2 ms·

Considering the budget for these kinds of things, I'm shocked they don't just pay some theoretical computer scientists to read the script and provide feedback o

• mikeash 12y ago
  Many productions do hire expert advisors. Various iterations of Star Trek had a real scientist at hand to ensure accuracy. Tons of bad science slipped through anyway. The monetary cost is small, but the time cost can be big. Writer time and attention is a scarce resource and time spent rewriting scripts for accuracy is time not spent polishing them for other things. And the simple fact is that scientific accuracy doesn't really sell. A movie with an otherwise good script that contains bad science will do far better than a movie with an otherwise bad script that contains good science. There isn't even much reason to think that improved science improves viewership at all. As far as I can tell, those productions that made attempts to portray accurate science did so because the people involved genuinely wanted to. Nerds flock to Star Trek and Star Wars and Gravity and other such movies even though they're full of problems. And if we're really being cynical, every "the problems with the science in Movie X" article written is just more free publicity for it.