Projects
- Diamonds in the Sky
- Launchpad Astronomy Workshop
- Living in Brazil
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-
Recent Posts
- Launch Pad 2016 Now Accepting Applications
- Current/Recent News
- The Fatal Science Flaw of the Premise of Interstellar
- Launch Pad Attendees for 2014
- Some Criticisms of the New Cosmos
Recent Comments
- ดูหนังโป๊ on The Ten Scariest Science Fiction Movies (Including Poll)
- Would you like a Bionic body part? – Mish Sci Fi Musings on Poll: Would you like to be Bionic?
- 1235 Planeten und Arsen-Bakterien on The Impact of NASA’s Kepler Mission on Science Fiction
- Teni on The Importance of Science: Ten Reasons
- Dishninja on Five Reasons Why People Think They Hate Science (and what to do about it!)
Meta
- Log in
- Entries RSS
- Comments RSS
- WordPress.org
Links
- Amazing Stories
- American Astronomical Society
- Astronomy Picture of the Day
- Bad Astronomy
- Boing Boing
- Cracked
- Fark
- Launch Pad Astronomy Workshop for Writers
- Living in Brazil
- Scientific American
- Slashdot
- Space.com
- The Great Geek Manual
- Weirdwarp
People
- Brian Malow Science Comedian
- Charlie Stross
- David Brin
- Eric Nylund
- James Nicoll
- James Wallace Harris
- Jay Lake
- Jeremy Tolbert
- John Joeseph Adams
- John Scalzi
- Paul Levinson
- Rob Cheng
- Robert Sawyer
- S. M. Duke
- Tobias Buckell
Projects
- Diamonds in the Sky
- Launchpad Astronomy Workshop
- Living in Brazil
Science
- Centauri Dreams
- Cosmic Variance
- Diamonds in the Sky: Free Astronomy Science Fiction
- Real Climate
Science Fiction
- Biology in Science Fiction
- Clarion West
- Diamonds in the Sky: Free Astronomy Science Fiction
- Hard SF
- Hard SF Org
- io9
- Mish Sci Fi Musings
- Project Rho
- Sci Fi Weekly
- Science Not Fiction
- SF Crow’s Nest
- SF Scope
- SF Signal
- SF Site
- sfnovelists
- SFWA
- Speculative Fiction Tropes
- Suite101.com SF/F
- The Entropy Pump
- The Internet Review of Science Fiction
- Tor.com
-
Archives
- January 2016
- December 2014
- May 2014
- March 2014
- November 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- November 2012
- October 2012
Search
Bad Science in Science Fiction Movies Poll
May 10th, 2009
I’ve been too busy, traveling, tired/jet lagged, and/or sick (fighting a little cold) to catch the Wolverine or Star Trek movies. I may well get to Star Trek today. I was planning to write a “science of” after watching it, but Phil Plait at badastronomy.com beat me to it. I’ll watch it and if I catch things he didn’t, or disagree with his assessment, I’ll post an entry about it.
I should be settled back in Porto Alegre this week and things should settle down with more regular, focused blogging.
In the meantime, I was surprised the other day over the Mind Meld post about the disagreement concerning Sunshine, and also on sfsignal.com about Outland (see comments at the link).
So, while I’ve already given away my vote for Armageddon as the worst science fiction movie of all time, I think there are a lot of other candidates that are arguably worse. What’s your vote?
Which has the Worst Science in a Science Fiction Movie?
View Results
Loading ...Some comments about why some of the movies are on the list. Usually there will be many other problems that what I note here. Mission to Mars has leaking liquids freezing solid like icicles. Outland has people living in the deadly radiation belt of Jupiter without problems or mention, as well people exploding in space. The Core is legendary. Independence Day has the Macintosh infecting alien computers with a virus. Signs may or may not be a science fiction movie, technically, but there was a lot of dumb stuff in there. Superhero movies in general all have ludicrous science, and I tend to watch them as fantasy, but often they try to be half-way serious by invoking genetics, nanotechnology, radioactivity, cosmic rays, but the laws of physics, pretty much never.
Tags:
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.
[…] here: Bad Science in Science Fiction Movies Poll | Mike Brotherton: SF … Author: editor Categories: scifi Tags: Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Leave a comment […]
There was actually a bit of *good* science — in passing, that most people probably didn’t see — in the third Spider-Man movie. No, I’m not talking about a particle physics experiment creating the Sandman….
Early on, in the gratuitous “crane runs into building seven times” scene, Spidy’s new potential love interest falls out of the building. Spiderman shows up to save the day, of course.
Frequently, in movies, somebody would just “fall faster” and catch up. This can make sense in some skydiving sqeuences, where people are deliberately spreading their arms and such to increase drag, but rarely is it done right. In this case, though, Spiderman shows up, and whatshername already has a head start of gravitational acceleration. He needs to catch up, so what does he do? He shoots a web out at a chunk of falling building, and then pulls on it to accelerate himself *faster* than gravity, thereby being able to catch up with the falling whatshername.
Small, subtle, all about Newton’s physics, but it heartened me.
Thanks, Rob. My colleague Danny Dale at Wyoming uses comic book examples in his intro physics course, particularly the Gwen Stacy falling sequence from the comic book that is ludicrous and fails for exactly the reason you mention. Plus, the Green Goblin says that from such an extreme height, she was dead before she even hit the ground!
Well Mike, I have to remember the bad climatological science in “The Day After Tomorrow”. It’s another entertaining but confusing doozie.
I concur with Mr. Cater about the Day After Tomorrow. I normally dig apocalyptic films but simply viewing the previews made me disgusted by it. Especially the scene of a tornado appearing in Los Angeles and one appearing on Hollywood Hill. I don’t care if this is some cataclysmic climate change, the weather is still tied down to physics.
Ironically, I actually enjoy Independence Day though mostly just as a fun dumb film. If you analyze it then it most certainly falls apart. And I tend to have a soft spot for movies so bad they’re good.
John, you’re right. That movie struck me as pretty silly, too! I should have put it on the initial list.
It’s not SF, but I love the clarity of this bit from the IMDB Goofs page for Vertical Limit. It’s been expanded since, but IIRC this used to be the entirety of the entry:
“Everything shown about belaying and climbing techniques, high altitude mountaineering, helicopter usage, high altitude medicine (exception: dex), high altitude mountaineering clothes and the shape of K2 is wrong.”
Although neither of these are directly related to plot, Red Planet has two major biology gaffes: it gets the nucleotides of DNA wrong (instead of ACTG, one of the characters indicates they are ACTP). And it identifies what is clearly an insect as a nematode (which is a roundworm). This is high school level material. I use clips of both of these in introductory college biology courses, and they always get a good laugh. The movie might or might not have the worst science overall, but it certainly belongs in the biology hall of shame.
And I can’t proofread…
While I’m at it, when the “nematodes” in Red Planet explode out of a human body, they look like a mini-fireworks display, and this is accompanied by popping firework sounds. Huh?
Bill, that’s too bad. Red Planet gets a lot of the physical science right. Perhaps they had one science consultant when they needed two (or more!).
Journey to the Center of the Earth, worst science, hands down.
science fiction astronomy people planet
for its contents. This is a safe-cache copy of the original web site.