Of course, science geeks like nitpicking the science. If it's truly atrocious, it is a suspension of disbelief spoiler, but most of the time, it's just a fun game (the Big Bang Theory guys are watching the movies, even though they have clearly had this physics conversation before).
It's commonly agreed that Kubrick's 2001 had almost no physics errors, but nobody spends much time talking about how awesome it was that it was accurate---you mention it and move on.
I am glad to see something like this being done. Writers will always bend the facts in the interest of a good story (as well they should), but perhaps we can avoid the needless kind of errors.
Of course, science geeks like nitpicking the science. If it's truly atrocious, it is a suspension of disbelief spoiler, but most of the time, it's just a fun game (the Big Bang Theory guys are watching the movies, even though they have clearly had this physics conversation before).
It's commonly agreed that Kubrick's 2001 had almost no physics errors, but nobody spends much time talking about how awesome it was that it was accurate---you mention it and move on.
I am glad to see something like this being done. Writers will always bend the facts in the interest of a good story (as well they should), but perhaps we can avoid the needless kind of errors.