Summary

• Sci-fi movies prioritize entertainment over scientific accuracy, making them enjoyable despite nonsensical science.
• Few audiences are bothered by scientific inaccuracies in films since they are not knowledgeable enough to notice.
• Many popular sci-fi movies, such as Indiana Jones and X-Men, are wildly inaccurate but still fun to watch.

Some sci-fi movies just don't have the accuracy to hold up the science their plots depend on, but they're still really entertaining and fun to watch despite the nonsensical science. Sci-fi movies such as Blade Runner and 2001: A Space Odyssey have set the bar high in of scientific accuracy and many just can't hold up. Instead, to make them cooler or more engaging, they eschew reality to make science work the way the story needs.

Even though some are bad because of this, other sci-fi movies are still fun despite the lack of scientific accuracy. Most of the time, movies can get away with it as few audiences are knowledgeable enough about the science to be bothered by the lack of realism. At other times, the science is so implausible or the explanation behind it is so contradictory that it can take a viewer out. Still, there quite a few sci-fi films that are wildly inaccurate but still fun to watch.

10 Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull

The nuclear explosion should have killed Indy

The fourth installment of the Indiana Jones franchise, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull follows Jones and his son as they track down a mysterious crystal skull. The movie slowly descends into alien territory, as the skull is found out to be alien in nature. Where the film loses its scientific credibility, however, is in a scene where Indy survives a nuclear blast by hiding in a fridge. The fridge scene has become notorious for its inaccuracy as the blast would have killed Jones regardless of how sturdy the fridge was. It didn't ruin the franchise, though, as a fifth film was released in 2023.

9 X-Men

Liberties were taken with the accuracy of genetics

Even though it is a superhero franchise based on comics, X-Men has not escaped being scrutinized for faulty science. The idea of genetics that the X-Men franchise relies on isn't true to life. Evolution does not occur as fast as required for the mutations to happen. Genetics are also unable to create the mutations seen in the movies and comics. The franchise is also guilty of utilizing notoriously unlikely advancements such as time travel to make some plots work. X-Men gets a slight due to its genre, but the inaccuracies are still there. Still, the X-Men franchise is fun and exciting.

8 The Matrix

Humans would not make good batteries

In The Matrix franchise, artificial intelligence has begun to use humans as a power source. After humanity managed to blacken the sky enough to eliminate solar power, AI plugged humans into the Matrix to use for fuel. Humans, however, make a terrible power source. Not enough energy is produced by the human body to power much of anything, least of all the Matrix machine. The Matrix films are still fun to watch, with iconic scenes like Neo stopping bullets and dodging out of their way. The scientific accuracy of its premise, though, is shaky. It's just one of the plot holes across the four Matrix movies.

7 Transformers

Being caught in midair would not stop Sam from dying

With its transforming cars from another planet, the Transformers franchise isn't one to stick firmly with reality. There are some aspects of it, however, that stray a bit too far from how the science of the world actually works. Sam Witwicky, played by Shia LeBeouf, survives many situations that should have left him dead. In one of them, he is caught in midair by Optimus Prime after falling from a building and is perfectly fine. In reality, Sam would have been severely injured at the very least. The Transformers movies include many frustrating things and the lack of accurate physics is just a small one.

6 Independence Day

Too-convenient viruses and too-big ships

Independence Day has been the subject of scientific discussion since it first came out in 1996. One of its biggest offenders, the virus created by David Levinson, can be explained away. Although it seems unlikely that the same virus that affects an Apple laptop can disrupt a whole alien ship, a lot of modern technology in the film was based on tech found on a crashed UFO. It's still a bit of a stretch to believe that Levinson could create this virus so quickly, given how little is actually known about the tech. The bigger issue is the alien ship, itself, which is far too big to have caused so little damage when defeated.

A sequel to Independence Day was made in 2016, although Will Smith turned down the change to reprise his role.

5 Jurassic Park

Nearly everything about the dinosaurs is incorrect

The Jurassic Park franchise is very popular even though its premise is on shaky ground in of accuracy. Despite the first movie's attempt at explaining how they created the dinosaurs, it doesn't hold up. DNA simply doesn't work in the way that Jurassic Park says it does. Even if the DNA was still viable after millions of years, filling in the gaps with other species would not result in a dinosaur. Jurassic Park got many things wrong about the dinosaurs, including how they look and sound. There's also the issue that most of the dinosaurs featured in the films aren't even from the Jurassic period. Despite this, the franchise is still enjoyable to watch and even has a spin-off franchise with Jurassic World.

4 I Am Legend

Viruses don't naturally change how they are spread

In I Am Legend, the world has been overrun by zombie-like humans due to a virus. The virus mutates to become airborne, before becoming transmittable via bites. Not only is that not how viruses work, the vaccine developed by Robert Neville wouldn't even work. Vaccines are meant to teach the immune system how to defend against viruses by exposing them to it. As Neville was never exposed to the virus, there is nothing in his blood that would make an effective vaccine. The alternate ending of I Am Legend would have been more accurate, as Neville never develops a cure. Still, the movie is a fun watch.

3 Lucy

Humans already use a good portion of their brains

Lucy follows an American studying abroad in Taiwan who becomes a drug mule for a Korean gangster. Lucy's plot is based on the myth that humans don't use 100% of their brains. The bag of drugs Lucy was carrying in her stomach breaks open and the drugs cause her to begin using 100% of her brain. From this, she gains powers such as telekinesis and the ability to not feel pain. The myth itself has no scientific standing, so the idea that using 100% of the brain will lead to heightened abilities akin to superpowers is impossible. Aside from that, the film is still enjoyable as Johansson's performance is entertaining.

2 The Day After Tomorrow

Climate change would not change ocean currents that rapidly

The Day After Tomorrow follows a world where the disruption of ocean currents is leading to a new ice age. While it isn't impossible for climate change to cause an ice age, the speed at which it occurs in the movie is. Climate change is much slower moving than the movie makes it seem. It would take years for such a dramatic change to happen, even if the global temperature dropped as much as it did in The Day After Tomorrow. The exaggeration of climate change serves only to create suspense and fear. It does nothing for scientific accuracy.

The Day After Tomorrow is based on the book, "The Coming Global Superstorm" by Art Bell and Whitley Strieber. The book is part analytical, part fictionalized to dicuss what could potentially happen if climate change goes to the extreme. The fictional portions are what the movie was based on.

1 Armageddon

A famously inaccurate movie about asteroids

Although it's still an engaging watch, Armageddon got almost nothing right in of science. Well-known scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson have explained how Armageddon fails in multiple ways in regard to physics. The premise of the film is its number one offender. The idea that an asteroid the size of Texas wouldn't be noticed until the last minute is already preposterous. The conflict resolution is even more inaccurate. Drilling a hole into the asteroid is highly unlikely to cause any significant damage to it, least of all cut it in half. Despite these inaccuracies, Armageddon is still entertaining.

The scientific inaccuracy of Armageddon is so notorious that it started a rumor that NASA has trainees watch the film to find all the mistakes in it, though the rumor has never been confirmed.