based movie I haven’t mentioned, and most others. Armageddon currently holds a special place in my heart for its mind-numbing scientific ignorance and I use it for instruction in my Launch Pad Workshop. I’d like to recommend Phil Plait’s great website Bad Astronomy for reviews of science in some of these movies and many others.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
‘A planet with an unbreathable atmosphere requires air masks, as used, and not full space suits.’
Wha? Full space suits WERE used, since the planet was so cold…which seemed to be one of the things Aliens got wrong.
needs moar Core.
They wore a full spacesuit in Alien. In Aliens, which takes place something like 40 years later, the planet had been half-terraformed, so they only had to wear the facemask, and that was just for the dust and dirt flying around. (The marines, when they landed, didn’t use masks, IIRC.) Remember, the whole plot of Aliens centered around the terraforming colony and their atmospheric generator reactor machine thing.
The Director’s Cut of the Abyss is terrible. The best thing the studio did is cut out the cliche, telegraphed, “oh the aliens are here to make us all get along and be happy” plot stolen from… every other goddamned sci-fi movie ever made, back to The Day the Earth Stood Still. I’m sorry, the theatrical cut is much better.
The science in the Alien movies was pretty bad. Sure, they had slower than light spacecraft and cryo-stasis, but then why was ripley so shocked at having been drifting in space for 50-odd years?
Also, what kind of effective rescue mission did they hope to undertake on a planet that was so far away they would have to go into suspended animation to get there? Why didn’t Newt grow up in the intervening time?
Good movies, bad science.
Great idea (the making of this list). I actually pay major attention to the science in the SF movies, and feel very nervous about silly and pathetic explanations 😀
Whatever happened to Minority Report? Just saw a Discovery documentary where scientists commented on the viable technologies. Then again, it might just not be one of your favs. Nice list, though.
Great list, Mike. Now that you’re on my radar as a hard sci-fi writer, I’m going to have to read one of your books!
gosh its been awhile but i believe you will find that in 2001 the spaceship was at titan (goes around saturn) in 2010 they go after the same craft which somehow now got itself in obit around jupiter. Great science there
Minority Report got a lot of things right. That finger-operated computer that Tom Cruise uses with those nifty gloves? That was shown at the annual ACM SIGGRAPH conference in 2005. It’s real, and it’s being developed right now.
In 2001 it was indeed a mission to Jupiter, in fact one of the screen captions near the end is “Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite” or something similar. Titan doesn’t enter into it at all.
Yeah, I blew it a little on Alien, misremembering the suit type (just rewatched it on Halloween, too). But what was in my mind was that it was okay, relatively speaking, for John Hurt’s mask to be eaten away like that and for him to be exposed since it wasn’t vaccuum. And to tell the truth, I was hurting to find movies with much good science in them at all. Minority Report I thought of, and liked as it does do a lot of things right, but the whole seeing the future thing didn’t strike me as scientific enough to let it on.
As for more Core…it seems too easy to make a list of the movies with the worst science ever, but maybe I’ll try. But do I have to really watch them?
Yes, you have to watch all of them. At my house. With booze.
I’m blogging over at http://www.sfnovelists.com on Thursday and think I’ll do a revised version of this list, letting Minority Report and movie to be named bump off the Aliens…
And if I really have to watch all the bad movies, Jeremy, I will need a *lot* of booze.
No ‘Sunshine’? While the ignighting the sun with nukes is kind of ‘meh’ science-wise I thought they nailed it for the rest of the movie.
Plus, where the heck is ‘Primer’, one of the smartest sci-fi films ever made.
Didn’t see Primer or Sunshine. I was convinced by the premise I’d dislike Sunshine. Primer is on my list to see and sounds like a movie to bump off an alien or two…
I think the movie Gattaca (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/) could make a good partner to Minority Report in filling out your list. It isn’t a space movie, but I think it was a good flick, and it’s science is too real for comfort.
@robin
the book for 2001 took place around saturn, the movie was jupiter. when clarke wrote 2010 he worked the story off of the screenplay for 2001.
if you ever get a chance read 2061, i thought it was really good. i bought 3001 when it came out but never finished it reading, eventually i will get around to it.
I liked Gattaca a lot, and think it’s a really good science fiction movie. I decided to bias my list toward the physical sciences, and just didn’t think the treatment of spaceflight/astronaut training was a large enough or interesting enough part of the movie. But yeah, probably a better choice than Aliens.
I also read 2061 (which I liked) but not 3001.
Concerning Alien and Aliens:
The biggest scientific continuity problem between the two films is gravity on planet OU812, or whatever it was called. In Alien, there is a great effects shot of water melting off an alien egg caused by heat radiation from a suit helmet light. The suit in question is worn by that one dude who three seconds later takes the facehugger, and then has a bad spaghetti incident. The water drips up. Yet when they land on the planet in Aliens, it is raining. I don’t know enough physics to say wether the water melting up shot made sense in the first place, but the planet seems to have gained enough mass to have water fall in the second picture. Problem.
As to slower than light travel, I suppose that is implied by the crew cryo sleeping. It is not explicitly discussed. There is a line of dialogue in Aliens saying that the crew of the Sulaco could expect a rescue 17 days after being declared overdue. Also, the economics of heavy industry in the culture would be quite different from our Just In Time Delivery models.
Kudos to Jim Cameron for not arming his marines with Ray Guns.
There are a lot of good, science-based, terrestrial sci-fi movies like The Andromeda Strain. For ones in space, how about Silent Running? And Mission to Mars was nicely scientific until the ending, when it took off for something else.
Charles Stross makes a pretty good case that interstellar travel is energetically impossible, which rules out any movie with extrasolar aliens.
[…] is a revised version of a list I posted on my blog a couple of days ago that was also farked. I was convinced that the Alien and Aliens movies had a […]
To the posted who commented about bad science in Aliens, it seems to me from reading the Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual and even just watching the movie, that the cryosleep was for a rather brief period and mostly intended just to deal with the effects of traveling in FTL.
It’s supposed to have been a few months for Newt, though.
My own personal list would include QUATERMASS AND THE PIT, known in North America as FIVE MILLION YEARS TO EARTH. The main characters — a physicist and a paleontologist — are believably portrayed scientists, hard working but hardly dashing; the science is mostly realistic; the politics of science (funding, and the relationship to the military) are touched on; and it’s a great film to boot.
Nice comments, Lawrence. Aliens has a lot of good stuff. A 17-day rescue delay implies FTL for sure, which is consistent with Joshua’s comment. The effect with the water has to be a mistake or misinterpretation in the first movie I would guess.
Good to see you here, Rob. I have not seen the movie you mention, but it sounds really interesting and I’d like to. I’ll have to dig it up.
Matte, Charlie Stross is wrong on interstellar travel being energetically impossible, but I haven’t looked at his arguments. One could only make such a statement by parroting someone narrow-minded, not thinking about the issue realistically, or, most likely in Charlie’s case, putting some constraints on the problem that I wouldn’t. I’d be interested in seeing his argument, though. You might want to check out Gerry Nordley’s non-fiction for a very different perspective: http://www.gdnordley.com/_files/published_nf.html
And Silent Running I haven’t seen in years, but did record recently to rewatch. That’s another candidate. Andromedra Strain is more biology than physical science, so I’d be less likely to put it on one of my lists (although it’s been years since I’ve seen it either).
‘PRIMER’ was a great film. Not just because it was true hard-science fiction and fascinating from a shot-from-the-hip documentary style kind of way, but because the guy made the film for like $7000.00 with some friends. I really find it hard to believe that BLADERUNNER didnt make the list. An incredible amount of molecular biology, and genetic engineering went into that one. Even the Voight Kampf machine had a scientific explanation (pheramones in the breath, hence the breathing mechanism). Plus I think its the greatest sci-fi of all time. I just have to stick up for a few more films, simply because the Alien films made the list for scientific ‘accuracy’. SERENITY (Love you Joss Whedon), CHILDREN OF MEN, EVENT HORIZON, and ANDROMEDA STRAIN.
Dont forget, EXISTENZ, TIMECOP, COMMUNION, and TRON. Just kidding…
You’re right, Stross doesn’t say interstellar travel is impossible. He says it would require some kind of “seemingly-magical technology” that appears to “play fast and loose with the laws of physics” as we know them.
Stross’ essay is at
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html
And yes, Andromedra Strain is indeed more biology than physical science. Does that mean it’s not science fiction?
Thanks for the link, Matt. I may well blog about some of these issues soon.
And my list was intentionally biased toward physical sciences. I’d like to see a biologist come up with a similar list. I’d guess Gattaca might be at the top.
Heh. I agree with most of Charlie’s facts (and probably have a better understanding of them), and they make me OPTIMISTIC. He up front says its possible. That’s a huge leap from 50 years ago before we’d put things even in orbit, or 40 years ago when we went to the moon. And some of his suggestions about how to do it are reasonable. I just don’t see why he has a particular pessimistic feel to his essay (e.g., I am not to care about the future extinction of humankind simply because I won’t be there? C’mon dude.). Maybe too many encounters with Star Trek fans?
And colonizing Mars, for instance, won’t be easy, but it’s certainly reasonably plausible, and likely, on long-enough time scales.
I’ll read through the mountain of comments and blog about these issues myself next week.
Crap…825 comments to Charlie’s post over there. Damn. And I see he’s particularly responding to right-wing libertarian types, which explains some of his editorial slant.
[…] is a revised version of a list I posted on my blog a couple of days ago that was also farked. I was convinced that the Alien and Aliens movies had a […]
The medical science in The Abyss was cringe making awful. Instead of holding her breath for as long as she could while he hauled her thru the water, they wait till she drowns first then they take off. When they get back on board, she’s wet, he’s wet, everybody is kneeling in water and they shock her heart! They would all have gotten the jolt. Then, when resuscitation doesn’t work, she is brought back to life by being shouted at and called a “cast iron bitch.”
The science in Sunshine was awful. Cold is the least of your worries when exposed to a hard vacuum – just ask anyone who has ever scuba dived. Gravity doesn’t magically come on when an air lock is closed. For that matter, if you are under 1G then you’d have to be accerating towards the sun at about 27G because the gravity of the sun is about 28G. I guess you could be spiralling down but no mention was made of this. Surely, it would be a lot easier to do away with the life-support equipment and send an unmanned craft.
[…] Top Ten Science-Based Sci-Fi MoviesTen Superpowers You Can Have NowThe Hard SF Writer’s BookshelfWhy don’t more girls dress up as Phoenix???Some of my favorite quotes…Science and Science Fiction: The Cold EquationsA Cheat Sheet for Space TravelFive qualities required to be a Scientist…Learning a Language with Rosetta StoneAstro Round-Up […]
My reply ,is not on this published list..well I want to find out a movie’s name ,which I had seen 10 years ago..I know this sounds strange….but I want the name of that movie..I can explain plot of that movie ,it goes like this, an army officer needs to go critical surgery of his brain,and for that they plan a brave mission
they shrink a team of doctors and injects that team into his body.then whole team faces lots of hurdells but in the end ,they come out of it with positive result..well it is thrilling…I dnt remember any name of cast..sorry for so little information..but if anybody had seen it ..please come up wit the name
Mandar, is it FANTASTIC VOYAGE?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060397/
Watch Primer and The man from earth. Now!
Dude Gattaca, it is pretty right on about the bioethics of genetics.
[…] Things I Hate About Science FictionTop Ten Science-Based Sci-Fi MoviesOutside the Ghetto and the Ghastly Example of Michael CrichtonTen Superpowers You Can Have NowThe […]
I don’t understand how you can so blythely dismiss
Mr Clarkes axiom, In 1900 my grand father was driving a horse and buggy, if you were to go up to him and say…In the next 100 years a man will walk on the moon, there will be two major world wars, man will fly and fly faster than the speed of sound, the concept of moving pictures, telephones, radio, TV, computers, the list could go on, All of it would have been magic to him, yet he grew old through it all, he died in 93. So just imagine what is in store for us in the next 100 years, never mind a possible alien life that could be centuries ahead of us in technology alone. That sounds like magic to me. Why can’t you all read Science Fiction for what it is…escapism. It is fiction, fiction means it doesn’t have to be true. Suspend your belief and read it at face value, if you read other genre do you think they are all true? I mean if you don’t like a book why finish reading it? if you don’t like a movie get up and walk out, why suffer through it? And especially why would you do it a second time??? Just my rant.
[…] Things I Hate About Science FictionTop Ten Science-Based Sci-Fi MoviesOutside the Ghetto and the Ghastly Example of Michael CrichtonTen Superpowers You Can Have NowThe […]
Ummmmm….. there is NO FINER Science Fiction movie than BLADERUNNER… period. Watch it again, then vote…. a visionary movie that inspires over all others. From Vangelis Academy Award Winning Sound Score, to Harrison Ford’s outstanding performance, to a extremely technologically advanced movie effects for its time, there is NO finer movie.
Time plays a factor in a movies standing also – Stanley Kubricks 2001 a Space Odyssey was just as awesome in its day and age as BLADERUNNER. They cannot be compared, its unfair, but to list Alien as a better movie than BLADERUNNER – no way!!!
Bob, Blade Runner is not a strong science-based film (the focus of this list), but is very much one of my favorites and tops my personal list, the link to which escapes me at the moment…
What have you against Bladerunner? Just because it’s conceit of what might be done with genetics is hard to believe makes it no less ‘hard’ SF than any other SF story that begins with some fantastic idea.
Whether or not you think a story is good, the characters well developed, or the plot credible is beside the point of whether or not a SF film treats it’s proposed science and new technology with respect, is honest about the consequences and doesn’t ignore implications relevant to the plot.
Bladerunner is all about the implications of it’s propose technology to the plot.
Whether the films nay good is beside thep oint of whether it’s ‘hard’. Deep Impact is decently hard SF but a lousy film.
A lot of 1930’s SF films are good hard SF – even though they were often wrong and flawed other ways. ‘Things to come’ wasn’t even that wrong in it’s predictions.
Some movies that I think are hard SF…
Primer
The Handmaid’s Tale
Things to come
Gattaca
Forbidden Planet
The Abyss
Contact (the list isn’t ‘good’ SF)
The Day the Earth Stood Still
Destination Moon
Marooned
Deep Impact (still isn’t ‘good’ SF)
Bladerunner
Primer
The Handmaid’s Tale
Things to come
Gattaca
Forbidden Planet
The Abyss
Contact (the list isn’t ‘good’ SF)
The Day the Earth Stood Still
Destination Moon
Marooned
Deep Impact (still isn’t ‘good’ SF)
Bladerunner
Frankenstein (yeah, there’s a reason these two are together)
Island of Dr Moreau
War of the worlds
And I don’t think Red Planet is – there’s too much incredulous nonsense in that film to maintain a pretence the authors considered the consequences of their science and technology.
Got nothing against Blade Runner. It’s one of my faves of all time. Just for this list, however, it isn’t strong on physical sciences, which was my bias in making it.
And Re: Red Planet…mostly good physical science, some poor biology for sure. And putting a robot with a battle mode in a movie is telegraphing a bit too much.
Its funny, we logically know we should enjoy SF for the purpose of pure entertainment, yet it bugs some of us (including me), when details aren’t scientifically credible. When they are, we feel such a deep satisfaction!Ah..its the little things in life!
Mars has 1/6th the gravity of earth, with little or no atmosphere. This was the most glaring of the mistakes in the Red Planet. Moving around on Mars would be akin to walking on the moon. Although I will admit that Red Planet had the most realistic representation of fire in space. As for Alien/s Fun, but accuracy? You will have to explain that to me a bit more. Predator? Okay I am going to agree with you here. The alien didn’t resemble anything human, it saw in a different spectrum and it did not hold lofty values that we like to think that aliens with the ability to travel vast distances should have. Just because an Alien is smarter doesn’t mean they are more benevolent. My #1 choice for most accurate? 2001 of course. But then I am a big Arthur C. Clark fan. I also noticed that you left out “Timeline†which for all its errors is based in solid theoretical science. If you want real good science, then read Ben Bova’s “Mars†This is one that I would like to see made into a movie. Although by the time Hollywood got through with it, it would probably be totally unbelievable.
I have seen several comments on Blade Runner as not good science. I fell into this category until I started to do some research on a story I am writing. So, do like I did and google the different aspects of robotics, such as synthetic skin, artificial eyes, and most of all the mapping of and building of an artificial brain. Some of the technology can be found in the medical field or in Military research. You want to see the forerunner of Amy from Red Planet? Look up “Big dog, and Little Dog.†Or “Asimo†Scary part is that in ten to twenty years, synthetic life forms may not be that impossible. The technology is here, but fragmented in different applications and fields of research, it won’t be long before someone starts putting the pieces together. .
Tom R., Mars has nearly 40% of Earth’s surface gravity. The moon has 1/6. I don’t know for sure how they would move, but the falling/bouncing lander didn’t look like it was in a full Earth g.
Alien/s I removed from my revised list…but everyone looks at this original one.
And Blade Runner is pretty good in a lot of ways, but I stuck with physical science more than biological or computer science for this list. If Roy Batty really went to interstellar space in a short time, as he suggests, FTL is indicated.
I found Bova’s description of (SPOILER ALERT) the “disease” totally unrealistic in MARS, and as that’s a totally key plot point, I found the book fatally flawed.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) the best!!!