At some kind of conference in which NASA pleaded with Hollywood bigwigs for more rational plots the space agency named its seven worst sci-fi films and seven best, in terms of scientific value. 2012 took home first place in the worst list for its non-stop diarrhea of bad science, like an initiating end-of-days domino having to do with the generally (in real life) non-interactive particle the neutrino heating up the Earths core. Or something. Oddly enough, I havent seen it.
My favorite from the worst list is What the Beep Do We Know?, which anyone with a halfway level head is already aware is a mammoth, bleeping pile of woo and bleep and bad science. Paraded as a documentary, no less.
Im just glad NASA tagged it as the science fiction it is. And crappy science-fiction at that. Whats worse is that What the Beep Do We Know? has an entire movement behind itfollowers and psuedoscientist leaders like Deepak Chopraspreading the same half-truths and distortions about quantum mechanics while crouched and ready to spin the next big discovery into even hotter woowoo.
And at least 2012 doesnt have that (though, its based on a certain pre-existing pseudoscience movement).
Anyhow, the lists.
WORST
1. 2012 (2009)
Neutrinos heat up the Earths core via solar flares or some bleep, which makes lots of bad bleep happen. Like Mount Everest taking on a tsunami. This is the point in the evolution of disaster porn where plots are found to be unnecessary.
2. The Core (2003)
Didnt see this one either, but it has to do with the Earths core not rotating and bleeping up the Earths magnetic field. The Village Voice called it an undigestible fusion of worst-case earth science and leaden pacing. Whats worse is that its not even really worst-case earth science because its not based on real science.
3. Armageddon (1998)
It occurs that you could take the bad science in these movies and take it as a reflection of what the public-at-large understands about science. Like, I bet more people than not think this blowing up of the asteroid idea would work, and have no idea that an asteroid doesnt need to even be a fraction that big (the size of Texas) to ruin civilization. A garage-sized piece of asteroid would be enough level a massive city. Also: that scene where the Russian guy fixes the spaceship by hitting it with a wrench.
4. Volcano (1997)
Ditto for this. I imagine Los Angeles being on a major fault line might lead one to conclude that said fault line could sprout a massive volcano all of a sudden. If one knows nothing at about geology.
Its incredible heat!
5. Chain Reaction (1996)
This is an action movie that involves a yet-to-be-proven concept called "bubble fusion":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_fusion. I guess NASAs beef might have something to do with bubble fusion not actually involving a chain reaction, and the whole glass of water powering Los Angeles extreme untruth. And that the idea of bubble fusion, which is likely not the energy-for-nothing type of thing that people think of when they think fusion, being some super-secret that puts lives in danger is kinda laughable.
6. The 6th Day (2000)
In which science provides ready-made, near-instant full size clones for pets and people.
7. What the #$! Do We Know? (2004)*
Depends on who we is.
BEST
1. Gattaca (1997) <3 (YES)
Job discrimination based on DNA predisposition is no stretch.
2. Contact (1997)
Dont worry, the science community isnt keeping some big secret about interstellar travel via alien-designed teleportion device (probably). I think its more that Contact is fairly on point about the bureaucracy, politics, and general clusterbleep that a contact event would be surrounded by. Not to mention that the film involves the means by which we actually hunt for aliens, SETI, and explains it with accuracy.
3. Metropolis (1927)
4. The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)
At the very least, it got 50s American xenophobic mania about right.
5. Woman in the Moon (1929)
6. The Thing from Another World (1951)
7. Jurassic Park (1993)
Note the slight irony of Michael Crichton being a global warming denier/creep.
Ive seen a lot of lookit our tax dollars at work! type reactions to these lists, like its somehow trivial how science is portrayed in the mass media, that bad science in films doesnt degrade actual, real science being conducted in labs. Obviously, the scientific community disagrees. Note also the tremendous opportunity for improving scientific literacy, just by making accurate films.
