The Most and Least Realistic Sci-Fi Movies According to NASA

How often do we watch movies and say, “That would never happen in real life,” or “I wonder how realistic that is?” Not that we care, for the most part, since the hilarious, dramatic, or scary is part of Hollywood. It’s escapism, and these questions usually come up with disaster films, medical dramas, and out-of-this-world sci-fi movies.

Just like in disaster movies, the writers of science fiction can do just about anything they want, while the director and actors can take it even further, all in the name of entertainment.

Some movies are meant to be fantastically fun, wild, and dramatic without an ounce of realism, while others hope for futuristic realism. Just like watching television shows or movies that relate to our careers or specialties, I’m sure there’s not much that gets by the folks at NASA when watching Hollywood at work.

THREE MOST REALISTIC

According to the Daily Galaxy website, NASA says the 1997 movie Gattaca is the most credible sci-fi film ever produced. I can’t believe I never saw it, considering it stars the incredible A-list actors of Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman, and Jude Law. It’s about parents having their kids genetically engineered to produce the best traits.

The movie explores the ethical implications of genetic engineering, presenting a society where an individual’s DNA determines their social status and career prospects. This concept aligns with current research in medical genetics, which focuses on studying hereditary diseases within families.

I hope you’ve seen the movie Contact, starring Jodie Foster, Matthew McConaughey,  and Rob Lowe. It’s incredible and took the #2 spot for being the most realistic sci-fi film. It’s also from 1997 and is based on the 1985 novel of the same name by Carl Sagan. Jodie’s character is a scientist who finds evidence of extraterrestrial life and is chosen to make the first contact.

We jump back to 1927 to find the third most realistic in Metropolis. It’s a German film considered to be a pioneering science-fiction film and the first feature-length one in that genre. It’s a futuristic, dystopian movie surrounding class conflict.

THREE LEAST REALISTIC

According to the Daily Galaxy, the movie 2012 is the least realistic. It’s about surviving simultaneous earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, global flooding, and tsunamis. It stars John Cusack, Woody Harrelson, and Thandie Newton, to name a few.

2003’s The Core, starring Hilary Swank, Alfre Woodard, and Stanley Tucci, is about scientists who must drill to the center of the Earth to restart the planet’s rotation.

Armageddon rounds out the least realistic. This blockbuster Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay film hit the big screen in 1998, starring Bruce Willis, Liv Tyler, and Ben Affleck. I love this movie, but it is so unrealistic but so dramatically fun. It’s about blue-collar workers from drilling rigs hired by NASA to stop an asteroid from hitting the planet.

READ MORE: 10 Futuristic Sci-Fi Films That Now Take Place in the Past

Who’s ready to watch every single one again now?

The Best Marvel Movies Not Made By Marvel Studios