After browsing through this list, it becomes clear that the producers were right to go for sci-fi productions without science, as all of them turned out to be huge box office hits.
Not every movie needs to have a scientific basis like Interstellar,"and these 10 great movies certainly prove that. Even if fans are denied the chance to learn more about the worlds of these movies in a scientific way, it does not take away from the sheer excitement of watching a movie with fantastical elements.
We can hate on Hollywood’s oversimplification tactics all we want, but the idea of producing sci-fi movies without boring audiences with redundant scientific details has certainly stood the test of time.
Here are all the films mentioned: Armageddon (1998), The Day After Tomorrow (2004), The Core (2003), Lucy (2014), Transformers (2007-2019), 2012 (2009), What The #$*! Do We (K)now!? (2004), Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008), The Happening (2008), I Am Legend (2007).
Have to argue against What the bleep do we know.
It is neither science fiction, nor a movie (in the fiction sense). It is a documentary, and as for the science fiction, it isn’t present, and not in the same way that it isn’t present in some of the other movies.
It isn’t there because it was not the intention to make a science fiction movie.
What the bleep do we know was meant as non fiction. You were meant to take it seriously, as usable information.
None of it is actually real, though, and it is filled with pseudoscience. But at its core, it is meant to be watched just like a any other documentary, not as a movie.
Hackers was an incredibly fun movie, that had a ton of techno-babble. Sharknado isn’t even a horror movie due to how dumb it is. Still had an impact.
Oversimplified works in every genre.
Not all SF is hard SF and not all hard SF goes deep into the basis of its hardness. Sturgeon describes SF as asking “what if” which, at its core, does not require an untenable scientific basis.
Removed by mod