Abstract
The U.S. film and television industry (a.k.a. Hollywood) is often critiqued for its representations of scientific knowledge, methods, and/or technology. Similarly, existing research into fictionalized representations of science focuses primarily on those that are “wrong,” rather than hypothetical, and focuses on how audiences engage with these representations.
This thesis, instead, approaches the matter of fictional science in fictional narratives (which I abbreviate as FiSci) from the perspectives of the individuals behind its use. In late 2020, I conducted semi-structured interviews featuring a purposefully-selected sample of Hollywood creators (film and television writers, directors, and producers; n = 28) and science experts who have served as consultants (n = 18). Using thematic analysis, I answer the following questions: how do creators and consultants perceive FiSci and its role within a narrative? What factors influence whether or not FiSci is appropriate within a given narrative? And why does Hollywood continue to feature the same kinds of FiSci, even when many audiences recognise it as inaccurate?
Participants primarily spoke of FiSci as a tool used to improve upon what realistic science can offer, as a necessary compromise, or as a storytelling or production convenience. They spoke of FiSci positively as a way to inspire or stretch the imagination. Negative perceptions focused on FiSci being too unrealistic and demonstrating a lack of effort.
Participants identified various narrative elements wherein FiSci could be featured with varying levels of acceptability. The most important element was a story’s genre. FiSci should be avoided when it will be perceived as too implausible within the context of the story, and cause audiences to react negatively (e.g., an immersion break). Participants also considered how belief in a fictional representation may manifest in the real world. Science Fiction and Fantasy settings were considered more appropriate genres for FiSci; contemporary, grounded settings were less so. The kinds of science less appropriate to represent fictionally were those most central to everyday human life — especially human health.
Participants also recognized the effect that the Hollywood production process might have on a creator’s or consultant’s personal standards — even if one wishes to feature real science, limitations or power dynamics may prevent this standard from appearing in what audiences consume.
As for why some FiSci gets perpetuated, it is often seen as what will deliver a better story. Otherwise, creators (and even consultants) may be unaware of the real science, or it may be deemed too complicated to incorporate. Participants recognized that stories are influenced by what has come before, especially in how audiences come to recognize and expect certain representations in their entertainment.
This research contributes to science communication research by providing access to the minds behind the representations of science found in Hollywood film and television. It can be used to aid the creator-consultant relationship and the implementation of FiSci to both sides’ benefit. It may also dispel preconceptions held by experts/science communicators who express concerns about the use of FiSci and the responsibilities of Hollywood.