Comments on: Comic-Con Gauntlet Thrown: Fringe Producer Says Scientific Fact Must Yield to Story

By: Rudolf Schlosberg

Rudolf Schlosberg — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:56:36 +0000

Yeah I want to run out and give my data me too

By: If it’s July, it must be Comic-Con: Abusing Science on Fringe | Genetics News

Thu, 29 Jul 2010 03:16:29 +0000

[...] on the panel Stentz confirmed that science plays second fiddle to “story” on Fringe as Eric Wolff reported at Science not Fiction: “Sometimes you have to break the rules to tell the story you want to tell,” he said, and ran a [...]

By: M.E. Baz

M.E. Baz — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:42:39 +0000

Expecting accurate science from fiction is like expecting a storyline in porn films – if it’s there, consider it a bonus. If it’s not and you fret about it, you’re seriously going to miss out.

By: JoelG

JoelG — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 08:28:40 +0000

You’ve hit the nail on the head for me!

I’ve always been happy with shows that change the basic laws of physics, as long as it’s all consistent. Stargate SG-1 was great for that – their “science” was actually reasonably self consistent (at least once they found their feet). We accept the impossible, and move on.

If, however, we wouldn’t accept the improbable except for the fact that we don’t *know* it’s improbable, well, perhaps any self respecting sci-fi show should actually be teaching us some science at that point? (Ok, not really – but it would be nice!)

By: olderwithmoreinsurance

olderwithmoreinsurance — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 03:49:11 +0000

I knew there was a good reason I don’t watch Fringe, and its producer laid it out in plain English. Its “science” is even worse than that on Eureka. You can tell the exact same stories, make the exact same points, and NOT insult the intelligence of your audience. Oh, that takes GOOD writers and SMART producers though…….or else you’re down at the level of most of the SyFy channel pretty damn quickly. (and yes, I’ve watched enough of Fringe to know I don’t need to watch any more).

By: Michael T.

Michael T. — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:47:09 +0000

magetoo, I wasn’t arguing his point about the validity of the comparative criticism only its relevancy.

By: magetoo

magetoo — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:06:48 +0000

Michael T: I believe that was exactly NelC’s point.

By: magetoo

magetoo — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:02:09 +0000

(I have not seen Fringe, so this is more a general view)

Internal consistency is the key, as several people have said. And perhaps consistency more generally, I don’t buy “making an effort to get it right” and then just ignoring that when it’s convenient; if the story is already given and the science is something you add where it fits rather than something that feeds back to the story then you’re in fantasy territory. (Which is perfectly fine!)

IMHO, part of the charm of science fiction is that in sticking to the rules, you can get a sense of “holy crap, this could actually happen” out of it. (Yeah, ok, “it could actually happen” given some set of extraordinary and unlikely circumstances, but still. I the viewer am willing to suspend disbelief to some degree. But the writer shouldn’t make me work too hard to do it.)

By: Michael T.

Michael T. — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 20:03:36 +0000

@NelC. Because nobody cares about what a scientist has to say about the content of a film just like no one cares what a historian has to say either. It has zero impact on the box office but Ebert’s opinion does. They are far from equivalent by any stretch.

By: Allen

Allen — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 19:55:51 +0000

I personally love Fringe, but the suspension of disbelief can be a bit hard to keep up. When it puts up the front of paranormal phenomena being explained by science, that’s hard to ignore.

To me, however, I think the story should unceasingly yield to science unless parts of the science that it breaks is consistent (The Force, FTL travel, etc.). We have a bad enough understanding of science in the public as it is, and junk science in our movies and television exacerbates things. It can be like the CSI Effect, but for other fields.