Related Sections: Columnists Movies
Is mysticism overtaking science in sci-fi?
With the fall movie season upon us, I'm suddenly presented with an embarrassment of riches. I could take the easy way out, and say something nice about the science of Surrogates. Unfortunately, that would overlap heavily with my recent comments on Sleep Dealer and Moon.
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs? One word: rats. If food fell from the sky, within a week we'd be armpit deep in garbage and vermin. Paranormal Activity? Give me a break.
What really excites me right now—and not in a good way!—is the recent spate of superficially sci-fi movies that are not merely scientifically illiterate, not merely unscientific or antiscientific in their outlook, but that actually promote mysticism as a superior alternative to science.
You think I'm kidding, or maybe exaggerating for dramatic effect? Well, take a look at the nine mystical conceits at the heart of 9 (and yes, some of these may be spoilers):
1. That the human soul exists, and is separable from both the body and the intellect.
This is a widespread and by no means objectionable belief, but any clergyman will tell you there's no scientific basis for it. For this reason, science fiction stories tend to stay away from it. Look to fantasy and horror for stories where the separable soul plays an important part.
2. That the human intellect can be copied like software, but the human soul is conserved or copy-protected or some such.
Again, the idea here is that the intellect resides in the material world, whereas "soulness" is a supernatural property that can neither be created nor destroyed. The soul is neither a substance nor a pattern nor a process of the laws of physics, but stands apart from them in a way that science can't touch.
3. That machines driven by pure intellect are inherently evil, or at least inherently corruptible, and cannot be trusted at all.
The robot uprising is a science fiction cliché, but 9 goes one better by saying it's the lack of soul that triggers the rebellion, rather than resistance to oppression or a philosophical rejection of slavery (which, after all, is the root meaning of the word "robot").
4. That seeking after technology is a misguided pursuit that can only lead to the destruction of the human race.
Another not-uncommon belief, but one that flies in the face of millennia of evidence. For example, way back in 1800, Thomas Malthus opined that Britain's growing population would soon eat up all the food and then starve its way to a huge population crash. And he would have been right, if technology hadn't vastly increased the productivity of British farms. Now, 200 years later, the prophesied crash still hasn't occurred, and in fact the standard of living of British citizens, and damn near everyone else in the world, continues to rise.
5. That the soul can be divided into multiple pieces, a la the "horcrux" magic of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.
The word horcrux appears to be an invention of J.K. Rowling, but the concept itself dates back at least to Medieval times, and probably much farther. The Mabinogion, a book of Welsh fairy tales compiled in the 1300s (from stories that were probably already centuries old at that time), discusses it obliquely, as a way of protecting the soul's owner from harm. But just because the idea has a provenance does not make it science.
6. That the soul (or pieces of it) can be transferred into inanimate objects, rendering them "alive."
This is similar to the Old Testament idea of a "golem," a creature made of clay and animated through prayer and incantation, or the homunculus of European and early Islamic alchemy. This was a tiny humanoid creature, made by the careful mixing of unspecified ingredients and animated with a drop of the sorcerer's blood or other bodily fluids. In many cases, the sorcerer could see through the homunculus' eyes, feel its pain, etc., suggesting that a piece of his soul was in fact contained in the creature. However, like the Philosopher's Stone—a mythical formula for converting base metal into gold—the technology of homunculi was widely rumored but never actually demonstrated to any of the monarchs who demanded to see it.
7. That moving or dividing the soul requires alchemical symbols inscribed on metal tokens.
I wish I knew what to say about this. I mean, where did these symbols come from? Were they discovered and refined by a process of theory and experiment? Did ancient magicians receive them in dreams, or decode them from the heavens? And if some symbols really could produce physical or metaphysical effects, why weren't they as widely known as the methods of cutting stone, fermenting beer, or mixing gunpowder? People want to be rich, information wants to be free, and anything that really works is unlikely to stay secret for long.
8. That it is somehow desirable or necessary to put human souls into weak vessels.
The soul-powered homunculi of 9 are made of burlap, for Krishna's sake, while their nuclear-badass enemies are made of tungsten and titanium. Why couldn't their creator have poured them into bodies that were bigger and stronger than those of the bad machines? Because that would be technology, and technology is eeeevyil.
9. That single-celled microorganisms can be created de novo, from bits of vaporized human soul.
The theory of "abiogenesis" dates all the way back to ancient Greece, when the philosopher Aristotle declared that mice could be created from rotting hay and dirty laundry. He was wrong, but he was at least kinda sorta scientifically wrong. But "achemogenesis," where life can be created without any matter input at all, is a theory I've never heard before, and about as scientific as a kick in the nuts.
And here are four of the fallacies of 2012:
1. That there is enough water locked away in aquifers and polar caps to, literally, drown the entire Earth.
Not even close. In fact, there's only enough to raise ocean levels by about 90 meters. That's a lot, but it's hardly the end of the human race.
2. That it is possible—indeed, inevitable—for all of this water to be released in a single cataclysmic event.
Nope. Even if global temperatures rose 20 degrees overnight, it would take decades—maybe even centuries—for all that ice to melt. Think of a picnic cooler on a hot summer day; by sundown you may still have a little bit of ice left, because every kilogram of ice takes 300 Joules of energy to liquefy, and the sun just doesn't put out that much energy that fast. Now think of a hundred trillion picnic coolers bathing in the slanty sunlight of an Antarctic summer, and ask yourself how quickly we could melt it all, even if we wanted to.
3. That "hard" sciences like geology, climatology, planetology, astronomy and physics are, in some way, incapable of foreseeing the disaster, or of comprehending it when it happens.
Hmm. Yes. We know enough about fluid mechanics to make special effects of a drowning Earth, but not enough to measure how much water there is on Earth, or where it would go.
4. That pre-Columbian Toltec priests, along with certain Renaissance scholars (specifically French pharmacist Michel de Nostredame and Italian painter Leonardo da Vinci) did somehow have access to this knowledge, by a mechanism we no longer understand, enabling them to predict the exact date of the end of the world.
This is interesting because in the early 1500s when da Vinci and Nostradamus were doing their thing, people still believed the Earth was made of four basic elements (earth, air, fire, and water), and that it was the center of the universe and was orbited by sun, moon planets and stars. As bright as these men may have been, they knew nothing of chemistry or stellar evolution or Newton's laws of motion, and were no more qualified to predict a global disaster than, say, the barbers who cut their hair.
Anyway, attacking the specifics of these movies is not really my goal here; what I'm after is the mindset behind them. It takes hundreds of people and millions of dollars to make a blockbuster motion picture, and in a very real sense these films are cultural ambassadors that both reflect and shape public opinion. So it's more than a little annoying to see Roland Emmerich at it again, with bright people like Tim Burton following close behind, pushing the opinion that our civilization went horribly wrong at the Industrial Revolution, and the only way to restore its balance is to retreat all the way to the Middle Ages, or even the Bronze Age.
Science is the cause of all our woes and the solution to none! Only mysticism can save us! Emmerich can't be dumb enough to believe this himself, or he'd be holed up in a Tibetan monastery, not flitting between luxury homes in L.A., N.Y.C, Stuttgart and London. Bronze-age technology could not feed seven billion people, so who gets to decide who lives and dies? And if he looks out the window or reads the reviews of The Day After Tomorrow, Emmerich should know the public is not, for the most part, buying his bull.
But it's an easy sell to Hollywood investors, and if it causes some collateral damage to the science that might actually make this world a better place, well, so be it. Back to alchemy it is.
Sources:
Garraty, John A. and Gay, Peter: The Columbia History of the World, Harper & Row, 1986
Jones, Judy and Wilson, William: An Incomplete Education, Ballantine Books, 1995 edition
Morris, Richard: The Last Sorcerers, Joseph Henry Press, 2003
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia (en.wikipedia.org): Horcrux, Roland Emmerich
The Encyclopedia Britannica 2008 Untimate Reference Suite: "Golem", "Homunculus"
The Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com): 9, 2012
www.rottentomatoes.com: 9, 2012
Wil McCarthy is a rocket guidance engineer, robot designer, nanotechnologist, science-fiction author and occasional aquanaut. He has contributed to three interplanetary spacecraft, five communication and weather satellites, a line of landmine-clearing robots and some other "really cool stuff" he can't tell us about. His short writings have graced the pages of Analog, Asimov's, Wired, Nature and other major publications, and his book-length works include the New York Times notable Bloom, Amazon "Best of Y2K" The Collapsium and most recently, To Crush the Moon. His acclaimed nonfiction book, Hacking Matter, is now available as a free download.
By archangel at 12:10 PM ON 09/28/09
Instead of worrying so much why movies may or may not fall into the realm of Sci-Fi and if they are even good movies for that matter...try focusing on if SyFy is actually a sci-fi network, and try looking at some of the programming you actually show on there. People in glass walled buildings should not shoot Photon Torpedoes at others!!!
By Jonas72 at 12:21 PM ON 09/28/09
Nice article, and I must agree with most of your points. This won't, however, stop me from seeing these films. They aren't, after all, supposed to depict any reality we live in. I found The Day after Tomorrow mildly entertaining, while not buying the science behind it for one sec. And how do you deduce what Bruckheimer and Burton believes from the stories they tell? Suspension of Disbelief is a nice thing to have...
By Bill S. at 12:22 PM ON 09/28/09
Yes! I do not consider Bikini Shark Attack and all the other crap you show on your network to be anything close to sci-fi. Get reruns of old Doctor Who and any number of other classic sci-fi/fantasy TV shows. And only show sci-fi fantasy films, not all the horror garbage you for who knows what reason you consider to be appropriate for a sci-fi/fantasy TV network. And come on: Questioning the science behind 2012? It's a popcorn disaster film the likes of When Worlds Collide (yet another example of the kind of programming you SHOULD be airing). You can question the science of EVERY sci-fi movie, even the likes of classics like Star Wars and 2001. Kudos to Archangel for writing above.
By archangel at 12:23 PM ON 09/28/09
Also, the title of the article would sound a lot better if it were phrased this way..."9 Reasons WHY there's no science in 9's sci-fi"
By you don't say at 12:23 PM ON 09/28/09
If I watched movies like 9 and 2012 for their scientific value then I would be a redneck/chav. We watch these movies for entertainment. You don't seriously think that Hellboy was a failed representation of Hell's legions? These movies are about entertainment, about heart warming human endeavour and in the case of Emmerich's scholck filled vision's. Schlock, crap and gumph!
By wreck of an article at 12:49 PM ON 09/28/09
Slow day, huh? Why else publish this nonsense?
By Boda at 12:49 PM ON 09/28/09
My son loved ‘9’. Which was the only thing that I cared about in the end.
Well that…
and the fact that a family film actually acknowledged the existence of the soul.
By umbran at 12:51 PM ON 09/28/09
There is much to be said for those who live in glass houses not throwing stones. The science on SyFy is deplorable, and you know it. Clean up your own house before you gripe, hm?
Your real error is in suggesting that 9 is "superficially science fiction". The marketing I've seen for it does not make that claim. I'd suggest you not knock the movie for things you attribute to it that it does not.
By Rick "The Hat" Bman at 1:00 PM ON 09/28/09
So... what you are saying is that 9 is not sci-fi? That's cool, but when did it claim to be? The movie is a fantasy... there's your answer.
As for 2012... It's a Roland Emmerich film... nothing else needs to be said.
By JB_Gibson at 1:35 PM ON 09/28/09
I think the problem, a sign of inherent human arrogance as a whole, comes in assuming that neither can be compatible with the other, that they have to remain separate from each other to be at all valued. I think mixing the two provides for richer questions into the whole human condition which, I thought, was what science fiction was all about to begin with. That question and examination of humanity and what we're made of.
By PoorRichard at 1:37 PM ON 09/28/09
Archangel, Bill S. and Umbran are clearly too pedestrian to appreciate avant-garde performance art ouvre such as "Mega Snake," "Chupacabra: Dark Seas," and other breathtakingly original SyFy offerings. Oh, wait...those films really did suck, didn't they? My bad.
By charleskafka at 1:38 PM ON 09/28/09
Science fiction has always been a vehicle for telling stories that can't be told in current times, either because of political climates, or personal emotional journeys, or even current social morals.
some science fiction are heavily based on the science of the time, most are less. but to quote Arther C clark, (one of the more science based writers) an advanced technology would be indistinquishable from magic. anyway, im going to finish now, and communicate instantly with some friends of in 100's of miles away, with a set of crystals and rare earths , i carry around in my pocket, (a cell phone) and then i will get in my horseless chariot, (that runs on fire and brimstone, (two combustion products of gasoline engines) ) and go to a place where i can pick up anything i dream of. (wallmart) :-) .. so later~!
By Crozia at 1:41 PM ON 09/28/09
I've got one more thing that isn't science fiction: Will McCarthy (the "writer" of this article) is a tool bag. You come off sounding like a grumpy old fart. Wait a minute... are you a grumpy old fart?
By asfm at 1:52 PM ON 09/28/09
This is a very ridiculous article.
By Just Me at 1:57 PM ON 09/28/09
There is no "golem" as you describe in the Old Testament. Belief in "a creature made of clay and animated through prayer and incantation" stem from Jewish folklore and the Talmud. The supposed reference at Psalm 139:16 actually refers to a human embryo.
By zerosum at 2:00 PM ON 09/28/09
Perhaps the most appealing aspect of sci fi wire is the willingness to print articles like this, despite the inevitable backlash from those unable or unwilling to seriously consider the problem described.
By Just Me at 2:45 PM ON 09/28/09
"In a very real sense these films are cultural ambassadors that both reflect and shape public opinion." Possibly reflect public opinion, but certainly not shaping it. They're just movies after all, fantasies at that, not real hardcore sci-fi. They're designed to make a buck and entertain. Anyone letting their real world opinions be shaped by films about animated ragdolls and Mayan "prophecies" is a scary thought, much more scary than the pseudo-science in these films.
By Bobo at 2:46 PM ON 09/28/09
...and the lack of science fiction is why I stopped watched SyFy
By spoongod at 3:15 PM ON 09/28/09
Hmm...I would say a good bit of evidence that mysticism is replacing the science in science fiction when you look at SyFY programming? Star Trek TNG? Nope...we're going to remove that for a bimbo talking to ghosts.
By tekkblade at 3:53 PM ON 09/28/09
If the author makes it this far down the comments sections I'd like to tell him, "Thank you." I've never laughed out loud, literally, at an online article before. Your line about it being as scientific as a kick in the nuts was a perfect way to end the article, so again thank you.
By adayl8&a$short at 3:58 PM ON 09/28/09
Oh for cryin' out loud. This is fiction people. The first requirement for appreciating fiction is that you must "suspend your disbelief". If you are so upset by the literary license taken by the authors that you cannot focus on the entirety of the work, then you cannot appreciate the author's intent. Which does not mean that I infer that the author truly had an intent. Let's face it, most Science Fiction and Fantasy movies are utter crap and not worth the photons used to beam them onto the silver screen. I chalk this up the brain damaged drug addicts that run the entertainment industry.
But I digress, the instances cited all illustrate one of the great long standing debates in the literary genres of F&SF, that of the dividing line between SF and Fantasy. It is clear that the line is both broad and hazy. We are familiar with the writings of Arther C Clark, Isaac Asimov and others who clearly stayed within the realm of verifiable science as best they could. We are also familiar with J K Rowling, Marion Zimmer Bradley and many others whose work falls clearly into the realm of fantasy. But, who is to say really which is which for every work of fiction? After all we are all (or should be) familiar with the notion that a technology that you don't understand is indistinguishable from magic.
By superfly at 4:08 PM ON 09/28/09
Debating souls is a ridiculous philosophical debate in which I will not engage in. You have a point that its not strict scifi, but there is nothing wrong with writing fantasy. The name change in SyFy clearly indicates fantasy, which was always shown on the network, so there's nothing to be upset about.
The 2012 movie might be crap but putting it at the tail end of your mysticism argument doesn't help you.
By Hank Jekyll at 4:27 PM ON 09/28/09
This article is simple to deduce. The writer of the article is a Sci-Fi author and a really really smart guy (I assume from the mini-bio) He must find it horribly painful to see, what he thinks is unbelievable junk writing, have so much monetary (corporate) support. He has to put down the mystical stuff so his own scientific stuff becomes more popular and then he can make movies too!!
By M at 4:53 PM ON 09/28/09
I have enjoyed some of the writers works, but this article... The poster above was correct it sounds like a angry old fart. Came across a idea in a old book by Frank Herbert (yes that Frank Herbert) "Th Godmakers" that any intelligent slf-aware being has religion, and no he didn't mean religion like the looney bible-thumpers, he meant a series of beliefs -like the author has his absolute religion of holy science. point to be made is people can be just as fanatical and narrow minded in the fundamentalist views regardless of what those views may be (there are alot of fundamentalist science types too). The only truly sane belief is agnostic, I know that I don't know. Because we don't know, period, regardless of what the die-hard fanatics on both sides of the debate believe, and preach.
By Sharr at 5:04 PM ON 09/28/09
Archangel nailed it!
By YOU CHANGED THE TITLE! at 5:57 PM ON 09/28/09
Oh, I love how you retconned the article title. You guys suck
By Hlafordlaes at 6:06 PM ON 09/28/09
Great article. Unlike my generation, that at most saw an hour or two a day of normal shows with highly unrealistic special effects, today's kids are raised on permanent TV and subject to an easy confusion between fiction and reality. So the infusion of mysticism is all that more grievous.
Nice article, wrong place to post it. Should be on Ars Tecnica or some such.
By Azgoroth at 6:56 PM ON 09/28/09
The mysticism that is objected to in this article has its most immediate source in early Christianity. (although the concept of science being evil has existed much longer than that) The snake, a symbol of evil in Christian mythology was the symbol of science in the times before Christianity. (This is why the logo on ambulances is two snakes twined around a staff, medicine is science) The religion demonizes technology in favor of even the most retarded pseudoscientific explanations of rational events.
Even for non religious types this pervasive hatred of science exists as a culture trait and gets worked into science fiction and just about everything else.
By rkf at 7:02 PM ON 09/28/09
Normally, I try not to be so negative on these boards, but I really do think this was just a stupid article. SF has always embraced a number of sub-genres, and not all sf movies are "hard" science fiction, nor, for that matter, have they ever been.
I think most can agree that Star Wars, for example, is considered an iconic SF movie, but technically speaking it's just as much fantasy as anything else. And there's the old trope that "any significantly advanced technology is indistinguishable yaddah yaddah yaddah."
I understand the author's focus on the "science" part of "science fiction," but do please note the "fiction" portion as well.
By divephotog at 10:07 PM ON 09/28/09
Lots of good points here in the comments guys...
One major theme to be summed up, is that SyFy and their partners have no right to criticize the amount of Science in the Fiction, as they are the resident of a large (and unstable) glass house, throwing these stones.
Get real SCIENCE fiction back on Syfy, and your comments will be more easily accepted.
Sure, some of the major series we have loved have had some scientific errors to them, but they were more easily overlooked for the sake of the story and entertainment.
Look at the programming on SyFy though, and it is 80% horror, vs the 80% real sci-fi of even 5 years ago. Additionally, one needs to get the garbage off, that being the wrestling, and pseudo-science of Ghosts Hunting, Whispers, and Destination Fallacy.
Then you can start throwing stones... - kh
By Red Mask at 10:30 PM ON 09/28/09
The audience has grown to be fearful and superstitious lot. Is it any wonder so many still cling to creationism?
By Mandy at 1:01 AM ON 09/29/09
You know this article is insulting to people who study things like parapsychology and DO try to scientifically analyze the things you describe in here as 'nonscience.' Hans Holzer would be rolling over in his grave over this.
Do you forget your own Scifi Channel's first show was Dark Shadows? Star Wars and Doctor Who both embrace the existence of the soul as part of their SCIENCE.
Why can't Science and spirituality co-exist if all things can be scientifically explained (even the soul) than they should easily co exist. ALL things, physical or non DO exist in the realm of science simply because they might be real.
Theoretical physics is a major part of parapsychology. Do you even know what Supernatural means? It means super-nature. Super in the context of meaning advanced or not yet explored and nature. It means the unexplored aspects of nature and that is precisely what REAL science is all about.
This article is an insult to all fields of research into the unexplained. Not all science is robotics, you know.
It's people like you that cost us The Dresden Files and could harm Warehouse 13 as a series. This article feels like it was written by an ignorant thirteen-year-old boy angry at his sister watching The Canterville Ghost while he wants to watch Terminator.
By Pimp at 3:32 AM ON 09/29/09
Yeah, I have to second the comments made by Mandy, and I want to focus a little more specifically.
"That the human soul exists, and is separable from both the body and the intellect. This is a widespread and by no means objectionable belief, but any clergyman will tell you there's no scientific basis for it."
I'm sorry, but this is wrong and irresponsible. There's actually quite a bit of scientific evidence for a soul. You might not think that it is good enough evidence to convince you, but it does still count as evidence. It is very irresponsible to just declare it to be unscientific.
"People want to be rich, information wants to be free, and anything that really works is unlikely to stay secret for long."
You've got to be kidding me. If you honestly believe this then all inventors might as well pack it up right now. I mean, after all anything that really works is unlikely to stay secret for long, and would have certainly been figured out long before now. Pay no attention to the inventions that came out last year and are successful.
"So it's more than a little annoying to see Roland Emmerich at it again, with bright people like Tim Burton following close behind, pushing the opinion that our civilization went horribly wrong at the Industrial Revolution, and the only way to restore its balance is to retreat all the way to the Middle Ages, or even the Bronze Age."
Once again, very irresponsible. I don't think that you know that these people honestly believe what you say they believe.
By chris at 4:24 AM ON 09/29/09
That IS what makes it great. Some of us enjoy the things that are based in science and some of us enjoy the idea that not everything has a quantifiable scientific explanation. It gives our brains a release from reality and lets us dream of bigger and better things.
Take the cell phone for instance. One hundred years ago they would have said it was magic. One hundred years later it is fact. What we deem scientifically impossible could be fact in the future. Don't forget the scientific possibility/ theory of a multi-verse.
By Joked at 11:27 AM ON 09/29/09
Try again McCarthy.
By abesapiens at 12:49 PM ON 09/29/09
My family loved 9, but know all that stuff about the soul, and machines=evil is crap. Rational reality-based people can tell the difference between fact and fantasy and still derive pleasure from both.
By Mandy at 6:08 PM ON 09/29/09
'People want to be rich, information wants to be free, and anything that really works is unlikely to stay secret for long.'
Really? Then how is it over a hundred new species were discovered just this past year?
You talk about the soul being non-science just because some religious people can't merge the two subjects but the fact is REAL exploration into the unknown means accepting all things as being possibly real and therefor, theoretically speaking, bound by the laws of science. The soul could very well be a complex configuration of energies able to maintain consciousness which would (potentially in the future) be scientifically analyzable. It's debatable but that's what speculative science fiction is SUPPOSED to be about.
Even magick, alchemy and laws such as 'equivalent exchange' have their basis in the laws of thermodynamics.
Humans don't know everything there is to know about everything. The fact that you're implying we do is an insult to ALL science fiction.
You imply that all things worth discovering are already discovered, undermining everything every great Science fiction writer ever stood for: Bradbury, Orwell, Wells, Verne...
Bradbury had Martian ghosts at one point. Does that mean he's not a real Scifi writer?! Your views (as a fan of speculative science fiction, and someone who has studied parapsychology as a science) disgust me.
What hypocrisy! The Syfy Channel tells us to imagine greater and you order us to limit our imaginations. Make up your mind.
You, McCarthy, have no respect for Real science or exploration into the unknown and I think Scifi wire should APOLOGIZE for publishing this intellectually stunting garbage.
By scifi fan at 6:08 PM ON 09/29/09
“science (sº“…ns) n. Abbr. sc., sci. 1.a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. 2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science. 3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing. 4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.”as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary.
I find very little hard science fiction in movies or TV today. I agree that mysticism has for the most part taken over the industry.
As for the idea of Spirit, Soul and Body the concept is absolutely Biblical.1 Thessalonians 5:23 The body is expressed with the five senses of taste, touch, hearing, seeing smelling. The spirit is you conscience, communion and intuition and the Soul is you mind emotion and will. It is said the Soul follows the spirit after death and leaving the body.
By swordsbane at 6:53 PM ON 09/29/09
First of all, a guy who works on a web site for the Sci-Fi channel bitching about a Sci-Fi movie and a Fantasy movie being unscientific? Pot.. meet kettle. Shut the hell up. "9" is fantasy. If you're going to pick that apart, then you should also get started on Lord of the Rings and all the Harry Potter movies.
Next, science fiction and fantasy are SEPARATE things. Science fiction was created to explore possibilities, not what is "clearly impossible but looks good if you ad explosions" A very teeny tiny portion of what is called Science Fiction on TV and in the movie can truly be called Science fiction. Currently, none of the Sci-Fi channels programming falls into that category. SG-1 came close. Nothing since. So again Mr McCarthy. Please shut up.
Fantasy is "what if this were true?" It's okay if you mix the two. It's NOT okay to have logically impossible things in Science Fiction (pretty much all of the Day after Tomorrow and 2012) This is where Star Wars firmly falls, as does most Science Fiction movies.
There is a trend these days to fill our TV sets with stupid fantasies and call them science. Check out the History Channel and the Discovery Channel these days for all the "documentaries" claiming to be scientific, yet present ghosts, monsters, and alien visitations without any sort of scientific inquiry. The Sci-Fi channel can perhaps be exempt, since it is an entertainment channel, but not when someone from that channel badmouths other people for doing what they themselves do. Please leave the scientific nitpicking to Bad Astronomy and police you're own yard.
And ENOUGH with the wrestling. It's stupid. It doesn't even have a Sci-Fi theme.
By Dagon Pagoda at 11:28 PM ON 09/29/09
I find it amusing that upon realization that we are nothing but primitives after all, the most adamant of disbelievers will gravitate toward a higher power that they cling to without even listening to alternative explanation. The paradox of Darwinism is man's egocentricity. 'Science' is simply another one of our gods.
By Strakus at 6:45 AM ON 09/30/09
Glad to see someone else -the author-had complaints in line with my own. 9 was in a position to explore relatively untrammeled ground- the simple subversion of the machine holocaust trope- in this case, that all the survivors are machines- was welcome, and the visuals, of Rube Goldberg terrors brought forth from the wreckage, were clever and entrancing.
But the horcrux-esque soul infusion dropped the ball in ways that, regardless of the defensibility of your religious or philosophical persuasion, make for crummy storytelling. The fundamental differences that the machine inventor imbued into our burlap-skinned heroes versus his war machine could have been related to what we actually saw on screen- that built into their intellects was the ability to cooperate, to value exploration over conquest, to walk lightly, to be curious rather than violent in the face of the unknown - to, in short, do everything that we see them do and that their opponents do not.
Instead, the story in essence says that what redeems them is not the content of their character- its a shot of green electrical hero goo of an ultimately irrelevant nature. A story that could have quietly asked what qualities constitute a person rather than a thing, instead cashed in that part of the premise for perhaps the lamest plot coupon from the forgettable doorstop-sized fantasy shelf, complete with hokey talisman and lightning out of the eyes. It doesn't even carry out the promise of said cliche- I doubt I was alone in assuming the whole purpose of pursuing the stolen/downloaded souls was to stick them in newly tinkered bodies made by our industrious little junkyard warriors. The payoff of the whole ending was that their spectral forms were free to go to robo-heaven, and fill the rain with elan vital, of all painfully archaic things? Please. Whatever else it is, it is disappointing. I have no objection to fiction in general being filled with magical happening- I object when they are used poorly in place of far more honest and compelling storytelling, and such was the case here.
By FW at 11:47 AM ON 09/30/09
Whole lot of judgment going on here. Wil McCarthy has been writing great opinion columns for Sci Fi (yeah, sci-fi) for years. His task to to analyze the SCIENCE of science fiction, and comment on it. I'm amazed that an article that comments that "boy, science seems to be a villain in movies these days," draws such ire. That's a fairly astute observation.
McCarthy would also be the first to tell you that a lot of the so-call "science" in sci-fi movies is utter bunk (see: articles on The Hulk, superpowers, The Core, Day the Earth Stood Still, destroying the earth, etc., etc.). In fact, that's his whole point if you actually read the first paragraph or two. He freely admits that a lot of the "science" in sci-fi is garbage. But he's distressed that the paranormal is being portrayed as the solution to that big bad science.
But because you intelligent design goofs see the word "mysticism" or "soul," you get your panties in a bunch. Sheesh. Way to be objective, guys.
It's a shame that SYFY doesn't archive his old articles. There are probably 75 of them. They are awesome.
By RMS at 4:22 PM ON 09/30/09
Holly Crap! It's semantics. Horror. Fantasy. Science Fiction. What the hell does it matter? Just like the Sy Fy channel, science fiction encompasses it all. This attical reads like some college kid's philosophy paper.
By QuantumSam at 10:45 AM ON 10/02/09
Science significantly advanced enough will seem as if magic to the brutes.
Just because science can't detect and measure the soul doesn't mean it doesn't exitst nor does it mean science won't be able to do so in the future.
And not all religions believe in "souls" per se. Check out Buddhism for instance.
By suteko at 3:23 PM ON 10/08/09
As a writer of genre I like to think of Science Fiction is what could be and Fantasy as what might be.
9 is obviously Not meant for the grown up sciencist but for the kid and the kid inside the scientist. It is a hero tale told in a new way.
I find it interesting with all the ragging about SyFy not being SciFi enough that when a article is put up with science as a base people just go off yet again.
I was going to comment on the article but really you guys need to get a life. Enjoy the movies and ignore the article if it bugs you that much.
Visit mobile.syfy.com/wire on your mobile device.
suteko:
As a writer of genre I like to think of Science Fiction is what could be and Fantasy as what might be. 9 is obviou...More »