The 'Science' In Science-Fiction or "Does It (Really) Matter How It Works?"

Ever wonder why stuff works in your favorite comic book or sci-fi movie? Have you ever thought "how does Captain America's shield always come back to him?" or "how are the Jedi able to move things with the Force?" I think about this stuff a lot. But when you read as much as I do and work a job where you are alone for hours ata time, you'd think a lot about this stuff too. Or about whether or not 'LOST' will make any sense at the end. It won't.

 A good friend of mine once explained that there are two scholls of thought on this and he did it using Star Trek and Star Wars. The science in Star Trek is explained using theoretical but explainable physics, like the Alcubierre drive mathematical model that provides the basis for the warp drive of the Enterprise. Now Star Wars goes the other way with it's science. It works because it does. No more, no less. Hell, flying in space is pretty much the same as flying in an atmosphere. How is this possible? Because it looks cool, that's why!

I personally subscribe to the Star Wars method: no explanation necessarily needed.  I like to think that such answers don't matter as long as the desired effect or outcome benefits the narrative by making the action seem that much more exciting. Why is Captain America able to throw 'his mighty shield' with such pinpoint accuracy that it can knock out every bad guy before ricocheting back to him? Because it goddamn does! What causes the Millennium Falcon (and every Star Destroyer in the Imperial Fleet) fly safely thru space and stop on a dime? The hyper-spatial framinflatz, for all I know. My point is that every Batarang thrown by Batman need not be explained. Suspension of disbelief not withstanding, whatever 'deus ex machina' or 'macguffin' is thrown at me doesn't matter, as long as it doesn't seem too unbelieveable.

Now, there are others who would argue that the science should be explainable. This line of thought says that the adamantium on Wolverine's skeleton should be breakable, as there is no such thing as a truly 'unbreakable' alloy. Using real science, there is no way to explain how Chewie or Han could fly their ship with such precision and NOT fly into a meteor storm. The science behind such popular concepts in fiction should be explainable, no matter how theoretical or fanatsical. Which is probably why Star Trek wins out in this particular arguement.

Who's right and who's wrong? Who can tell the difference? I can't. It either works or it doesn't. I just think that if looks cool, it doesn't seem too outlandish and makes some kind of sense (common or otherwise), it's all good! And, in the end, Captain America throws his shield like a pro, Spider-man swings like a monkey on a vine and the Falcon makes the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs. Does it make sense? Hell no! But it sure looks cool, though!

                                                                                                      -- Phreak711