I may be a bit of science nerd but I couldn’t agree with the below linked article more. Science Fiction has always looked further than the science fact of the time. Greats like Wells, Asimov, Heinlein, and Verne all wrote about things that were technologically impossible at the time they wrote them; concepts that had few (or no) workable scientific theories, and hence paved the way for the science to follow. I won’t go into detail but how the foresight of the likes of Clarke and the Roddenberry paved the way for the science and technology of today, but I am not entirely comfortable with the current trend that requires science fiction movies to be pulled apart and dissected by science buffs (no disrespect to Mr deGrasse Tyson whom I respect very much). There seems to be a very fine line between gracefully informing the public of where the boundaries between science fact and fiction lie and a form of intellectual ego stroking.
Science fiction has always been about what could be possible, has always been about the story and humanity’s need to reach out and explore the boundaries of what COULD be. The human story has always come first so I always forgive a couple of grey areas to move the plot along. That being said, clearly lazy storytelling laced with BAD or WRONG science ruins it for everyone. There is a big difference.
Link to the article that prompted this post.
