For years, questions have been swirling around the authenticity of science based and science fiction movies and television shows. Collectively dubbed the “CSI effect” after the famous (or infamous) and long-running television franchise, the concerns center on misconceptions audiences have about science and scientific inquiry as a result of watching these productions. The concerns beg questions about accountability, specifically, what accountability does entertainment have to its audience to authentically represent scientific inquiry? The shows also make us realize how much the science-fiction genre has been diluted over the last century, which leads to questions about the types of films that make up the genre itself. 

Full disclosure, I am not a scientist, and I don’t watch many science fiction (sci-fi) movies. I did, however, like Alien (although one was enough for me), Predator (again, one was enough for me), and Project Hail Mary (crossing my fingers this will be the one and only). Only this last one, though, fits within the sci-fi movie tradition.

Regarding both questions, Hazal Kazanci notes in her Arcadia article that science fiction reveals many factors about society including humans’ social or psychological fears, anxieties, thought patterns, and expectations.  Our anxiety concerning the prospects of artificial intelligence taking over jobs and breaching personal data, for example, are why, according to the article, we see recent movie releases centering AI, like Ex Machina, I, Robot, Transcendence, Her, Minority Report, and Passengers. Movies like The Martian, A Space Odyssey, and Apollo 13 are made to celebrate human accomplishments and reveal our aspirations to make the moon and other planets habitable for humans. And Project Hail Mary reveals our concerns about climate change. In other words, science fiction movies reflect who we are, what we are struggling with, and what we are about.

Besides being reflective of culture, science in entertainment has a problematic side too. Eighty-one percent of adults (over 200 million people) watch science-based or sci-fi movies and television shows. Pew writes that “some [experts] express concern that Hollywood’s portrayal of science creates unrealistic standards for criminal evidence in the public mind. . . . the issue was deemed serious enough to merit inclusion in a report published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and helped launch an advisory network to connect scientists and engineers with entertainment industry professionals.” Given the genre’s large following, should studios be more cognizant about how science and scientific inquiry is represented and discussed in cinematic productions about science, technology, and medicine?

Sci-fi movies and shows, according to James Wallace Harris’s article in Classics of Science Fiction, “should be a cognitive tool for guessing what we might find in reality.” In other words, the films should pose hypotheses, “what if” questions and subsequent expectations based on little if any knowledge or experience with the subject. The movie, The Martian, for example, hypothesizes about humans on Mars. With little knowledge of the Red Planet and no firsthand accounts about its atmosphere, director Ridley Scott posited what it would be like for humans to exist in an environment with no oxygen. He then cinematically depicts his vision of how one might survive the conditions by stranding astronaut Mark Watley (Matt Damon) on the planet and in one example, has him use the planet’s soil to establish a farm inside the oxygenated environment of his ship. Thus, the filmmaker conjectures that if humans lived on Mars, they would use their wit and ingenuity to survive.

Continuing with Harris’s idea of sci-fi, productions true to this genre should be both experimental (ask what if questions) and predictive (postulate what will happen). This has been the case since the early twentieth century sci-fi movies considered what it would be like to travel to outer space and the difference that experience would make here on Earth. Rudimentary films like Méliès’s aptly named A Trip to the Moon, de Chomón’s A Trip to Jupiter, and Booth’s The ‘?’ Motorist about a couple riding their car on the rings of Saturn asked what if we explored space, and they arguably piqued our curiosity about what this would mean for us here on Earth. Advances in technology and actual experiences with space travel have made movies in the sci-fi genre more authentic, compelling, and visually appealing for sure since then, but has this new cinema been both experimental and predictive? 

There’s no question that many films considered sci-fi today are experimental. Indeed, you can argue this about any creative work. Predator, for instance, asks what if a being from another universe landed here on Earth. The film demonizes the predator of course, making it violent and unattractive (at least Arnold Schwarzenegger’s character describes it as such when he calls it an “ugly mother . . .”). With Alien, Earthlings travel to another universe and encounter a being but get more than they bargain for when they wind up at the bottom of the food chain. Still, similar to A Trip to Jupiter, the movie asks, what if we traveled to another universe. Like most modern-day movies, though, these films prioritized entertainment over science. People are grossly and sometimes stylistically killed or devoured, and no new valuable knowledge is gained that can alleviate our anxieties and fears about the unknown or push humanity forward in its aspirations. Films, then, like Predator and Alien, align more with horror than sci-fi.

On the Cup of Tea Critiques Podcast episode, “Are Terminator, Project Hail Mary and Spider-Man really sci-fi movies?,” Terry, insists that The Substance is sci-fi because it asks what if I was young again. This is fair. But if Predator, Alien, and The Substance are sci-fi movies, where is the predictive element in each that is crucial to qualifying a film as such? 

On the same podcast, Brandon insists that the movies in the Star Wars franchise fall into the sci-fi genre. Yet, other than the commonality of space with the early sci-fi movies, the franchise is missing both the experimental and predictive components. Where is its what if, and where is its expectation of results? The absence of these makes the Star Wars movies more compatible with the adventure or fantasy genre than sci-fi. Project Hail Mary, on the other hand, is both experimental and predictive. It asks what if we went directly to the source to understand our climate problem. And it posits what could happen if we collaborate with (rather than kill) a life form from another universe to find a solution to it. Scientific inquiry literally occurs throughout much of the story as the characters explore solutions. It is entertaining, engaging, experimental, and predictive.

I suppose the dilution of the sci-fi genre is not a serious matter when compared to the concerns of science experts about authenticity in cinematic productions. Nonetheless, it is a topic that warrants discussion among us cinephiles. Eighty-one percent of adults watch science based and sci-fi movies and television shows, which suggests this genre has the largest appeal of all the movie genres. However, sci-fi does not make the cut in Statista’s chart of popular movie genres, as measured by box office revenue. So, where is the disconnect?

While many contemporary films contain elements of sci-fi, the genre has been diluted—subverted to horror, action, fantasy, adventure, drama, and others. Instead of pure sci-fi as we saw in many early twentieth century productions, there is now horror sci-fi, action sci-fi, fantasy sci-fi, adventure sci-fi, and so forth. My family vehemently disagrees with me. Send me a note at hello@cupofteacritiques.com to let me know where you stand on this.

Be sure to join us on “Are Terminator, Project Hail Mary and Spider-Man really sci-fi movies?,” wherever you get your podcasts.

Responses

Chris: Love this article! I feel like what's happened to sci-fi is consistent with cinema as a whole. Everything is becoming branded as a blend of multiple genres in order to appear on more lists and appeal to fans of each.

I don't personally feel like they have a responsibility to portray science accurately, but I do think the concern illustrates the effect of education being stigmatized. I feel like if it were still held in high regard we would differentiate it from entertainment more and thus not question art's responsibilities in that sense.