The Uncanny Valley of Scientific Fact in Science Fiction

A recent trip to the movies got me thinking about the suspension of disbelief when it comes to science fiction. Increasingly we are seeing science used, and misused, on screen as major plot points to varying degrees of success. Of course science fiction is a very broad term incorporating fact based science fiction like Gravity all the way up to this summer’s fantastical Guardians of the Galaxy. Both films lie on the opposite edges of the same valley but what interests me is where does fantasy based science fiction cross over into fact based science fiction and is there a place where the two break down completely. Additionally is there a litmus test, similar to the Uncanny valley for CG and robots, which we as viewers use to make this assessment? And finally does the viewer’s scientific literacy inform that assessment?

Full disclosure, other than Godzilla, I haven’t seen any of these films since some of them are not out yet and others I haven’t gotten around to. I do plan on seeing them all.

What set me on this particular path was the preview for Lucy, which I saw when I saw Godzilla this weekend. Lucy is the new Scarlett Johansson/Luc Besson science fiction vehicle about a world run by mobs and cartels that has forced Scarlett Johansson’s character to work as a drug mule. Near the beginning of the film Lucy’s surgically implanted drug package leaks and it makes her a superhuman. As the film progresses Lucy becomes a transcendent being. In addition to the poor portrayal of Asian stereotypes, the preview also trots out the false anecdote that we only use 10% of our brains. 

The film, which also stars Morgan Freeman, sounds like a great ride. Yet even as I watched the preview I kept returning to its opening thesis. The idea that we only use 10% of our brains has been disproven a number of times in a number of different ways. Yet this concept persists in film and on television. Why did this statement bother me more than giant city destroying Kaiju that I excitedly came to the theatre to see?

I think it stems from the idea we find it easier to accept the conceits of films like Godzilla because they don’t delve too deep into the science to try and explain the plot. Brian Cranston and Ken Watanabe character’s both talk about the science surrounding Godzilla but don’t go too deep into the specifics of the mechanics that would result in Godzilla. By saying that we only use 10% of our brains, Lucy pushes the disproven theory and then tries to build on by showing that that if we could access the other 90% we would be gods. Now you can argue that the non-specific parts of Lucy can be found in how the drug works, yet I think this breaks down too.  The foundation that the film is based on is faulty because it was so specific. Had Luc Besson left that line out of the preview, leaving the specifics up the imagination of viewer, I think it would have been a stronger preview. Or if the opening thesis had been: we now have a way to overclock the speed at which the brain operates, I think I would have been fine with it. It’s the same reason that Midi-Chlorians didn’t pass the sniff test for many Star Wars fans. I think in both cases faulty footing robs the audience of a chance to make the leap it needs to suspend their disbelief, they can’t rely on the footing that they are pushing off of.

I think the other reason this rankles me is that it’s lazy writing. A cursory search on google or Wikipedia will output numerous articles that explicitly state the origin of this myth or can point you to sources that will give you a fuller understanding of how much of our brain we use. The Wikipedia article for Lucy, in fact has a link to the “Ten Percent of Brain Myth” embedded in its synopsis.

All of this assumes that the viewer is scientifically literate enough to spot factual inaccuracies in media. With much of the country disputing climate change, evolution, the efficacy of vaccines, or still hung up on Pluto’s demotion to dwarf planet, it’s a question whether or not this film’s target audience would even notice. Which I think lies at the root of what really bothers me; preying on your audiences ignorance because the writer/producer was too lazy to take the opportunity to say something interesting.   

I would love to know what you think.