1980 - 1989!
THE GODSEND - 1980
movies often borrow horrible realities from nature and imagine what
it would be like if they were applied to humans. In this case the innocent looking cuckoo is the model.
The female cuckoo lays her eggs in unattended nests of birds of other species. The baby cuckoo doesn't look at all like the other chicks but birds identify each other by voice, not appearance and cuckoos are talented mimics. The unknowing adoptive parents feed the baby as if it were their own. And just to
maximize its parental attention, the cuckoo waits until the parents
are away and then pushes the other chicks out of the nest to their
What if there were some human variant or sub species that used a similar strategy?
HUMANOIDS FROM THE DEEP - 1980
The reasoning here is evolution. Dr. Drake explains that the growth
hormone enhanced salmon were eaten by coelacanths (a
primitive fish once thought extinct but rediscovered alive in the
1930's). In the coelacanths the growth hormone had the effect of speeding up their
evolution such that they've reached a humanoid state. I
guess they thought making the humanoids evolved coelacanths was
more believable than making them evolved salmon.
Two things come to mind. First, people who don't understand evolution often assume
that humans are the "pinnacle" that all other species
are evolving towards. No. Humans are just lucky primates that became
smart enough to build a civilization. Evolving intelligence was
a fluke of environment, climate and timing. If becoming dumber rather
than smarter would have aided our ancestor's survival then evolution
would have made brains smaller instead of bigger. There's nothing
special about our big brains or us as far as evolution is concerned.
Dr. Drake, "coelacanth" is pronounced "SEE-LA-KANTH",
not "KO-EL-LA-KANTH". So there.
Dr. Drake's explanation for why the humanoids (turns out there's a bunch of the critters) are killing the men and raping the women is because the humanoids "want to continue their evolution by mating with us."
I won't even dignify that with a response.
CONTAMINATION aka ALIEN CONTAMINATION - 1980
There's a lot I could say about people exploding and how it's not easy
to make people explode because we have so many orifices, which makes
it hard to build up that much pressure. But I'll skip that and
address the statement the movie makes about these being silicon
life forms. All life on Earth is carbon based in the sense that the
large organic proteins that make up living things are only possible
because carbon atoms can form so many molecular links. In fact organic
doesn't mean living it means carbon compound.
Silicon is directly below carbon on the periodic table, which means that its properties
are similar. This is why science fiction writers have often speculated
about silicon-based life forms. However silicon chemistry takes
place at much higher temperatures than carbon, which makes cold
Mars an unlikely place of origin. But it's a big universe.
FLASH GORDON - 1980
The movie was far more interested in being true to the comics and the old Flash Gordon serial than in being modern science fiction. By that I mean that there’s no attempt to get the science right here (it’s almost as bad as the science in Star Wars). But that doesn't bother me because I can offer a perfectly reasonable explanation: when Zarkhov’s rocket traveled into orbit in an utterly scientific fashion, it passed through a portal to an alternate universe – a universe with very different physics. That's why the moons of Mongo being within the atmosphere of Mongo and thus reachable by rocket cycle or by winged hawkman – an astronomical atrocity in our universe – is just fine here.
ALTERED STATES - 1981
What? A drug that alters your state of consciousness in such a way
that your thoughts become reality? Why, that's not entirely preposterous!
There is an interpretation of some of the more bizarre results of
various experiments in quantum physics that say that the act of a
sentient being observing a quantum event can affect the outcome of
that event. I personally don't agree with that interpretation but who knows?
There was an experiment profiled on Nova (PBS) that showed that a bunch of people staring at a Geiger counter could affect when it went off (the decay of a radioactive atom being a quantum event). The science in this movie isn't
entirely outside the realm.
ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK - 1981
The science today is economics.
Consider that a mega-city like New York is a sizable fraction of our economy. A mere 400% rise in crime
doesn't even come close as a good reason to abandon trillions of dollars
in infrastructure and real estate represented by that huge city. Something
else must have happened. Maybe a terrorist bio-attack or radioactive
dirty bomb made most of the city uninhabitable. But even then it would
still make more economic sense to clean up and rebuild rather than
just walking away. My guess is some kind of revolution was taking
place in their version of the late 80's (because of, or leading up to, our involvement in WWIII) and the rebels took control of Manhattan. What began as a siege of enemy-held territory became a permanent situation.
FIRESTARTER - 1984
There is no evidence that any form of psychic power is anything more than wishful thinking.
However I can imagine a scientific basis firm enough to suspend my disbelief. If you assume that there is some as yet undiscovered form of energy permeating the universe and/or existing in some higher dimensional space then that can serve as the power source for Charlie's amazing abilities.
For a more thorough explanation I refer the interested reader to “Waldo” by Robert Heinlein.
TERMINATOR - 1984
There is no scientific basis for expecting time travel will ever be possible.
Some theories do allow for it under very extreme circumstances
(wormholes), but even those theories make it clear that if you could build a time machine, you could never use it to go back to a time before the time machine itself existed.
But I don't consider that an issue here. Time travel is a traditional
plot device, like hyperspace, and I'm willing to let it go.
LIFE FORCE - 1985
I'm not sure who it was (my guess is Dan O'Bannon) but somebody involved in this movie was a science geek. I know that because the Churchill maintains the illusion of gravity on board by use of a nuclear engine (properly placed underneath the ship rather than behind) that provides a steady 1 gravity acceleration while the rocket is burning. That would actually work (if you had an engine powerful enough – which we have a pretty good idea how to make) as opposed to magical gravity generators used in so many other movies and TV shows, which we don't have the first clue how to build.
ALIENS - 1986
One of James Cameron's many talents includes a good working knowledge
of science and there is little to criticize here or in any of his
movies. I will make an observation, however. There is no way a creature
could evolve the ability to use alien species as hosts for its parasitic
offspring. There are lots of other ways to do what DNA does and if
life is common then each planet evolves its own unique solution to
I'm not saying the alien in Aliens is impossible.
I'm saying it could only be artificial. It's a biological
weapon that clearly got out of hand.
CRITTERS - 1986
You don't have to be a scientist to realize that these varmints are part of a highly advanced intergalactic race of beings. And anyone technologically advanced enough to traverse the galaxy on a single tank of fuel would likely have the tech to alter their physiology in such a way as to survive on a wide range of xenoforms (alien life). Such technology would likely be as common as dental fillings for a space faring race. And why not? It would be a hell of a thing to travel all the way to the other end of the galaxy, start feelin' a mite peckish, and know that yer 100,000 light years from the nearest alien equivalent of a convenience store. Besides which, survival favors the omnivore.
What's more, CRITTERS shows the existence of such biotechnology among the aliens in the form of the Warden, whose body appears to be an integral part of his flying chair, and the two bounty hunters who can physically alter their faces at will, on the fly no less - strictly outpatient. Humans are already well into a technology period of body altering in cyber (artificial parts / replacements), bio (surgical alterations / replacements), and genetic (body alterations at the DNA level), so it ain't hard to think that a far more advanced life form would be "light years" ahead of us on this.
FLY - 1986
Making teleportation a workable concept is not easy but I must say this movie does a great
Less is more as Seth plays down his genius by saying he has outside
experts build the various parts and he just puts them together. This
is mixed in with glorious philoso-babble like only Jeff Goldblum can
do. And when the fateful moment comes and Seth teleports himself and
his unseen little passenger, the result is not instant switched body
parts like in the original movie. Instead the confused computer (exhibiting
intelligence and computer power far beyond anything achievable today)
decides to genetically merge the two subjects into one.
FROM BEYOND - 1986
Perhaps the biggest science plot hole to all of this is the fact that (according to the story), the otherworldy varmints are always there in our own reality, just invisible to us - and we to them. But when we fire up the old Sonic Resonator, we can actually see each other. This should mean
that if the varmint has you in its slimy grip, then it should still have
you even though you turned the machine off. Not so with this trashy cheesy
Y'all know that I love trashy cheesy flicks, right?
ROBOCOP - 1987
It's both interesting and frustrating to compare and contrast this movie,
where Verhoeven did an excellent job with all the science leaving
me no room for complaints, and his later film, STARSHIP TROOPERS, where everything that could be wrong was wrong.
Was ROBOCOP a fluke? I don't know, but I do know that even the implications
of the advancements shown are considered, like the fact that if this
kind of prosthetic tech existed its use would be widespread, but we
already saw evidence for that in the TV commercial for the artificial heart.
HELL COMES TO FROGTOWN - 1987
I know I don't need to tell you that no amount of radiation will turn humans into frog people. But I will mention that radiation does lead to both sterility and the kind of inherited mutations that make you wish you were sterile. So rebuilding your population after a nuclear war would be a real concern.
But would that involve making fertile men wear chastity belts with "Property of Provisional Government" written on them? And would the largely female military really prefer to drive around in pink armored cars? And why would the mutation that makes you a frogman also make you over act?
THE BLOB - 1988
The explanation given here is that the blob is a single huge bacterium
and the meteor wasn't a meteor but a crashed government satellite.
How did the bacteria get so big?
By being "exposed to space."
Now in 1958, when only a couple of satellites had been orbited and
space was still very mysterious, maybe you could get away with that.
But in 1988 it was the commonest of knowledge that the only thing
that happens to bacteria "exposed to space" is that they die.
ALIEN NATION - 1988
20th Century Fox
I do not believe in humanoid aliens. There are too many solutions
to the engineering problem of designing an intelligent being for
us to ever encounter a species designed like us. Form follows function
arguments not withstanding. That being said, I understand that truly
alien aliens are very difficult and thus rarely seen in movies (the
bar scene in Star Wars being one of the few examples).
Not as forgivable is the idea that simple salt water would be stronger than the strongest
acid to the Newcomers. Saline is very weak on the ph scale. It's
about a 7.8 where 7.0 is completely neutral (like
distilled water), which makes seawater a base rather than
an acid. Rainwater is farther from neutral (at about 5.5) than seawater. This is a popular idea in science fiction, that some aliens are destroyed by water. Any life form that could live on Earth must have evolved on a planet similar to Earth. In other words, lots of water, including oceans. True, the Newcomers were genetically engineered slaves and perhaps their masters put this weakness into them to keep them from
away? Does a race with interstellar technology really need such
a bizarre form of security? Plus, if they are slaves, this weakness
truly limits where they could work. Would a slave master risk his
entire workforce melting away in a sudden rainstorm? Foolish.
FeoNote: You may disagree with Kelly over this. I do all of the time. The idea that aliens from another planet, would have a culture and a logic that makes sense to us, when most of the cultures, and logic based upon those cultures, right here on earth do not?
What Kelly and I agree on though is this: Assuming the movie's logic that these aliens
are in mortal danger from sea water, for what possible reason would they choose to live and raise their families in a coastal city like Los Angeles - right next to the largest body of acid on earth? The very air they breathe should be eating their lungs and skin!
Witchita, Kansas. That's where I'd live if I had such a problem and a smattering of survival instinct.
DEEPSTAR SIX - 1989
The idea here is that some truly huge underwater cavern is broken
open, releasing the monster. Not impossible, but think about the details.
The cavern would have to be big enough to support a breeding
population of these very large predators. Predators like this sit
at the top of a big food chain and this means the cavern would have
to contain a complete self-sustaining ecology. That's one hell
of a big cavern. On top of that, the bulk of life in the deep ocean
depends on a steady rain of nutrients from above, consisting mostly
of dead plants and animals from near the surface. This cavern would
be cut off from the rain of food, making its existence even more problematic.
THE FLY II - 1989
Martin is the son of a human woman and a half-human half-fly mutant, thus
making him one-quarter fly on his father's side.
Let me just mention here that humans and chimpanzees, which share 98% of the same
genetic material, can't cross breed, so the idea that Brundle-Fly
and a human female would successfully reproduce is extremely unlikely.
Be that as it may, if such an offspring were produced you would expect
him to have certain fly-like characteristics. For example, the great
strength Brundle-Fly displayed in the first movie is fine, since pound
for pound insects are many times stronger than mammals.
But superior intelligence? No.
That'd make a good spoof title: "The Caterpillar! Very scary,
kids! Watch out! He'll . . . eat your rose bushes!" The
writers need to spend some time watching the Discovery channel.
PREDATOR - 1989
When I first heard about this movie I feared the worst.
The title implied this creature was here to eat people, a common mistake in
science fiction. If an alien monster had you for lunch it would probably
ruin your day, but you'll at least get the satisfaction of killing
him right back. There are an infinite number of ways biochemistry
can establish itself (DNA is just one solution)
and every planet will have a unique chemistry. What that means is
there is no way the alien monster will be biologically ready for your
proteins, which will almost certainly be deadly poison for him.
Thus I was relieved to discover the Predator was here for trophies, not dinner.
Return to Movies
is interviewed by the prestigious The Scienctist Magazine.
"After ten years of "Science Moments," McMullen and Parks are experts on the science faux paus that plague movies."
- Megan Scudellari: The Scientist magazine
See Yesterday's Tomorrow, TODAY!
What a beautiful future it was.
He walked on the moon!
He got Neil Armstrong to take his picture!
He became an MTV Award!
He flew Homer Simpson into space and put the "Buzz" in
VOYAGE TO ARCTURUS
Strong math Techno-speak for the really smart Techno-Geek.
debunks the myths with clear, easy to understand facts.
BAD SCIENCE PROJECTS
The most fascinating research, experiments, and inventions in the
Lots of robots!
debunks the myths and the myth makers.
Where your science questions are answered by REAL (though not necessarily mad) scientists!
See Researchers, Professors, Scientists, and Science
Geeks discuss chaos and particle theory (and
more!) with bathroom language!
See flame wars on a doctorate level!
See Ph.D's discuss rabid liberal politics with no
clue as to what they are talking about!
TECH CENTRAL STATION
More blog for your bucK!
LINKS TO THE PAST!
See history archived before your very eyes! NASA's own online mausoleum!