NASA considers this 1997 science fiction film the most realistic ever made

In 1997, a groundbreaking science fiction film captured the imagination of audiences worldwide and earned the distinction of being hailed as the most realistic sci-fi movie ever made by NASA. This cinematic masterpiece, “Gattaca,” directed by Andrew Niccol, continues to resonate with viewers and scientists alike for its eerily plausible portrayal of a future shaped by genetic engineering.

Favicon
By Editorial Team Published on October 17, 2024 11:00
Nasa Declares 1997 Sci Fi Film As Most Realistic Ever Discover Which Movie Tops List
NASA considers this 1997 science fiction film the most realistic ever made - © The Daily Galaxy --Great Discoveries Channel

"Gattaca" presents a future where genetic manipulation allows parents to predetermine their children's traits and potential. This concept, while seemingly far-fetched in 1997, has become increasingly relevant in today's world of advancing genetic technologies. The film's title cleverly incorporates the letters G, A, T, and C, which represent the four nucleotides that form the building blocks of DNA :

  • Guanine
  • Adenine
  • Thymine
  • Cytosine

NASA's recognition of "Gattaca" as the most credible sci-fi film ever produced stems from its grounded approach to genetic science. 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.

According to the Commissariat à l'énergie atomique (CEA), our increasing understanding of human DNA could indeed lead to the identification of individual genetic predispositions. However, this advancement raises numerous ethical questions, mirroring the concerns explored in "Gattaca."

NASA's sci-fi film rankings

In 2011, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory convened a meeting to evaluate and rank science fiction films based on their scientific accuracy and plausibility. This assessment resulted in a definitive list of both the best and worst sci-fi movies from a scientific perspective. The top three most realistic films, according to NASA, are :

  1. "Gattaca" (1997)
  2. "Contact" (1997)
  3. "Metropolis" (1927)

Interestingly, two of the top three films were released in 1997, highlighting a particularly strong year for scientifically grounded science fiction. These movies stood out for their compelling narratives, impressive special effects (considering the era), and solid scientific research.

On the other end of the spectrum, NASA identified the least scientifically accurate films :

  1. "2012" (2009)
  2. "The Core" (2003)
  3. "Armageddon" (1998)

The impact and legacy of "Gattaca"

"Gattaca," starring Ethan Hawke, has left an indelible mark on the science fiction genre and popular culture. Its dystopian vision of a genetically stratified society has inspired countless discussions about the future of human genetics and the potential consequences of unchecked scientific advancement.

The film's enduring relevance is evident in the ongoing debates surrounding genetic engineering and its ethical implications. As science continues to progress, the questions raised by "Gattaca" become increasingly pertinent :

Ethical Concerns Scientific Advancements
Genetic discrimination CRISPR gene-editing technology
Privacy of genetic information Personalized medicine
Societal inequality based on genetics Embryo screening and selection

While plans for a "Gattaca" television series were ultimately scrapped, the film's influence continues to be felt in contemporary science fiction and scientific discourse. As we approach the technological capabilities depicted in the movie, its themes become increasingly relevant, prompting us to consider the ethical implications of our scientific pursuits.

Reassessing sci-fi realism in the modern era

As technology rapidly advances, it's worth considering whether NASA's 2011 assessment of "Gattaca" as the most realistic sci-fi film still holds true. The landscape of science fiction cinema has evolved significantly since then, with newer films incorporating cutting-edge scientific concepts and technologies.

Recent sci-fi movies like "Ex Machina" (2014) and "The Martian" (2015) have garnered praise for their scientific accuracy and plausible near-future scenarios. These films, along with others, may challenge "Gattaca's" position as the most realistic sci-fi movie in NASA's eyes.

However, "Gattaca's" enduring relevance lies not only in its scientific accuracy but also in its exploration of timeless ethical dilemmas. As we continue to grapple with the implications of genetic engineering and other emerging technologies, this 1997 classic remains a thought-provoking and cautionary tale, reminding us of the importance of considering the human element in our pursuit of scientific progress.

32 comments on «NASA considers this 1997 science fiction film the most realistic ever made»

  • Christopher Rasmussen

    I’m curious as to where 2001 A Space Odyssey falls on this list?

    Reply
  • SkyGuide*Michael

    JPL, not NASA.

    JPL employees are federal contractors, not NASA employees. We work for Caltech. JPL is owned by Caltech.

    Still, I like the lists, even is the NASA reference is misleading.

    Reply
  • Linda Peer

    We watch this in my high school bioethics class. It’s great!

    Reply
  • David

    Brave New World and Nineteen-Eighty Four have already come true.

    Reply
  • Josh

    Societal inequality based on genetics is also called EUGENICS. Maybe next time you should look it up and see how shitty and unethical eugenic is. Who said this shit at NASA?

    Reply
  • Tammie

    Interesting that Jude Law’s character’s name is Eugene (eugenics) and his staircase is a double helix

    Reply
  • Gordon

    NASA spending time critiquing sci fi movies is why Space X is catching their own rockets after launch and NASA is not.

    Reply
  • Margaret

    I had my father DNA tested then 10 years later my own. Problem was the test results were showing almost the same group of people in my test as were in my dad’s. Yes , it got screwed up‼️ My material side was tested and Mom was 100% Italian. Dad we knew was Irish, German, English. So tell me how they could get almost the identical results from 2 different test and people?
    In your article your leaning on the FACTS of science being a reality of the future. This truly scary me!!

    Reply
  • David

    Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, and Thymine are nitrogenous BASES, not nucleotides. The bases need to be bonded to a sugar and a phosphate to be called nucleotides.

    Reply
  • Eric

    There’s a HUGE difference between genetic TESTING and genetic MANIPULATION. Gattaca’s premise was based only on the former. CRISPR is used for the latter.

    Reply
  • Tom D

    The fact is that the film retreads th eugenics arguments with a this patina of overlayed (and misunderstood) science. Most human traits are multi genetic, and we now know that other factors, such as small RNAs, are extremely important in gene expression control. If anything, what has been learned since the film has made it far more complex to ‘engineer” specific traits into an individual’s genetic makeup, and also understand the knock on side effects of genetic changes.

    Reply
  • Mark

    Yes, I can imagine from a scientific and engineering point of view, the movies listed are indeed very realistic, but I think personal preference would also factor into this also. There are quite a few that I think are also very realistic like The Martian, 2001: A Space Odyssey, perhaps even Soylent Green to name a few. To be fair though, Im coming at this as a creative who appreciates the science and engineering arts. Makes me want to see Gattaca again though!

    Reply
  • Sue

    Very good film and scary as hell. Actors were great!

    Reply
  • Steve Limbach

    Gotta be kidding!!
    People getting on a spaceship in suits and ties !!
    Ridiculous!!
    Also, main character not being identified by his photo ID?
    How did they miss that ?

    Reply
  • Tim

    I would have thought Interstellar would have been on the first list.

    Reply
  • John w.

    To the person who supposedly works at JPL. Nasa owns and federally funds JPL. Caltech simply manages it. So, no, the claim that JPL is Nasa is not misleading. And you obviously don’t actually work there. Silly goose.

    Reply
  • Michelle

    I really enjoyed this article. Thank you. I look forward to seeing this film.

    Reply
  • Dutch

    NASA cares more about DEI than anything. Elon Musk is running circles around NASA.

    Reply
  • Matt

    Not to mention it predicted EVs with home charging, solar and frequent rocket launches.

    Reply
  • Carol

    Aside from any abnormalities in a birth, aren’t all human brains the same at birth? Anything after that is nurturing, society, culture… wealth. Any science or technology that’s applied depending on anything other than ‘all people are equal’ should be banned. You lost me the moment you mentioned “determines social status and career prospects”.

    Reply
  • Frank Rizzo

    The author could have just said, “I like this movie” and saved us about 8 minutes.

    Otherwise, the writing was mediocre, the performance wooden, and the characters inane and unconvincing.

    Reply
  • Teemohtee

    You know the world is absolute garbage when a government agency refers to a dystopian movie from almost 30 years ago as the most accurate movie portraying the modern day. I don’t understand how American people are not up in arms over the direction this country and this world is going

    Reply
  • Bobby davis

    Kinda crazy that Nasa picks that route of science fiction instead of what their expertise is as in space travel, I know it has some but they seem to only concentrate on the gene editing to which what makes them think they’re the experts when it comes to gene manipulation? Also how is Armageddon on the other list when they literally are practicing doing pretty much some form of it rn, probably practicing for aphophis

    Reply
  • Kyle Reese

    A quality film with a lot of its ideas pinched from Huxley

    Reply
  • Geoff

    For those who still read books, “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley, published in 1932

    Reply
  • Andrew Kennedy

    The only inaccuracy I could spot in “The Martian” was the martian winds able to have any negligible force. The air is far too thin to cause wind damage, the blowing dust though can wreck havoc with systems.

    Reply
  • Richard

    In our future the ‘elites’ will be those who facilitate the growth of others.

    Reply
  • Stephen Spencer Ayers

    OP, you’re a complete moron. There was no “up-side” to genetic engineering in the film!

    Reply
  • David

    Gattica did not connect with me because Ethan’s character spent so much time scrubbing himself down to get rid of any loose skin cells but they are sluffing off at all times. He would have been detected immediately.

    We shed so many skin cells that dogs can track where somebody went … in a car.

    Reply
  • Guilherme

    Star trek has done that before. There is the whole eugenics wars thing, but there is also an episode in TNG where they go to an isolated human colony in a planet that decided on their own to generically engineer themselves, so they can not only erradicate generic diseases, but also genetically “program” people to be good at specific kind of labour, so they are born already knowing what their future profession would be. The whole society is engineered through that.

    I think this colony started from a ship that crash landed on that planet and they had to use genetic engineering in the begining to counter interbreeding issues, but then they just kept doing it

    Reply
  • Gilberto

    Genetic manipulation allows parents to predetermine their children’s traits and potential,I have noticed that when I travel at the airport, many young people with the same hair color and very similar faces, I have always thought that this is manipulated, and I do not want to comment further because this group has a lot of power and I could get into trouble.

    Reply
  • Jean

    I bet the worst 3 they picked was for a reason…..because they can’t do anything about it if it happens, lol

    Reply
Leave a comment

Comments are subject to moderation. Only relevant and detailed comments will be validated. - * Required fields