Screenwriting : Project Hail Mary by Meriem Bouziani

What an interesting question Meriem Bouziani . It has my head swirling..

While I haven't seen PHM, it certainly isn't the 1st scifi to use mathematics as a universal language. But as for your question on plausibility in scifi, I guess it really depends.

A film like Jurassic Park needed the amber/ mosquito explanation to help explain dinosaurs in the present, but Star Wars has zero plausibility / explanation outside of "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away..." Maybe hard scifi really needs a plausibility (or at least a well told & sold implausibility), whereas scifi that stretches more into fantasy doesn't?

I'm going to be thinking about this all week now!

Ian Milne I agree with that.

If sci-fi film makers at least pursued scientific plausibility, then most of their films set in outer space would be silent. Every time a sci-fi film comes out, even though it might be 'plausible', there's always pushback within the scientific community about some aspect of it that doesn't show some aspect of physics properly ('Gravity"), doesn't show the all the issues with recreating creatures from million-year-old DNA ("Jurassic Park"), or just shows things that are seemingly impossible in the real world.

It's the ultimate game of the 'suspension of disbelief'. I think as long as the writer gets the essential details right by making sure their story is grounded in real science, like 'Project Hail Mary', I think there's room for 'creative licensing' and 'extrapolation', taking some aspect of technology and thinking about what the future of it might look like ('Minority Report', 'Blade Runner', 'The Terminator', etc.).

Yes, Jurassic Park is a great example as well.

From what I understand, prehistoric Earth had higher oxygen levels during some periods, which may have contributed to the enormous size of certain insects. However, the giant size of dinosaurs was influenced by many factors, not just oxygen levels. If we approached Jurassic Park with strict scientific plausibility, there would be many other questions as well.

Evolutionary science also tells us that humans and non-avian dinosaurs never coexisted. The extinction of the dinosaurs created the ecological opportunities that eventually allowed mammals—and much later, humans—to evolve. So, a time-travel story that places modern humans among dinosaurs would already involve scientific compromises.

That is why I think films don't always have to be perfectly scientifically accurate. Their primary purpose is to entertain, evoke emotion, and tell a compelling story. Science should enrich the narrative, inspire curiosity, and offer plausible future possibilities, but it doesn't have to turn the film into a university lecture.

A movie is made for everyone, not only scientists, engineers, or philosophers. Hard science fiction and philosophical ideas may be appreciated more deeply by those audiences, but with strong storytelling, emotional stakes, and suspense, anyone can enjoy the experience and join the discussion afterward

Ian Milne Adam Fernandes

He showed the human clock and the alien showed him its clock with its numbers on. The alien got the principle and responded in kind.

Read the book it was based on and I think that will give you more insight as to the use of math as a universal language.

This also raises another fascinating question.

How would an alien even know that this object is a clock? Perhaps aliens use a completely different way of measuring time. Maybe they don't need clocks at all. They could perceive the passage of time naturally, or perhaps they have an implanted neural chip that gives them a constant awareness of time without any external device.

I think a real first contact between humans and aliens would be incredibly complex. Communication wouldn't just be about translating words—it would involve understanding completely different ways of thinking, perceiving reality, measuring time, using mathematics, and even defining basic concepts. That challenge alone could make for an extraordinary story.

David Taylor

Thank you! That sounds absolutely fascinating.

Desiree Middleton

Meriem, this is the exact problem I work on with machine systems, and your clock question nails it. Numbers do not travel because the symbols are universal. They travel because you can point at three rocks and then draw three marks, so the referent is shared before the symbol is. That is the whole trick. You establish a thing you both already perceive, then attach notation to it. A clock fails as a first contact tool because time is not something you can point at in the room. Project Hail Mary gets this right by starting with counting and physical quantities, the things both minds can observe together, and only then building up. If you want the grounded version of your story, the drama is not the translation. It is the first shared referent, the one moment where both sides realize they are looking at the same thing. What would your two minds be able to point at together first?

That's fascinating. Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts with me.

I completely agree with you. I think the first contact would likely begin with universal phenomena such as light, electromagnetic waves, or mathematics. From there, both species would gradually learn how the other understands and uses those principles to build technology and communicate. That process of discovering each other's way of thinking would be just as fascinating as the first contact itself Eric Charran

I run into the same thing with police and military scenes. Little details, like how someone holds a firearm or the tactics they use, jump out at me. Nothing pulls me out of a scene faster than watching a SWAT team stack up on a door, only for the detective in a suit and tie to be the first one through.

Most people probably never notice those things, but once you know them, they're hard to ignore.

I think there's a balance. However, if the story is strong enough, most audiences are willing to overlook things.

Yeah, I think that naturally happens when the movie is about your profession or when you're someone who enjoys exploring science, technology, or any subject in greater depth.

I completely agree that films don't have to follow every scientific rule perfectly. After all, they begin with fiction, imagination, and speculation—they explore possibilities rather than document reality.

That said, I really appreciate films that put in the hard work to understand the science and make their ideas as plausible as possible. A perfect example is Interstellar. Christopher Nolan collaborated closely with physicist to develop the scientific foundations of the story, creating a remarkable balance between rigorous science and compelling science fiction. I think that's one of the reasons the film still feels so believable and timeless

Tim Mace

Exactly! I think that's the key lesson here.

We want films that entertain while also maintaining a reasonable level of scientific plausibility. They don't have to be perfectly accurate, but they should remain internally consistent and believable within the rules they establish. Otherwise, the audience may stop trusting the story, and its internal logic begins to break down.

Rosie Lyons

I think it all depends on your targetted audience. A traditional comparison that date back ages is Star wars versus Star Trek. Both have their merits and specific audience.

If your main interest or main soul is action or love story, it can avoid most scientific stuff and be really good. But it the core of the movie is around Technical or science stuff then yeah you need to bring the science as much as you can. by the way , Star trek was very science heavy and they didn’t hide the fact they made a lot of things up.

Thank you very much! That's a sharp point of view, and I completely agree.

I also think that, as screenwriters, it depends on who we're pitching our projects to. Some producers place a strong emphasis on scientific plausibility and internal consistency, while others are more interested in emotional storytelling, mystery, and the overall cinematic experience.

Nicolas Lavoie

Back in the day I was a big Star Trek fan, back when TOS was the only Star Trek there was. I remember reading about a memo that Gene Roddenberry supposedly wrote. It said (I paraphrase) "Joe Friday never stops to explain how his .38 works. Marshall Dillon never talks about the mechanisims in his .45. Captian Kirk never stops to discuss his phaser."

His point was that, in real life we almost never stop to explain or discuss our tech. Have you ever turned on the lights in your kitchen, and then discussed how amps, voltage, and ohms create resistance in your incandescent light bulb, and how that differes from a flourescent light? No you don't.

Did you know that the TITANIC had two triple expansion steam engines with a 215 PSI working pressure and 15,000 horsepower? James Cameron does(he knows EVERYTHING about that ship from what I hear). Did it wind up in the script? No.

A good guide to this is Star Trek the Next Generation. STNG has massive amounts of "handwavium" with reversing polarity (yeah that works) and "re-routing plasma conduits" and stuff.... but it works because the carachters believe it, and that sells it to the audience. Nobody needs to know how the Warp Core works. (Almost) nobody CARES how the warp core works. What the audience needs to know is that A) the warp core is going to blow up in 7 minutes B) the warp core blowing up would be very, very bad, and C) a safety interlock is jammed and we can't eject it till that gets fixed.

You only tell the audience enough so that they care.

I write action-thrillers, and a writer I respect once gave me this advice when I asked a similar question: "It only has to be possible, not plausible." I'd assume with science fiction, you'd have even more creative license. The Project Hail Mary example makes the story far more interesting and thought-provoking--ultimately making it better. Balancing that depth of detail is a fine line, and navigating it is exactly what sets a writer's skill apart.

I think emotion and scientific plausibility played their role. The emotion held us in the story, and the plausibility complemented that. Had it been too implausible, we might get removed from the story.

Yes, absolutely. The characters don't always have to discuss the "why" behind the story. Based on what we see, we can often understand the meaning between the lines, even if the story is never explained directly.

However, some films have characters discuss the science as part of their attempt to understand or explain what they are going through. Coherence and Mr. Nobody both have scenes where the characters talk about the scientific ideas behind the story.

As you said, the most important thing is to keep the audience engaged in a way that best aligns with your idea Brendan Kelly

That sounds like a wiser thought.

Possible, not necessarily plausible. The most important thing is to develop an idea that respects the viewers' intelligence and intuition Jeff Affrunti

Yes, a good movie has to balance emotion and science as much as possible Kevin Jackson

If you want to see a movie that does a great job of weaving a LOT of exposition into the script relatively painlessly, go watch APOLLO 13. It's a simple problem "Will they get home?", but in order to understand what happened, and what is going on, they have to weave a lot of technological background into the screenplay, and they do it very well.

Thank you very much for the suggestion. It sounds fascinating—I’ll definitely watch it Brendan Kelly