The Things to Come Page Part 2

Here are my personal reflections on SF. I started this as a way to collect all my various comments and reviews. It then developed into a coherent whole that tends to favor pure SF.

*Spoiler warning. As is typical with analysis, I discuss key SF elements without regard to spoilers.

  Go straight to:

• Reflections: The State of Science and Technology in Science Fiction Films
• Summary SF Themes and Examples
• Related Articles

Back to The Things to Come Page

I. Popular Scientists Doing Science Fiction: The Basis of Science Fiction

The basis of science fiction (SF) is rarely actual science anymore, but some pure science fiction is still left. Some of the first modern SF stories (in the 1600s) were Johannes Kepler's book "Somnium" and Savinien Cyrano de Bergerac's classic "Comical History of the States and Empires of the Moon and Sun". It is not far from the truth to claim that Kepler was the first science fiction writer and, therefore, that science fiction began in the hands of a natural philosopher (today we call him a scientist and mathematician).

Carl Sagan has an excellent description of Kepler's book ("Somnium"): (1) Kepler tried to illustrate to a skeptical public that the Earth rotates on its axis; (2) he described the lunar surface based on insights coming from his naked eye observations and others' use of the new telescope; (3) he imagined how the Earth might look to hypothetical inhabitants on the Moon and thought they might see false pictures on our surface, such as we see the Man in the Moon shadow; (4) he deduced the climate of the Moon from its long days and nights. (Source: Carl Sagan's "Cosmos", 51-54.)

Kepler was wrong about a few things: he thought the Moon had an atmosphere and that intelligent life had to exist on the Moon to account for some of its surface features. But from his mistake he began the search for extraterrestrial life (SETI) and anticipates our future mistake of thinking that life exists on Mars. The imaginative and speculative nature of SF means its creators are often wrong, perhaps much more so than scientists.

Kepler also used some fantastic elements in his story about demons. He uses these to free his mind from immediate sense perceptions. It would be like Albert Einstein writing a SF story about trying to catch up to a beam of light. Neither would win any writing competitions or book awards, but it shows that early modern scientists used speculative ideas or thought experiments to guide some of their thinking (along with other guides: the work of previous thinkers, a heavy dose of mathematics, physical predictive theories, and experimental data).

Part 12 of the HBO TV series, "From the Earth to the Moon" (1998), comically demonstrates the connection between speculative fiction and science that began with Kepler: it features a depiction of the fantastical (but visionary) first SF movie, "Le Voyage Dans La Lune" (1902, directed by Georges Méliès), alongside a dramatization of the final NASA Apollo mission.

The episode links the importance of science fiction to how it captured the imagination of astronauts, scientists, engineers, etc., in coming together to turn some of the more pragmatic visions of SF into reality. But the episode also reminds us that the public can lose its interest in the meticulous work of science as it seemed to do with the Apollo program.

Science fiction continues to capture the imagination of scientists, including the late Carl Sagan ("Cosmos", "Contact"), Stephen Hawking ("The Universe in a Nutshell"), Michio Kaku ("Physics of the Impossible"), and Lawrence M. Krauss ("The Physics of Star Trek") to name a few.

Michio Kaku's "Visions", for example, has an excellent vision about future revolutions in computers, biomolecular research, and quantum research. It looks at the past development of these three major fields of study. It also provides an interesting look at recent developments and possibilities, such as quantum machines, cheap computer chips (which we could use for smart products, e-papers, or musical cereal boxes as in "Minority Report"), and potential improvements in genetics and long-term health (could we one day solve the problem of aging?).

One of Kaku's central predictions is that future scientific research will emphasize progress and the ability to use scientific laws to master nature (such as adding complexity to our DNA), rather than the discovery of new basic laws.

If Kaku is correct, however, about his progress thesis, then it's unlikely that we would come to an end of science or an end to its possibilities. Science fiction fans will like the implication that there will be nearly an infinite number of new possible types of biomolecular, quantum, computing, and other technological improvements to portray on film.

It would also be far easier for science fiction movies to successfully reflect or speculate about future science since they wouldn't need to invent new fundamental conceptions of physical reality, they just need to be imaginative in the ways we could advance in science/technology and the ways we might master nature through naturalistic methods.

"Frankenstein" similarly illustrates the basic idea of manipulating life and mastering nature through gaining power to control it (Michio Kaku sees this as an example of his thesis even though Shelley wrote it before we had a firm understanding of Darwin and genetics).

It's important to point out exceptions. Some scientists still have a hope (with time and testing) to discover a unified theory of everything that would in principle provide absolute justification (nearly enough) for our knowledge of how the universe fundamentally works.

Kaku notes that future science increasingly requires the tools of technology to advance, but technology would not advance past a critical point (see Moore's Law) without continued advances in science.

Another physicist who makes the same type of arguments (as Kaku) is Stephen Hawking, who even performed as an actor in a Star Trek episode (along with Einstein and Newton -- all as holograms). He echoes Kaku's sentiment in his popular physics book, "The Universe in a Nutshell", but he goes so far as to argue "it doesn't seem that we will ever reach a steady state in the uses we make of these [scientific] laws or in the complexity of the systems that can produce them" (The Illustrated: The Universe in a Nutshell, p. 161).

These kind of skeptical scientists (Kaku, Hawking) often argue that progress in science and technology doesn't imply any definite increase in our knowledge of reality.

The 1972 movie, "Solaris", seems to argue that scientific knowledge is limited by human distortion, making it unlikely that most of us will gain (or even want to seek to gain) unfiltered knowledge of reality. It portrays characters who anthropomorphize nature and merely want mirrors of themselves, so that our knowledge is both imperfect and we don't want reality or truth anyways. But that only matters as a plausible criticism of a lover of science if the goal of science is to discover new laws and advance to definite knowledge.

If the goal becomes to discover the extent of the universe and eventually become a Type I or II civilization, then science will produce measurable results that lead to our advancement, not necessarily to knowledge based on irrefutable truth.

So my interpretation of Hawking and Kaku makes "Solaris'" criticism of scientific knowledge somewhat irrelevant to the advancement of science. Scientists like Kaku and Hawking tend to emphasize progress and the mastery of nature (as the probable future of science), and not new metaphysically fundamental discoveries (like in the days of Newton and Einstein). Instead they associate with the kind of vision Gene Roddenberry advocated in Star Trek (or the some other kind of vision for progress), and beyond to further progress.

II. Balancing Theatrical Science Fiction: The Hope for Future SF Against the Rising Hatred of Reason

A. Balancing Theatrical Science Fiction

Neither of the first two major "SF" movies (of great significance) were "hard SF," meaning they didn't emphasize themes supportive of scientific, engineering, or mathematical progress. Georges Méliès' "Le Voyage Dans La Lune" (1902) was impressed with the possibilities of going to the moon, even though it does so through magic. Whereas, "Metropolis" (1927) was more interested in social harmony.

"Destination Moon" (1950) probably takes the victory for the purest early SF film. It uses a cartoon to discuss space travel and demonstrates Einstein's theory of relativity by having astronauts go outside their shuttle for repairs. The first moon landing, by the way, didn't take place until July of 1969 (though the first person went into space in April of 1961).

Throughout the history of pop culture, most SF filmmakers sacrifice science for commercial, theatrical, and humanistic reasons. Yet the best writers and filmmakers manage to strike a balance between theatrics and SF: good prototypical examples for this article are "Destination Moon", "H. G. Wells' Things to Come", and "2001: A Space Odyssey". These movies draw not only from SF literature but also sometimes from the naturalistic tone of scientists: the objective outlook that, when unnecessary and outside scientific methodology, avoids crediting the validity of the superstitious and supernatural.

SF filmmakers wishing to make pure science fiction (or at least semi-pure SF) must seemingly overcome a conflict between the will to entertain audiences and the need to incorporate some bit of speculative science, original or alien vision, or other SF gem.

Sometimes, alternatively, they try to bypass this inherent conflict by humanizing their visions, or by focusing on far-fetched philosophical or mythological speculations.

However, if all you want to see is cool computers and technologies, then you have nothing to worry about since technology is rarely sacrificed in big budget movies, with the exception that technology is often humanized.

B. The Hope for Future SF Against the Rising Hatred of Reason

And as I watch the new remakes (and they seem to keep coming) to see if they decided to come over to the modern world, I usually find that they decided to use a lot of expensive technology whilst pretending science doesn't exist ... as if they made movies for techie loving audiences of the dark ages.

Hence, some modern movies seem influenced by postmodernism and tend to dislike the necessity of continued scientific research to reach the sort of technological visions in popular movies.

These postmodern movies tend to paint dark visions, distrust rationality, abhor any radical changes that break our norms, and destroy everything in the movie that violates our values. I know instantly that if anything creative in the movie exists, such as an inventive plan to kill all citizens over the age of 30, then the creative engine of the SF concept must today be tarnished, destroyed, devalued.

Many impure SF movies ignore reason, science, and probabilities by having an action hero rush to overcome improbable odds. Sometimes a movie wants to increase tension by including fun action, but sometimes it intentionally wants to ridicule human reason and rational enterprises without any dramatic benefits.

"Dark City" (1998) defines our humanity by our heart (and not by our minds) near the end of the movie without any hope of increasing tension or serving any dramatic purpose. Even Roger Ebert started to recite a silly theory that films are just for our emotions (and not for our minds) while pondering the scene in his commentary track, which shows exactly what Ebert thought of the moral of the story in "Dark City". The script writers would want him to analyze whether humans are defined by their hearts, not to sigh in disgust and start rationalizing that films are just for our emotions anyways. Stop helping so much Ebert!

"Metropolis" doesn't go so far and merely wanted balance and harmony between our head, heart, and hand (a shallow distinction anyways). "I, Robot" spends a considerable amount of time trying to argue against an excessive use of probabilities (sometimes to serve the cause of dramatic tension though). "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (2008) is excruciating in its emotionalism the longer the movie runs.

"The Andromeda Strain" (Dir. Mikael Salomon, 2008 miniseries) focuses on the extinction of an unappreciated organism that suddenly becomes essential to human survival (as with the whales in "Star Trek IV - The Voyage Home"). But if this sort of idea is taken to its logical extreme, it seems to argue for the preservation of all varieties of life and the suspension of science until we're able to predict any negative side-effects (would this need to include suspending most or all science?). Why not argue that we may need to speed up scientific progress and our mastery over nature since science may engineer life (or otherwise save us) at a higher percentage of probability? Oh, I forgot, postmodern movies don't like reason and probabilities.

"Star Trek" (2009) adds to its flashiness and tension by having Kirk rush off against extremely low odds. But it ends the culturally tolerant attitude of classic Star Trek that often had Spock defending his love of logic rather vigorously.

Spock and the Vulcans are humanized to the extent that I wondered whether it wanted to capture any non human point of view at all. Except for a nice comment from Spock's father that quickly summarizes the grand history of Vulcan stoicism, it generally mocks anything rational, it humiliates alien cultures with bullying jokes, and it tries to humanize the viewing perspective with close-ups and minimal chances to see any technology in the background.

Not a single one of these movies replaces excessive rationalism, say of a Vulcan -- like Spock -- who tends to favor using logic and probabilities, with a hopeful human substitute. For example, many significant discoveries in science often come about by luck and only get rationalized and painstakingly proved after their initial discovery. Reason alone is not a sufficient base for progress (most likely), but none of these visions offers a mature, intelligent, practical substitute for excessive rationalizing of often chaotic and complex situations.

I think a better way to balance rationalism is with the love of science and the way it's actually practiced (along with supportive cultural studies). This attitude is still pro-science and implies both love of discovery and a feeling of intellectual pleasure, as well as the necessary rational, experimental, and sometimes lucky tools of the scientific method.

This balanced view would assert that a know-it-all-genius can be dead wrong. But if many smart people work on a problem, then the wrong answers will fail to become dogma and fail to halt our overall progress (which doesn't require knowledge based on irrefutable truth). Though this would require the freedom to engage in science, which many SF films, perhaps the majority, advocate against.

Some films are so harshly against cloning, for example, it borders on superstition, dogma, and nutty naturalism (for lack of a better word), such as militant groups in "Applessed" (2004) and especially in "Æon Flux" (2005). Even Carl Sagan ("Cosmos") comes surprisingly close to this stance in his science documentary.

But sometimes the high potential of a concept outweighs our inhibitions. Woody Allen's SF comedy "Sleeper" (1973) treats cloning as common knowledge and convenience in the future. Also, George Lucas' "Star Wars - Episode II, Attack of the Clones" (2002) doesn't portray the lanky Cloners as unethical.

I have yet to see many films portray cloning in a highly positive light, so SF movies tend to limit them selves to the values of their culture (staying away from controversial topics).

Does it seem like I would be the sort of fan to root for the bad guy?

Na, I just root for the sort of creativity and speculative SF that gets us to flex our minds, and not just look into the mirror. Advanced technology in the real world doesn't always lead to wastelands and inhuman destruction; it doesn't always mindlessly destroy everything without leaving behind other values to embrace.

Kaku notes, for example, that the development of the Internet has actually increased our freedoms in many ways, instead of decreasing them as the specters of Orwell's "1984" would have us think. And our postmodern world did make "Primer" recently so perhaps there is hope! Though, that took a guy doing his first film with his mommy cooking lunch for the crew (she's credited as a caterer).

However, sometimes it seems quite rational to question the survival value of human intelligence. Nuclear destruction movies ("Dr. Strangelove", "Fail-Safe", "WarGames", "Day One", "Jericho", etc.) and radiated monster movies (Godzilla movies, "Them!", etc., but to a lesser extent of plausibility) seem equally compelling in the cold war era and the terrorist environment of today.

And now we have contemporary, rational concerns over threats from superior machines or androids (The Matrix series and The Terminator series), genetics ("Jurassic Park", "Gattaca", and evident in the new wave of natural-health fanaticism), and nanotechnology ("Agent Cody Banks", "G. I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra", and Crichton's novel "Prey").

But warnings about dangerous alien invasions seem less plausible. The vast majority of biology is simple and harmless. Lifeforms coming to Earth that didn't co-evolve with us would be in greater danger probably.

Usually these anti-reason films miss the most difficult part of reason: it takes us in too many defensible directions. Sometimes it's difficult to find any necessary conclusion dictated by reason alone. It's rational to avoid nuclear war and rational to use nuclear power to better our long term progress.

Reason alone usually points in many possible and plausible directions; just look at the missteps in science before its emphasis on experimentation and rigorous testing. And just look at non-scientific fields that use history, statistical studies, and reason, taking them in every which way but into obvious contradiction (which is also very difficult to prove beyond counterargument -- how many times has someone argued that utilitarianism leads to contradictions just to be knocked aside by a fervent defender of utilitarianism?).

Most of all, I find it small minded to argue against reason, science, or technology as a whole since they so rarely lead to one necessary goal. They allow much freedom to choose our way rather than get stuck in our traditions or instincts.

III. Is Science Fiction in Film Possible?

Seeing that reason and science is so rarely at focus in SF movies, some contend that true science fiction is impossible in film since movies are primarily for our emotions. However, we may counter that movies sometimes convey analogical reasoning better than other mediums, e.g., "The Matrix" has a more vivid analogy of the same sort of skeptical arguments that Rene Descartes presents in written form ("Meditation I").

Analogies are important and some argue that they have been critical to the advancement of knowledge: for example, I saw an argument roughly asserting that no one fully understood the mechanisms of the heart until we likened it to a pump and other more advanced technology (see Miller's book "The Body in Question").

Second, traditional film critics harshly review some of the best SF movies on emotional and artsy standards: for example, science fiction lists consistently rank "Blade Runner" as one of the top SF movies ever made, but it occasionally gets negative-reviews by film critics (such as the original review by Roger Ebert, but he has since taken it back and written a positive review).

Third, some views of science seem to admit of SF in movies such as Kaku's view that future science will require more integration between computers, biomolecular research, and quantum research to continue to increasingly control and manipulate nature. SF merely needs to portray the permutations of speculative possibilities (and sometimes into the world of impossibilities) with a scientific, modern, naturalistic vision.

Therefore, some SF ideas probably exist in movies, at least in some reduced and less pure form, and these SF ideas can improve a film's perceived quality for SF fans.

IV. What is Science Fiction?

Now we can use Kaku's and Hawking's description of science to create a definition of SF as essentially about speculative possibilities of ways humans can manipulate nature, use science, and lead to progress. This coheres with examples of prototypical SF movies and it certainly excludes Harry Potter.

If you want an academic definition of it to capture the wide range of movies that tend to fall within the genre of "SF," then here is an interesting though impure and monstrous attempt: "The SF film is a film genre which emphasizes actual, extrapolative, or speculative science and the empirical method, interacting in a social context with the lesser emphasized, but still present, transcendentalism of magic and religion, in an attempt to reconcile man with the unknown" (Vivian Sobchack's "Screening Space").

Some movies are problematic for their emphasis on futuristic cityscapes, utopia, dystopia, and technological side effects. Some people don't think the social sciences, such as sociology, economics, anthropology, psychology are sciences at all, and others think that those areas of study have an objective base that is similar to the hard core natural sciences.

If they count, then it's easier to see Orwell's "1984" as SF, but then we could make a case that Plato's "Republic" was one of the first SF books. However, it helps to point to more than one element in a book or movie: "1984" has many technological and progressive themes (despite their old age) underlying its social-political themes, whereas Plato's writings lack advanced technology and any deep understanding of science (the closest he gets is mathematics). I think it's problematic to consider a story or work of art as SF until the advent of modern science in Kepler's time.

But there are two words in "science fiction," one could counter argue. Why not think about science fiction as primarily fiction that merely uses scientific or technological themes as background to advance its plot and entertain an audience?

The word "science fiction" is close to a contradiction since fiction is not an accepted scientific method. So even SF literature has a loose use of "science" to meet its entertainment or "fiction" requirement. But if we let the word "science" slip away too much, then there is no significant distinction between it and a romance novel. But some people who like romance novels hate science fiction. There is a major difference in practice.

I think the best definition of SF is to be inspired by the ability of science and related areas to enrich humans and support our modernity. The main defining characteristic is "progress" -- the use of science and technology to manipulate nature and improve ourselves. The second major term "fiction" mainly influences by making SF more speculative and imaginative.

For me a good example of SF needs to emphasize science in the spirit of the way scientists, geeks, nerds, or scholars use technology and conduct experiments, not according to the way creative writing instructors inspire students by having them make stuff up.

V. Are Techy Movies Necessarily Science Fiction?

Is there a necessary connection between technology and science fiction? Is it possible for a film to lack technology and still emphasize speculative ideas from science or themes supportive of science?

Some SF movies have minimal technology, special effects, space gear, spaceships, or alien races, such as "Primer" or "Moon", but they can make excellent contributions to SF film history. And some science doesn't need much use of technology, such as theoretical physics during certain periods of time. So it's very possible for a film to lack technology and still emphasize speculative ideas in science, actual science, or themes supportive of science.

Some would argue that Star Wars is an example of a film with lots of technology and very little pure SF. However, Star Wars speculates about new possibilities that could in principle be falsified, even if they were designed to be mythological. It makes use of scientific-like explanations (the organisms that make-up the force) that could be proved or disproved in some possible world. It has other minor SF elements such as supportive technology -- including spaceships, weaponry, probes, etc. -- and alien races and futuristic civilizations.

So some things in the Star Wars movies we can envision as a natural consequence of alien advancement or a futuristic civilization gaining power to manipulate nature (as Kaku suggests, but not in relation to Star Wars).

In any case, here is a good "Star Wars" geek test: First, watch some of the postmodern movies mentioned in section II. B., such as Metropolis and Dark City, and toss in a few others like Gattaca. Then watch George Lucas's "Star Wars" and compare the holistic qualities of the former films to "Star Wars". To me, "Star Wars" is far geekier, techie loving, futuristic craving, and an all around more optimistic and amplified SF experience. As pro-science 50s films fade away, "Star Wars" may shift away from being a polar opposite to pure SF to being a breath of fresh air for SF lovers.

Star Wars is a good borderline example. But more clear examples abound, such as films like "Live Free or Die Hard" (2007) or "The Dark Knight" (2008) that have lots of computers and technology and rarely get classified as SF.

I think the problem with defining SF and its relation to technology comes from the problem in defining science. Some even believe that areas of study heavily reliant on certain types of technology are unscientific. Fodor makes such a "black-box" argument about neural networks. He claims that research in cognitive science is based on the kind of computational models that don't admit of the normal prediction, measurement and control mechanisms that laboratory scientists use to eliminate flaws and narrow theories down to the one right answer.

So there is controversy over whether certain areas of research are able to meet stringent enough standards despite using hi-tech super-computers to model their theories. Under many circumstances many would not consider computer scientists or hackers to be scientific in the least. Computer programming is more like a tool that one uses to make work easier. But now science is becoming ever more integrated and ever more reliant on computers to do complex calculations, as with genetics.

It is important to distinguish between the practice of science and the mere discussion of computers, science, and other technologies to accomplish an unrelated goal.

For example, "What the Bleep Do We Know?" has many scientists give interviews, but then it makes wild claims more like the magical world of Harry Potter. It uses science for the purpose of mysticism, spirituality, and morality rather than scientific advancement, progress, or discovery. The problem with movies like "Aeon Flux" (2005) is that the technology is not used for the purpose of advancement, progress, or discovery; it is used to fight off bad guys, go on a quest, fight for naturalism or fantastic nature-technology, etc.

That's what I like so much about "H. G. Wells' Things to Come", "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Destination Moon", "Colossus: The Forbin Project", "The Andromeda Strain", "Primer", and "Contact" -- they are the best examples I think of in which the film vision is mostly about science fiction in as helpful and supportive a sense of "science" as we find in movies.

Could technology actually incline people away from science and progress? It will be a struggle, as Kaku jokingly points out, because the advancement of technology may bring back some forms of mysticism and belief in magic when people grow up around all kinds of machines that act on their own accord (they may be more apt to take magic seriously). However, it would be difficult if we still had great 1950s style science fiction movies and books that often emphasized and expressed love for science, for one of the effects of old fashioned science fiction was to acclimate people to science and technology.

One of the best examples of a recognition of the interrelation between science and technology is the strict incompatibility of modern technology in the "Harry Potter" novels/movies – that is the way it ought to be since technology does not work by magic and magic does not work by science and computations.