STEM From is proud to present another installment of our STEM Films and Their Basis in Reality series! We’ll once again be taking on six films from various genres depicting all things STEM!
Armageddon (1998)
Directed by Michael Bay, Armageddon follows a group of deep-core drillers tasked with diverting an incoming apocalypse. What are they stopping exactly? An asteroid roughly the size of Texas. It stars Bruce Willis, Billy Bob Thorton, Ben Affleck, Liv Tyler, and more. The film released in 1998 to mixed reviews, many of which criticized the scientific elements and absurdity of the plot.
Many scientists have torn apart Armageddon already, so I don’t feel the need to go too ham on it. A consistent complaint surrounds the “movie’s over-disdain for science itself." It makes it's message clear in the beginning when climate change activists are depicted in a highly negative light. Everything from the asteroid's nature and abilities to the crew's spacesuits in the final mission, everything is unrealistic and borderlines camp. All in all, this isn’t a very STEM-friendly movie.
Interstellar (2014)
Helmed by famous director Christopher Nolan, Interstellar released in 2014 to largely positive reviews from critics and audiences alike. The film stars Matthew McConaughey as a farmer and ex-NASA pilot who is brought in to fly a spacecraft alongside a team. Their goal? Find another planet before Earth’s demise.
Expert verdict is that many of the STEM concepts explored in Interstellar are largely accurate. While listing every concept tackled would spoil the movie in its entirety, this article from Time breaks down everything in full depth. Here however, I would simply say the consensus is that Interstellar is stellar in its astronomical depictions, the only exceptions being rather small aesthetic changes or minor logical fallacies.
M3gan (2023)
A recent Blumhouse horror hit, M3gan follows a young girl and her robot doll friend created by her techy aunt. It wouldn’t be a horror movie without the titular doll having murderous tendencies, though! This fairly simple yet fun premise proved to be a massive success in theaters.
Let’s be real for a second, though. We aren’t quite in M3gan territory yet, especially in the children’s toy industry. It’s unlikely. With technology’s rapidly advancing nature, though, it’s not entirely out of the ballpark. In an interview with Vice, Roman Yampolskiy (associate professor at the Speed School of Engineering at the University of Louisville) says “we have all the ingredients [for something like M3gan], we just haven’t put them together.” With A.I development and robotic development being unpredictable, we can’t exactly say when a mass-produced sentient robot doll will be in your local store—but it could be any day now!
Gravity (2013)
Directed by Alfonso Cuaron, Gravity follows two astronauts, one on her first mission, whom end up stranded in space. It stars Sandra Bullock and George Clooney in the main roles. The movie is considered and modern classic among general audiences and praised for the performances within as well as Cuaron’s excellent directing.
Many professionals such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson have enjoyed Gravity and praised its largely accurateSTEM depictions. However, it’s not completely bare of liberties and flourishing. Many of the inaccuracies are small, including but not limited to: tears falling off in someone’s face in zero gravity, a lack of protective undergarments under a main character’s spacesuit, and no gold solar visors to protect the astronauts’ vision from the sun. Check out a more depth list of inaccuracies here. This is a solid STEM movie despite these small errors.
Back to the Future (1985)
Considered one of the greatest films of all time by many, Back to the Future is a science fiction genre staple. It follows seventeen-year-old Marty McFly’s adventure into the past via a time machine car. The cast includes Michael J. Fox, Christopher Lloyd, Lea Thompson, and Crispin Glover.
On a base level, time travel in only theoretically possible in regards of going into the future. With that logic, the whole ‘travelling into the past’ gimmick is illogical. In fact, the movie struggles to establish any logic regarding time travel. Of course this isn’t required for a fun movie, but if you’re looking for something scientifically accurate, this one may be a good pass as well.
2012 (2009)
Clinging to the “2012 is the year the world ends” fearmongering of the 2000s in hopes of making a successful disaster, 2012 was released in theaters in 2009. The film follows the end of the world and the environmental disasters that accompany it. The film was directed by Roland Emmerich, who has an affinity for creating disaster films. He also directed the decently successful The Day After Tomorrow, which I plan on covering for this series in the future. 2012 was financially successful, but critics and audiences alike had mixed feelings regarding the film.
As for STEM accuracy, like Armageddon, 2012 is largely boisterous and showy. The director and writers are clearly not trying to depict a scientifically correct film. There are many inconsistencies and elements that make zero sense. The biggest and most glaring error is perhaps the very sudden and catastrophic disasters that occur towards the beginning of the action. In reality, there would be many smaller-scale events to warn of an impending apocalypse, especially if it was related to the reasons depicted in the film. Besides that, there’s a plethora of unbelievable, unrealistic elements. You might want to skip this one if you’re big on the facts. Granted, the Yosemite super-volcano sequence of events was pretty cool to watch.
Did you enjoy this article? If you did and enjoy all things STEM, sign up for our newsletter for blog updates! Leave comments on your thoughts below and thanks for reading!
Which movie have you watched?
Armageddon
Interstellar
M3gan
Gravity
You can vote for more than one answer.
コメント