Science, fiction, and Santa Claus: Hollywood creator and consultant perceptions of fictional science in film and television

TYPE Original Research

PUBLISHED 23 February 2023

DOI 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1029782

OPEN ACCESS

EDITED BY

Anders Hansen,

University of Leicester, United Kingdom

REVIEWED BY

Pat Brereton,

Dublin City University, Ireland

Natalia Mielczarek,

Virginia Tech, United States

*CORRESPONDENCE

Jessica L. Davis

[email protected]

SPECIALTY SECTION

This article was submitted to

Science and Environmental Communication,

a section of the journal

Frontiers in Communication

RECEIVED 27 August 2022

ACCEPTED 01 February 2023

PUBLISHED 23 February 2023

CITATION

Davis JL, Savoie G and Longnecker N (2023)

Science, ﬁction, and Santa Claus: Hollywood

creator and consultant perceptions of ﬁctional

science in ﬁlm and television.

Front. Commun. 8:1029782.

doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1029782

open-access article distributed under the terms

of the

Creative Commons Attribution License

(CC BY)

. The use, distribution or reproduction

in other forums is permitted, provided the

original author(s) and the copyright owner(s)

are credited and that the original publication in

this journal is cited, in accordance with

accepted academic practice. No use,

distribution or reproduction is permitted which

does not comply with these terms.

Science, ﬁction, and Santa Claus:

Hollywood creator and consultant

perceptions of ﬁctional science in

ﬁlm and television

Jessica L. Davis

, Gianna Savoie and Nancy Longnecker

Department of Science Communication, Unive rsit y of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

Introduction: From the high-stakes operating room of a Seattle hospital, to the

shattered remains of a planet in a galaxy far, far away, Hollywood is often critiqued

for its representations of scientiﬁc knowledge, methods, and/or technology.

Existing research into Hollywood representations of science focuses primarily on

those that do not align with expert consensus, and on how audiences engage

with these representations — such as how misinformation in ﬁctional narratives

inﬂuences us. This paper, instead, approaches the matter of ﬁctional science

in ﬁctional narratives (FiSci) from the perspectives of the individuals creating

Hollywood content. We use the label of “FiSci” for any representation of science

within a narrative which does not align with humanity’s current knowledg e or

technological capability.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in late 2020 with a

purposefully-selected sample of both Hollywood creators (writers, directors, and

producers; n = 28) and science experts who have served as consultants (n =

18) across a range of ﬁlm and television projects. Thematic analysis was used

to explore how these creators and consultants perceive FiSci and its role within

Hollywood narratives. Three themes were constructed from the interview data.

Results and discussion: Participants primarily spoke of FiSci as: (1) a storytelling

tool, perceived either po sitively or negatively, depending upon how that tool

is wielded; (2) a way to play within a constructed storyworld which does not

resemble our own; and (3) a source of unrealistic “B.S.” which threatens to break

audience suspension of disbelief and can signify a lack of eort in the creative

process. This paper contributes to science communication research by providing

access to minds behind the representations of science in Hollywood ﬁlm and

television. As such, it can be used to aid the creator-consultant relationship and

the implementation of FiSci to the beneﬁt of both groups. It may also inform

creators who have yet to work with a consultant, experts looking to become

consultants, audiences critiquing FiSci in the content they watch, and experts an d

science communicators who express concerns about the use of FiSci and the

responsibilities of Hollywoo d.

KEYWORDS

science communication, Hollywood, ﬁlm and television, ﬁction, narrative, science,

misinformation

1. An introduction to ﬁctional science in Hollywood

Fictional depictions of science by the United States ﬁlm and television

industry—colloquially known as Hollywood—can produce negative, neutral, or positive

eﬀects in the real world. Hollywood has long been criticized for how such ﬁctionalizations

may negatively inﬂuence audience knowledge, attitudes, and/or behaviors (e.g.,

Frontiers in Communication 01 frontiersin.org

Davis et al. 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1029782

National Science Board, 2000; Greenbaum, 2009). Explicit ﬁction

labels can be used as a disclaimer, to remind viewers that what

they are viewing is ﬁction. These explicit labels do not necessarily

prevent someone from absorbing misinformation (

Green and

Brock, 2000

; Marsh and Fazio, 2006), and therefore Hollywood

may miseducate its audiences, even though education is not

the primary intent. Alternatively, Science Fiction narratives can

encourage reﬂection and discourse about modern societal problems

or possible consequences of new technology (

Dill-Shackleford and

Vinney, 2020

). Audiences may be inspired to the point of invention

(e.g., the pacemaker;

Frayling, 2005) or to pursue STEM careers

(

21st Century Fox et al., 2018).

Science communicators may use such pop culture products as

engaging hooks to reach uninterested publics, since some publics

avoid science news but frequently view Hollywood stories that

feature science (Funk et al., 2017). This is, in part, due to its

pervasiveness in daily life. From 2009–2019, the North American

box oﬃce generated over $10 billion each year (

Box Oﬃce Mojo,

n.d.

), and U.S. adults still spend, on average, over 30 h per week

watching media on their television sets (

The Nielsen Company,

2021

). This includes both ﬁction and non-ﬁction content. It is

useful for science communicators to have a better sense of how

Hollywood perceives its own use of science in its productions in

order to better work with and/or critique Hollywood production.

We use the term FiSci as an abbreviation for Fictional science

in ﬁctional entertainment narratives. A label of “FiS ci” is applied

to any representation of science within a narrative (i.e., not the

narrative as a whole) which does not comport with humanity’s

current knowledge or technological capability. Thus, it applies

not only to so-called “bad” science, such as the depiction of

sound traveling through the vacuum of space. It also includes

hypothetical concepts (e.g., sentient artiﬁcial intelligence, natural or

synthetic wormholes) which may exist on paper, but have yet to be

demonstrated as physically possible. Individual experts

may have

diﬀerent standards by which they judge a futuristic/hypothetical

representation to be plausible or possible.

Crucially, FiSci is inherently used as a neutral term, without

judgment upon the representation itself with regard to its inﬂuence

on the quality of a story, nor its inﬂuence on audiences out in the

real world.

A given kind of FiSci may exist within a singular piece of media,

or persist across multiple narratives—even across genre and decade.

In some cases, the FiSci is a common misconception, such as urine

being the ideal remedy for a jellyﬁsh sting (

Wilcox et al., 2017).

Such advice was stated by the character Joey after Monica is stung

in the Friends episode “The One with the Jellyﬁsh” (

Calhoun and

Jensen, 1997

); Joey says he learned it from the Discovery Channel.

Kirby (2011) calls such misconceptions “folk science” (p. 101). In

other cases, FiSci exists primarily as a narrative trope

that assists a

1 The term expert here refers to any individual whose knowledge of a

particular scientiﬁc ﬁeld allows them to identify FiSci in that ﬁeld, while a

member of the general public—or even an expert in a dierent ﬁeld—cannot.

It includes both training/current/former STEM professionals as well as what

Kirby (2011) calls “lay experts” (p. 101).

2 While the traditional literary device is deﬁned as “a ﬁgure of speech,

especially one that uses words in senses beyond their literal meanings” (e.g.,

story. The use of faster-than-light technology, for example, allows

characters to traverse the vast nothingness of space in a time frame

that is sensible for the story. But also, given its ubiquity in pop

culture, explicit references to “warp drive” or a visual eﬀect of a

spaceship jumping to warp acts as a shortcut that audiences already

understand from pre vious media. Thus, creators don’t have to

spend excess time on screen explaining how their spaceships travel

through space.

While FiSci is often associated with the genre of Science Fiction

(a.k.a. SciFi), it can be found anywhere s cience appears, such as

(but not limited to) medical and forensic procedurals. FiSci can

be found in a story’s very premise, a single line of dialogue, a

physical prop, or any other narrative element native to the medium.

However, the impact FiSci may have on audiences (in either positive

or negative ways) may diﬀer depending on the role it serves wit hin

a given story, and t he kind of story being told. FiSci may appear

more “obvious” in genres associated with sticking less closely to

contemporary reality, and therefore be received more positively

(or at least less negatively) in such contexts. For example,

Hall’s

(2003) focus groups identiﬁed six means of evaluating realism, and

revealed that a narrative’s genre can inﬂuence which of the six

are more meaningful. It’s more important for science in a Science

Fiction story to be narratively self-consistent than it is to be factual.

This may, in part, be due to the very premises of such stories

relying upon some kind of FiSci. As such, FiSci may be re cognized

as ﬁctional by audiences (general or expert), but simultaneously

accepted as realistic within t he context of a given story. Or, FiSci

may go entirely unrecognized because it appears plausible enough.

Perhaps unsurprisingly,

Funk et al. (2017) found that U.S. adults are

more likely to perceive medical dramas and forensic crime shows as

representing science more accurately than SciFi.

Past research has investigated the inﬂuences that mass media

consumption may exert on audiences’ relationships with science

(e.g.,

Gerbner, 1987; Shanahan et al., 1997; Nisbet et al., 2002;

Besley and Shanahan, 2005; Dudo et al., 2011), as well as ﬁctional

Hollywood narratives more speciﬁcally (e.g.,

Adams et al., 1986;

Morgan et al., 2010; Shen and Han, 2014; Dudo et al., 2017;

Sisson et al., 2021). Research has also investigated the ways in

which audiences consider the use of unrealistic science appropriate

or acceptable in ﬁctional entertainment narratives (

Green, 2017).

However, there is a lack of research exploring the matter of FiSci

through the lens of the individuals involved with its inclusion

in Hollywood content: writers, dire ctors, and other creative

individuals employed within the industry. These creators may

employ the expertise of science consultants should they wish to

ensure a certain standard of scientiﬁc accuracy (

Frank, 2003; Kirby,

2011

). Research which presents the role and experiences of science

consultants is primarily framed through the lens of scientiﬁc

accuracy—though, notably, Kirby chooses to interpret the accuracy

of Hollywood science as ﬂexible.

Our research asks the following question: How do Hollywood

creators—and in comparison, the science experts who consult for

a metaphor; Baldick, 2015, para. 1), we use the more recently adopted

deﬁnition as a recurring literary element or device, such as a character type

or plot point (

Oxford University Press, n.d.).

Frontiers in Communication 02 frontiersin.org

Davis et al. 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1029782

them—perceive the use of ﬁctional representations of science in

Hollywood ﬁlm and television content?

2. Materials and methods

A series of 45 semi-structured interviews were conducted

by the ﬁrst author via Zoom during October–December 2020,

consisting of 28 Hollywood creators (CRE) and 18 science

consultants (CON). This total n = 46 included one writing

team who were interviewed simultaneously. Three interviews were

audio, only. Three interviews were restricted to <1 h due to the

participants’ schedules, ranging from 25 to 40 min. The remainder

generally ranged from 60–90 min, with one outlier of 167 min.

Ethics approval (reference number D20/298) was granted by the

University of Otago’s Human Ethics Committee.

Purposive sampling was used to ensure a suﬃciently

heterogeneous sample with respect to career type (e.g., creator’s role

in production, ﬁlm vs. TV, genre). Demographics (e.g., age, gender)

were not considered as they were not main variables relevant to

this study. Inclusion criterion for creators was at least one credit as

a writer, director, or producer on a ﬁlm which saw a wide theatrical

release in t he United States, or a television series which ﬁrst aired

on network or basic cable in the United States, prior to the start of

the data collection period. A list of 84 consultants was compiled

in an ad hoc manner by identifying movies and shows which used

science consultants as well as accessing all consultants referenced

on the Science and Entertainment Exchange’s “Scientist Spotlight”

blog posts.

To increase response rate, emails requesting a creator’s or

consultant’s participation were sent directly, or to their agent or

manager, instead of publishing a general advertisement looking

for participants. Thirty-six participants were directly recruited in

this manner (23 creators, 13 consultants). Snowb all sampling from

interviewees added another ﬁve creators and ﬁve consultants to the

total participant count.

Initial transcripts were generated automatically during the

interviews using the online software Otter.ai. Orthographic edits

for the purpose of qualitative analysis were completed manually

within the same software. This revision allowed for moments

of reﬂexivity (

Galletta, 2013). Quotes presented within this

paper have been further cleaned and “rendered into a written

style” (

Brinkmann and Kvale, 2015, p. 315), taking care not to

alter meaning.

Recognizing that both colle ction and analysis of interview data

are inﬂuenced by the interviewee-interviewer relationship, these

processes were informed by a social constructionist and social

constructivist worldview, respectively (

Young and Collin, 2004).

As it acknowledges data are co-constructed, Reﬂexive Thematic

Analysis (

Braun and Clarke, 2022) was selected as the method of

qualitative data analysis. Here, themes do not emerge from the data;

rather, they are actively constructed.

Braun and Clarke (2013) liken

the researcher to a sculptor instead of an archaeologist. Transcript

analysis (i.e., the identiﬁcation of codes and t hemes) was completed

in NVivo for the purposes of organization, only. Analysis was data-

driven and initial codes were generated through complete coding,

both semantic and latent.

Braun and Clarke (2013) assert that placing value in inter-rater

reliability measures is “problematic” for qualitative data because it

assumes both that “coding can and should be objective” (p. 279) and

that “the themes are in the data” (

Braun and Clarke, 2022, p. 239,

emphasis in originals). Additionally, bringing in coders who are

unfamiliar with the data often leads to a loss of analytic depth and

nuance (

Braun and Clarke, 2022). As such, we chose to discuss the

analysis with other researchers, but not to recruit additional coders

[cf.

O’Connor and Joﬀe (2020), who review arguments for and

against evaluating inter-coder reliability in qualitative research].

Due to the open-ended nature of the interview process, a

less frequently referenced code or theme is not necessarily less

meaningful (Braun and Clarke, 2013), nor is it necessarily less

supported by creator/consultant populations. As such, this research

avoids reporting results using exact numbers or percentages for

frequency of mentions. To keep descriptions consistent, and for the

sake of transparency,

Table 1 summarizes the terms used for speciﬁc

frequency ranges.

Due to participant recruitment and sampling methods, the

data may be biased toward a subpopulation of creators who are

more interested in how science is represented in Hollywood,

and in representing science accurately. Ultimately, all interviewed

creators had worked on at least one SciFi, medical, or forensic

science ﬁlm or television project. Recruiting creators who work

exclusively in other, science-lite, genres (e.g., SitComs, prestige

television dramas) may provide additional insights into Hollywood

perceptions of FiSci.

It was anticipated that the creators most well-known to mass

audiences, behind the most popular movies and shows, would

not be able or willing to participate in this research. While many

participants did indeed have high-ranking positions on popular

projects, this sample of Hollywood creators is more representative

of the wider population (i.e., TV writers who haven’t been executive

producers) than it would have been with a greater proportion of

household names.

3. Results and discussion

Three themes were constructed in response to participant

discussions of FiSci (

Table 2): FiSci as Tool, FiSci as Play, and

FiSci as B.S. (negative perceptions). FiSci as Tool is broken down

into three subthemes: FiSci as Improvement, FiSci as Compromise,

and FiSci as Convenience. FiSci as Play comprises the subthemes

FiSci as Symbol and FiSci as Imagination. Each of these themes and

subthemes is presented and discussed, followed by an intriguing

connection made by six participants between FiSci and Santa

Claus. Responses from the creator and consultant groups are

then compared.

3.1. FiSci as tool

Participants primarily spoke of FiSci as a narrative tool used in

service of a story (e.g., “Science, like anything else, is a device when

used in the arts;” CON-8). This suggests a neutral stance on FiSci as

a whole, and it is up to the actual method of implementation which

aﬀects whether a particular case is seen in a positive or ne gative

Frontiers in Communication 03 frontiersin.org

Davis et al. 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1029782

TABLE 1 Terms for qualitative abundance.

Term Approx. % equivalence Count

(all, n = 46)

Count (creators, n = 28) Count (consultants, n = 18)

A few < ∼10% 3–4 3 3

Several ∼10–30% 5–13 4–8 4–5

Many ∼31–50% 14–23 9–14 6–9

A majority of >50% >24 >15 >10

Most > ∼70% >33 >20 >13

TABLE 2 Hollywood creator/consultant perceptions of FiSci (n = 46).

Theme Participants perceive FiSci as…

FiSci as Tool . . . a narrative tool used in support of a greater story. FiSci may be perceived as an explicit improvement to a more realistic representation of sci ence, a

necessary compromise where it isn’t feasible to feature real science, or a convenient alternative which allows less time/eﬀort to be spent representing

real science

FiSci as Play . . . an opportunity for creators to create scenarios beyond t hose found in the real world, including for the use of commentary (e.g. , FiSci as a metaphor

for societal ills)

FiSci as B.S. . . . as unrealistic “magic” which, at its worst, threatens to break an audience’s suspension of disbelief and/or take them out of t he story

light. Participants provided examples of both. These results align

with

Kirby’s (2011) exploration of science and consultants in

Hollywood, though he focuses solely on ﬁlm.

Three subthemes describe cre ator and consultant perceptions

of FiSci as a storytelling tool: as an improvement to the quality

of a narrative, as a compromise necessary to tell a given/desired

narrative, and as a convenient shortcut requiring less eﬀort on the

part of the creator(s).

3.1.1. FiSci as improvement

More than half of our participants expressed the view that

the scientiﬁc accuracy of a ﬁctional entertainment ﬁlm/television

narrative is less important than the overall quality of said narrative.

Therefore, FiSci is often perceived by Hollywood creators and

consultants as the superior choice to a realistic representation of

science—particularly when real science is seen as too boring, too

complicated, or too time-consuming.

“There’s actually not that much drama in real

medicine. . . We artiﬁcially embellish that quite a bit for

our show.” (CON-9)

“CSI wouldn’t be a very interesting show if they presented

forensics in an accurate way. I think it’d be a very boring

show.” (CRE-11)

Most statements which fell under this theme were framed in

terms of how participants anticipate audiences will experience a

given ﬁlm/show—FiSci is used to improve how audiences will

respond to a given narrative, bot h in terms of aﬀect (i.e., an

emotional response in accordance wit h the intended genre, such

as Comedy or Thriller) and in terms of their overall experience and

perception of t he story having some level of quality.

Perceptions of FiSci as improvement are necessarily impacted

by the speciﬁc role a piece of FiSci plays within a story and the kind

of story a creator wants to tell. For example, CRE-19 highlighted

how the tone of a given narrative can dictate whether or not FiSci is

seen as an improvement.

“I don’t think Star Wars would be as good if there were no

sounds in space. It’d be more accurate. Would it be better? I

don’t think so. However, when you’re trying to do a movie like

Gravity, where you are going to be trapped in space and lost

and not know if anyone’s going to ﬁnd [you]—That silence was

spectacular. To see these things explode with no sound. It was

chilling.” (CRE-19)

Similarly, FiSci may better provide a heightened reality that

action-packed stories demand. A larger-than-life protagonist needs

a larger-than-life threat to tackle.

“It might be that the worst you can do with

nanotechnology right now is, like, maybe someone will

get a rash if they come in cont act with it. I don’t know. But

it’s way more interesting to think that they can get into your

bloodstream and control your mind, because Tom Cruise

doesn’t need to save you from a rash.” (CRE-20)

A few participants even likened the use of FiSci or real

science to a battle for audience engagement, suggesting that to

increase accuracy is to sacriﬁce story quality, and by extension,

said engagement.

“Sometimes telling the more interesting story will mean

that the science takes a backseat.” (CRE-10)

“I think what I learned through all t hat was that it is

a struggle to stay re al to facts and still tell a compelling

story.” (CRE-23)

This perception contrasts with research that suggests scientiﬁc

accuracy can increase audience enjoyment (Li, 2016; Green, 2017).

Frontiers in Communication 04 frontiersin.org

Davis et al. 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1029782

There may be a discrepancy between these Hollywood creator

perceptions of audience experiences and audiences’ perceptions of

their own experiences.

It is worth noting that just over half of the creator participants

reported taking at least one science-related course at a university

level, and most were able to identify a particular ﬁeld (e.g., “space

science;” CRE-16) or subject matter (e.g., “how the brain is able

to adapt;” CRE-10) t hat they were interested in, e ven if they were

not writing stories that dealt with those topic s. The challenge

in storytelling is ﬁnding ways to incorporate that interesting

science, and sometimes a decision is made t hat FiSci is simply

more interesting.

3.1.2. FiSci as compromise

The subtheme FiSci as Compromise collects participant views

that real science (or the spirit of real science) is often desired

in Hollywood storytelling, but ultimately not entirely possible.

Creators often have to let FiSci into their stories because they would

not work without it.

“Oftentimes, you have a consultant s aying, “It wouldn’t

happen that way.” And you’re like, “I know it wouldn’t, but the

story needs it to happen that way.”” (CRE-2)

For example, CON-13 stated that the Star Trek franchise’s warp

drive is “integral to the thesis of the show,” and were the creators to

feature a more realistic method of space travel (speciﬁcally sub-light

speed), it would be “a totally diﬀerent thing.”

Considering FiSci to be necessary is distinct from the subt heme

FiSci as Convenience (Section 3.1.3), which speaks to FiSci being

seen as an “easier” choice (e.g., CON-13). In some cases, there is a

ﬁne line between FiSci being seen as necessary to a story and as an

improvement upon a story, such as CON-16’s mention of relative

size in outer space:

“I have worked wit h writers who want to get it so right,

then they end up realizing they’re gonna have to compromise

when they think through that vastness of space aspect. . . I’m

like, “No, you literally won’t be able to see that if you try to

show the size scale, but I applaud you for trying.”” (CON-16)

In this example, one might perceive that it is more visually

appealing to depict multiple spaceships at an unrealistic size on

the audience’s screen given their physical distance. However, one

may also see it as a compromise if there’s a realization that the

ships would be so small the audience could not see them at all, and

the unrealisitc scaling is eﬀectively forced upon a creator despite

their original standards for accuracy. To that eﬀect, CRE-14 also

mentioned a preference to “defer to the truth,” but needing to

“[take] some license” when the story called for it.

FiSci was deemed necessary in speciﬁc genres of storytelling

where storyworlds involve, for example, depictions of futuristic

technology and/or characters whose biologies operate beyond the

known laws of physics. It is unsurprising to conclude that Science

Fiction would not exist without FiSci, nor it is surprising that

participants acknowledged certain stories are predicated upon the

use of FiSci. CRE-4 used an example of a superhero character saving

people in such a way that—were it the real world—those people

would be severely injured or die. Without that FiSci, the character

and his story could not exist.

However, even stories purportedly based in the real, modern

world may see creators inventing a piece of technology for their

story to move forward as intended.

“We wanted to rescue these people who were trapped in

a barn or something, and [other creators] wanted this cool

piece of science to come and save the day. . . We checked all

the consultants and there just wasn’t anything. . . So we ended

up just inventing our own de vice. . . It could have existed, but it

didn’t. . . We just embellished the rest to accomplish what they

wanted it to accomplish.” (CRE-21)

In addition to FiSci being considered necessary for plot

or world-building purposes, a few participants also discussed

occasions where FiSci arose from “simpliﬁcation” (CRE-20)—a real

science principle, or at least a hypothetically possible one, ended up

being misrepresented because it would be too complex to dedicate

the time to explain fully. Oversimpliﬁcation as ﬁctionalization

does appe ar in real world science communication discourse, as

well. Science journalism has been blamed for oversimplifying “to

the point that the basic information conveyed is obscured or

at worst, blatantly wrong” (

Brownell et al., 2013, p. E6). For

example, in his breakdown of how scientiﬁc studies are often

misrepresented to the public, Last Week Tonight host John Oliver

showed how a study which found “no signiﬁcant diﬀerence in

[rates of] preeclampsia or high blood pressure” between women

who consumed high vs. low ﬂavanol chocolate was soon discussed

by news stations as “If you’re pregnant, eating 30 g a day of

chocolate...could improve blood ﬂow to the placenta and beneﬁt

the growth and development of your baby, especially in women

at risk of preeclampsia” (LastWeekTonight, 2016, 5:55). While a

majority of U.S. adults perceive the oversimpliﬁcation of scientiﬁc

research in news coverage as “a problem” (

Funk et al., 2020),

participants in our study who brought up oversimpliﬁcation did not

connect it to possible problems out in the real world, and it was not

perceived negatively.

Finally, a couple of consultants mentioned that FiSci may

indeed be necessary to tell a creator’s story, and the acceptable

compromise is to preserve the process of science.

“What I want is the process of science to be portrayed

accurately. . . So as much as Tony Stark is not realistic, I thought

that Iron Man, the original movie, was a great advertisement for

science. He did experiments, he got things wrong, he worked in

a lab, he asked questions. . . You can’t actually build a suit and

ﬂy around like that, but the spirit of science I thought was very

positively portrayed in that movie.” (CON-7)

This may be due to the fact that consultants, being science

experts, are more inclined to perceive science as a process than as a

collection of knowledge. Indeed, when asked “What comes to mind

when you hear the word science?” consultants were much more

likely to (1) provide a deﬁnition of science, and then (2) deﬁne it as

process. Meanwhile, cre ators who provided deﬁnitions were more

likely to deﬁne science as knowledge or facts.

Frontiers in Communication 05 frontiersin.org

Davis et al. 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1029782

3.1.3. FiSci as convenience

The subtheme FiSci as Convenience incorporates both neutral

and negatively-coded expressions relating to avoiding eﬀort by

using FiSci. Several participants made explicit references to

laziness—statements that, in many cases, FiSci arises from a lack

of care, or as a result of creators being unwilling to put eﬀort into

depicting science accurately.

“The stuﬀ that I get upset about, with it being

misrepresented, are things that you could just have

googled.” (CON-16)

“I think that a lot of people are just lazy.” (CRE-2)

Unsurprisingly, most examples were about other creators being

lazy, as opposed to self-identifying as such. Such a result may

be explained by some amount of attribution bias (

Hall, 2020).

However, selection bias is also certainly at play. We suggest

that creators volunteering to be interviewed about the use of

science in Hollywood are likely to be more interested in science

per se. They may thus be more likely than other creators to

expend eﬀort toward learning what the real science would be,

and then potentially incorporating that real science when possible.

CRE-20 doesn’t perceive their use of FiSci as lazy because they

have put at least some amount of eﬀort into deciding it is

ultimately needed:

“I will depart from reality the minute that it’s causing me

story headaches. . . but it’s got to be legitimate headaches. You

can’t just be like, “Oh my god, it’d be so much easier if this thing

didn’t do this.”” (CRE-20)

Given the frequent use of “lazy” and related words, the use

of convenient FiSci could be perceived as a personal failing.

Alternatively, convenient FiSci (or the overuse of FiSci) was seen

to harm the perceived quality of a story.

“That’s a big thing for me, to just be really cognizant of how

much are we relying on ﬁctional science to just solve our story

problems for us. That’s not good writing. And also, it makes our

Science Fiction. . . cheap.” (CRE-17)

However, associations between use of FiSci and bad

story quality were rare. CRE-1—who directs mostly

grounded television—referenced laziness the most throughout

their interview.

“In Hollywood, if it gets up there, and it’s wrong, that’s

laziness, because the resources are there to get it right. Or

because the storytellers so badly want to tell a story. . . But

usually. . . it won’t be a good story.” (CRE-1)

CRE-1’s belief in the abundance of “resources” (e.g., science

consultants), combined with the association between accuracy and

quality, suggests that they see creators as having no excuse not to get

the science as right as possible. This belief was not reﬂected in most

other inter views, though some (mostly creators) said creators have

“a responsibility to at least know what you’re bending” (CRE-27).

However, not all perceptions of convenient FiSci were so

negative. The word “cheat” was used by several participants, though

not with a tone of voice that implied they were ascribing FiSci’s

use to a lack of eﬀort. Instead, such expressions spoke to FiSci as

a convenient storytelling shortcut.

“At some point, you know you’re going to cheat because

you know it’s not a lecture. It’s not an oral argument in front of

the Supreme Court. It’s a television episode, so you’re going to

take some shortcuts.” (CRE-3)

Some creators may choose to use FiSci to get around a

constraint the laws of nature place upon how the narrative can play

out. CRE-16 praised

Shankar et al. (2015–2022)—the showrunner

of the Hard SciFi series The Expanse—for not making this choice.

Instead, he and his creative team spend the extra time and/or eﬀort

to ensure the narrative comports with his high standard of realism.

“I applaud him for that. He doesn’t take

shortcuts.” (CRE-16)

While sometimes a shortcut might be perceived as lazy, it may

also be seen as necessary to tell a story in a particular amount of

time. Nearly half of participants cited a narrative time crunch, such

as needing to solve a crime in 45 min of screen time, as a source

for FiSci. For example, CRE-6 observed how The Undoing’s (Kelley

et al., 2020

) characters spend an unrealistically short time in the

therapy process so that the creators can move them more quickly

through their character and plot arcs within the narrative.

In other cases, a shortcut may be a FiSci trope that audiences are

already familiar with, so time doesn’t have to be spent presenting

an unfamiliar representation of a scientiﬁc topic, whether it’s more

accurate or not.

“You show somebody walking through something that

looks like a portal, [the audience is] gonna understand that

it’s a portal. But if you’re walking through something that

doesn’t look anything like anything anyone’s seen before, then

you have to have somebody explain what that is and how it

works.” (CRE-13)

Convenience also refers to FiSci done for the sake of production,

as some limitations in the real world make it more diﬃcult to

incorporate accurate representations of science. More time, more

money, and/or more complex technology is often required to

either ﬁgure out how to represent a piece of science as accurately

as possible, or actually accomplish that accurate representation.

In one example, CON-10 identiﬁed a common visual in Science

Fiction where characters are connected to FiSci technology at the

base of their skulls (e.g., The Matrix;

Wachowski and Wachowski,

1999

), which may be done to spare actors and their Hair and

Makeup teams from spending extra time—and possibly money—

on visual presentation.

“Why do they always do the brain implant jacks in the back

of the brain? It’s like the most primitive part of your brain?. . . It’s

convenient, rather than having a giant port in the middle of

your forehead, which would be a nightmare for makeup and

hair for the entire series” (CON-10).

3 The lead creator (almost always a writer) on a television series; the person

who runs the show.

Frontiers in

Communication 06 frontiersin.org

Davis et al. 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1029782

3.2. FiSci as play

As much as participants spoke of FiSci as being a narrative tool

used in service of telling a good story, they also spoke of FiSci as

opportunity to play within a story.

It’s just fun to do something, like the ﬁlm Lucy, that really

is just doing nothing more t han playing upon an urb an myth

that you only use 10% of your brain. (CON-8)

It’s a little bit of your imagination, it’s a little bit of the kid

in you playing. It’s the desire to entertain people. . . and just tell

stories. (CRE-4).

3.2.1. FiSci as symbol

The importance of metaphor in literary art appears all the

way back in Aristotle’s Poetics (ca. 350 B.C.E./2008): “The greatest

thing by far is to have a command of metaphor. . . It is the

mark of genius, for to make good metaphors implies an eye for

resemblances” (XXII, para. 5). More recently, author

Le Guin

(1989, p. 154) wrote, “All ﬁction is metaphor”. The literature has

thoroughly discussed Science Fiction stories presenting audiences

with analogies and metaphors (Le Guin’s own work, included;

e.g.,

Schalk, 2017), and similar views were reﬂected in this

study. Several creators and consultants expressed perceptions

of FiSci as some form of symbol. Of all participants, CON-

8 was the greatest champion of this particular perception

of FiSci, returning to it several times over the course of

their interview.

“It’s a symbol. . . You could replace Godzilla with forest

ﬁres, replace Godzilla with global warming, replace Godzilla

with the response to a tsunami or hurricane and you’ve got

it.” (CON-8)

Examples provided by participants covered the standard

categories of Science Fiction metaphors. Some commented on

current social issues:

“We would take the word “mutant” and substitute, you

know, “illegal alien”. . . Giving them a fantastical way to be

diﬀerent but trying to say something real to what people are

really feeling right now.” (CRE-22)

Others spoke of projecting modern concerns and/or fears of

future situations—both technology and nature itself, the latter of

which is seen in an abundance of dystopian climate-change based

scenarios (

Leyda et al., 2016):

“There is one [kind of FiSci] that comes to mind that

is currently a pet peeve of mine. And that is the idea

of artiﬁcial intelligence waking up and becoming conscious

and turning against its creators. . . I think it tells us more

about the human psyche...than it does about the science of

actually how AI works. . . Art reﬂects life in the sense that

the things that are meaningful to us in the real world are

threats. . . I guess we now play them out in stories to deal with

them.” (CON-4)

During the interview with CRE-27, the ﬁrst author brought

up the example of the FiSci in Finding Nemo (

Stanton, 2003)

where Marlin and Dory drop down a whale’s throat to be expelled

via the blowhole. In cetaceans, there is no connection between

mouth and lungs like in humans; however, whales also cannot spit,

rendering either method of ejection as FiSci (Abbott, 2004). The

scene requires Marlin let go of the whale’s tongue, plunging into an

unknown fate, to continue on his emotional arc for the movie—to

learn to “let go” of his son, Nemo.

“Not only is it a visualization of what [Marlin] needs to do,

but also being shot out of there is an escape. . . or rebirth in a

way. And so, that science, they’ve bent it enough so that we can

still believe that it’s possible, because I actually didn’t know that

[was FiSci] until you just said it right then.” (CRE-27)

CRE-27’s statement highlights that identifying this moment

as FiSci is not an ability that audiences would likely have. The

relationship between the use of FiSci symbols and audience

expectations is explored in more detail elsewhere (

Davis, 2022).

When compared against represent ations of real science, or FiSci

used for other purposes, allegorical FiSci may provide audiences

with a gre ater source of interest in a narrative. CRE-11, for

example, mentioned that they enjoyed the original series of Star

Trek (

Roddenberry, 1966–1969), both as a child and an adult, for

its use of allegory more than “the s cience.” In this sense, FiSci as

Symbol may overlap with FiSci as Improvement.

Science in the real world often relies on symbols (a.k.a. models).

For example, the evolution of humanity’s understanding of the

composition and nature of the atom carries multiple analogies—

from plum pudding, to a solar system, to a cloud (

Compound

Interest, 2016

). Metaphors and analogies are necessary for humans

to contemplate certain natures of reality, such as the imperceivable

and weird world of quantum mechanics (

Boudry et al., 2022).

However, using metaphors in the context of scientiﬁc concepts

can have downsides—amplifying misperceptions and spreading

misinformation—at least from the perspectives of experts (e.g.,

Doherty, 2020).

Imperfect models do ﬁctionalize science. As such, some might

consider t hem to be FiSci when they’re found within ﬁction (e.g.,

any depiction of a DNA molecule, even if it manages to display the

correct chirality and shape;

Jacobs, 2013). Such FiSci might be a

symbol in that it is a simpliﬁed version of itself, as opposed to a

stand-in for some greater societal concept.

The necessity of analogy to the human experience of

unfamiliar science highlights analogy’s importance for FiSci. In

this study, creators often perceived FiSci as needing to be

explained to audiences when it is not already a well-established

trope. Analogy can aid such explanatory dialogue by ﬁnding a

concept audiences are already familiar with. CRE-9 highlighted

this with the demonstration Sam Neil’s character does to explain

how a wormhole works in the horror movie Event Horizon

(

Anderson, 1997):

“He folds the paper and puts the pencil through. . . I know

it’s not right, but you explain [the s cience] in an emotional

and visual and actually shocking way. . . There’s a sound eﬀect

there. And there’s a thrusting of a pencil and a ripping of a

Frontiers in Communication 07 frontiersin.org

Davis et al. 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1029782

paper. . . and he’s got a chance to emote and act and everyone in

the audience goes, “Oh, okay, I understand.” You’re not really

understanding how to travel through a wormhole. . . [or] if it

even is possible, but everyone got it.” (CRE-9)

Analogous FiSci can also be a source of fascination for

audiences, “prompting us to decode analogies between future

narrative and present experience, and to make sense of the

diﬀerences” (

Wiegandt, 2017, p. 278). While participants did

not explore this opportunity explicitly, this c an contribute to

positive reception of a ﬁlm/show, because audiences have a positive

emotional experience despite apparent contradictions between the

storyworld and real world. It also speaks to how FiSci serves a role

of opening up minds to let audiences imagine and take interest in

worlds that are not our own, leading into the following subtheme.

3.2.2. FiSci as imagination

FiSci, at least within the context of stories not attempting

to mimic reality, was seen as a way for creators to “fantasize”

(CON-18), play “make believe” (CRE-13), or otherwise envision

implausible or impossible alternate realities.

“Probably the biggest reason for using ﬁctionalized science

is to inspire the imagination. . . When our current laws of

science are restrictive to the type of storytelling that you

want to tell, having ﬁctionalized science allows you to push

those boundaries. . . You want to tell something new and

innovative.” (CON-16)

This was seen as a beneﬁt in terms of the story quality, but also

in oﬀering audiences an “escape from what we are currently living”

(CRE-10) or the constraints of real knowledge.

“Imagination is more important than knowledge...

Knowledge constrains you to all t hat is known, whereas

imagination can lead you into the unknown to discover things

to make them known.” (CON-4, paraphrasing Albert Einstein)

References to imagination indicate that FiSci is seen not merely

as an escape, but as a temporary expansion of the boundaries of

reality (

Johnson et al., 2016). Indeed, Slater et al. (2014) propose

that one source of motivation for why individuals engage with

narratives is that narratives allow Temporary Expanding Boundaries

of the Self. They argue that narratives oﬀer a moment of respite

from the cognitive and emotional demands of maintaining one’s

identity (both the personal and the social). A similar motivation

could be ascribed to the use of FiSci. For the immersed, FiSci exists

as a “What if” scenario that presents the impossible (or highly

implausible) as real—at least for an hour or two.

CRE-15 considered the outer space setting of their upcoming

Soft SciFi series “liberating,” saying the writers “don’t have a lot of

rules. We can kind of do whatever we want.” Indeed, the speculative

question “What if” is one upon which many a Science Fiction story

is predicated—for example, What if we found a black hole out by

Neptune that was actually a portal to Hell (as fe atured in Event

Horizon)? However, such a question might also be asked for FiSci

in a story that would generally not be deﬁned as Science Fiction

(e.g., What if urine really were the ideal cure for a jellyﬁsh sting?).

While some FiSci may arise from a lack of fact-check, or other

unintentional misrepresentation of realistic science or knowledge,

an alternative proposition is that all FiSci might be considered a

speculation: Within a given storyworld, what if this piece of FiSci

were actually true?

“The more crazy stuﬀ you can come up with, the better, I

think with the SciFi stuﬀ. The Avatars or. . . the warp speed in

Star Wars

. . . Who knows if t hat could ever exist, but it’s super

fun. And it makes you think, you know, “What if?”” (CRE-12)

Many participants spoke to FiSci’s tendency to depict possible

future scientiﬁc knowledge and technology.

“We wrote this script 20 years ago. . . [It] had self-driving

cars, electric vehicles. . . The thing we were the proudest of is

everyone’s carrying around a personal assistant. . . little devices

that would do shit for them. . . You sort of don’t even realize

when reality has caught up with you... I’m seeing everybody in

the world with a cell phone in their hand all the time and going,

“Hey, that’s our PA. We invented that in our heads.”” (CRE-7)

Because our real future has yet to be written, this oﬀers a

diﬀerent kind of escape from the established rules of our universe.

These “What ifs” are restricted to depicting what could be possible

if science continues along current paths of knowledge acquisition

and application. Whether creators are merely prognosticating what

is already inevitable, or directly inspiring inventors to ﬁnd ways to

manifest ﬁction as fact, was acknowledged.

“Movies and TV have a tendency in some ways to kind

of tell the future. Almost maybe a little bit of a self-fulﬁlling

prophecy. . . I think [they] do a good job of giving us a glimpse

of what’s possible.” (CON-18)

To that end, several creators also spoke to depictions of FiS ci

technology in past projects that came into existence, or into much

more commonplace use, by the present day (e.g., self-driving cars;

CRE-10 and CRE-19).

FiSci that might seem impossible to the point of breaking an

audience’s suspension of disbelief (or, as some academics argue,

creation of belief;

Worth, 2004; Busselle and Bilandzic, 2008) could

be considered inspirational when one looks at current technology

from the perspective of a person living suﬃciently far in the past. In

cases where FiSci is perceived as wholly unrealistic, such a point of

view may lessen negative feelings caused by that perception. Thus,

the line between the themes FiSci as Play and FiSci as B.S. is a ﬁne

one, dependent upon personal taste and vision.

“I like The Fly. [It] kind of works because on some level

people think, well, someday somebody will ﬁnd a way to...

transport matter. I mean, it seems absurd now, but everything

we do now would have seemed absurd, you know, 10,000 years

4 Ships in the Star Wars franchise actually use hyperdrives for their faster-

than-light propulsion; Star Trek ships use warp drives.

Frontiers in Communication 08 frontiersin.org

Davis et al. 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1029782

ago. I mean, we’re living in a world of pure magic compared to

where we started.” (CRE-7)

With regard to the relationship between play and inspiration,

several participants made statements that FiSci could inspire

audience members—to investigate the possibility of said future

science and technology, to go into STEM careers, and so forth.

However, these statements were less abundant than those of

general imagination.

“These spaceships on these shows are basically

impossible. . . or we sure as hell don’t know how to make them,

yet. . . They’re aspirational. They make people hopefully want

to study science. . . and get us closer to those things.” (CRE-3)

Thus, there’s a distinction between play for play’s sake and play

with purpose.

3.3. FiSci as B.S.

The theme FiSci as B.S. describes the main negative

perceptions of FiSci expressed by participants. The term B.S.

is colloquially understood as the abbreviation for bullshit, and

this word was used by several participants (e.g., “The premise

is complete bullshit”; CRE-14). This theme therefore includes

negative expressions that FiSci is nonsense—it lacks meaning or

any relation to the real world—and expressions that suggest a

lack of value or quality. It is worth pointing out that negative

descriptions of FiS ci were usually speciﬁc. That is, negative

references to FiSci were more likely to reference a particular

representation, rather than comment on FiSci as a whole. CRE-

3 below highlights one of the less abundant cases, where they

deﬁne FiSci as more often “nonsense;” compare this to CON-6, who

speaks of a speciﬁc example.

“Fictional science to me is when you get into, like, the

science of warp drive. . . It’s basically nonsense, a lot of it. You

might as well be reciting Jabberwocky.” (CRE-3)

“[Show] started using zero-point energy, which is basically

magical energy that comes from nowhere. Oookay. There is

some theoretical basis that could be plausible. I personally t hink

it’s bullshit, but you can go with it.” (CON-6)

Both in general, and when speaking of speciﬁc examples, most

participants used a negatively coded word at some point during

the interview. By far, negative words were used as synonyms for

a lack of perceived realism or lack of believability (e.g., “ridiculous”

CRE-1; “absurd” CRE-11; “stupid” CON-15). This is another reason

why the theme name uses the abbreviation “B.S.”—to reference

the perception that FiSci can Break an audience’s Suspension of

disbelief, and pull them out of the narrative.

“Armageddon is so ridiculous and stupid. In fact, there’s

that one point when they’re on the [asteroid], and they jump

a cavern in that space car... the movie lost me way before that.”

(CRE-27, emphasis added)

CRE-27’s statement reminds us that Hollywood creators and

consultants do consume these stories as audience members, though

other participants referenced a hypothetical audience response to

B.S. FiSci (e.g., “You don’t want the audience to go “Ugh. That’s

ridiculous.””; CON-13).

“Ridiculous,” which was said by many participants over the

course of their interviews, was mostly used in the context of

comparing the scientiﬁc knowledge of the real world to that

featured within a storyworld. However, CRE-3 used the word in

reference to a lack of internal narrative consistency—a piece of

technology was seen as “ridiculous” because it didn’t comport with

the other technology fe atured within the story.

“My favorite note I ever got. . . We had written a scene

where one of the characters was ﬁxing the starship and he

was using a wrench, and the note [from the consultant] was

“A wrench? Why not an antelope bone?” It was as ridiculous

that they would be using a wrench on a starship as you would

be using an antelope bone. . . Such a primitive tool to ﬁx this

advanced piece of equipment.” (CRE-3)

To CRE-3’s consultant, the wrench was B.S. because it wasn’t

FiSci enough for the storyworld. Usually, a piece of FiSci stands out

for being more unrealistic t han the rest of the story, and participants

made many statements about perceived realism aﬀecting t heir

own decisions of whether or not to use FiS ci. Perceptions of

ridiculousness were also recognized as subjective, depending bot h

upon the overall quality of the story, and one’s own beliefs about

whether or not a piece of FiSci is deemed plausible enough.

Meanwhile, the word “stupid” was used by several participants,

and also primarily used to suggest lack of realism or believability.

“It’s funny. I go along with, like, oh, this is how spaceships

work in space bullshit, to a certain extent. The one time I

lost my mind on it was in [Star Wars] The Last Jedi. . . I just

wanted to scream, “No, that’s not how space works”.. . It was

just stupid.” (CRE-20)

As a more general slang term, there were also a couple of

uses speaking to a generic lack of quality (e.g., CON-9; CRE-28).

However, “stupid” may also speak to the e ase with which a piece of

FiSci could be replaced. CRE-11 spoke of wanting to avoid “stupid

mistakes,” and CRE-16 referenced the same concept in their desire

to avoid using complex jargon or terminology incorrectly.

“You don’t want to say anything stupid, you know? You

don’t want to invoke quantum entanglement when physicists

really me an something else by t hat term.” (CRE-16)

Thus, “stupid” could relate to some FiSci being seen as lacking

eﬀort, in this instance t hrough using terminology incorrectly (FiSci

as Convenience).

Regarding lack of eﬀort, the word “embarrassing” was also used

by a few participants. Perhaps unlike the more generic “stupid,”

“embarrassing” suggests a creator would or should experience

some amount of personal shame having used a particular piece of

FiSci. Perhaps aﬀected by other narrative elements (e.g., a lack of

engaging characters to compensate), the FiSci results in some kind

Frontiers in Communication 09 frontiersin.org

Davis et al. 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1029782

of failure—to a creator or consultant’s own standards, or to those of

the t arget audience.

“We want to be, I think, medically sound, so nobody’s

saying, “You guys are idiots. You have no idea what you’re

talking about.” That would be embarrassing.” (CRE-14)

CRE-2 suggested that FiSci becomes embarrassing when it

prevents the audience from taking the narrative around it seriously.

They also used the term “goofy,” which suggests some FiSci carries

an unwanted comedic tone. If FiSci is perceived as a mistake,

any resulting comedy may harken back to ancient perceptions of

laughter as mockery (the Superiority Theory of Humor;

Morreall,

2020

). However, CRE-2 clariﬁed that intentionally goofy FiSci

is acceptable, so they may instead be making reference to the

Incongruity Theory of Humor (

Morreall, 2020). Embarassing FiSci

is humorous when it doesn’t ﬁt within the rest of the world t he

story has constructed, even if that world is already “crazy, batshit

Science Fiction.”

There were also negative perceptions of FiSci as “magic” (CRE-

17)—statements that FiSci operates using its own rules that creators

make up as needed without caring what the real science is. CRE-

2 noted how their own personal standards of wanting FiSci to be

based on real science were distinct from their showrunner’s, who

just wanted CRE-2 to make something up for a plotline. Thus,

a negative perception of FiSci as magic or B.S. could stem from

conﬂicting standards between two (or more) creators working on

a single project. Their anecdote highlights that perceptions of FiSci

don’t merely diﬀer between creators and consultants on oc casion,

nor merely between Hollywood and its audiences.

“[Showrunner] had no interest in science. . . I remember

when we were trying to think of the disease that this girl

[had]. . . we did all this research to try to ﬁnd, like, what are

some really strange, lesser-known diseases. . . [Showrunner] had

sort of a list of requirements, like she has to seem perfectly ﬁne

until she’s not, and then she could sort of drop dead at any

time. And we ended up ﬁnding some strange disease, and then

he was like, “Yeah, no, I don’t care about a real disease. You

could call it lightswitchitis. Where we ﬂip the switch and she’s

dead.”” (CRE-2)

Finally, the term “pseudoscience” was used by a few participants

in the context of FiSci. This is generally considered a negative term

in the real world, but it is unclear if these participants were using it

as such, or merely as an alternative term for “fake science.” CRE-10

distinguished such inaccurate science from anything that was made

up entirely. The example they gave was the use of a made-up virus,

as opposed to a misrepresentation of a real one.

“The showrunner, I think in an eﬀortless way, really did

keep the pseudoscience down to a minimum. . . He never put

in something that a TV viewer could be like, “That’s wrong,”

because it was kind of made up and it all sort of made

sense.” (CRE-10)

Negative FiSci, to CRE-10, was FiSci that audiences

could identify as inaccurate. This could suggest that explicit

misrepresentation is worse than “science” supposedly

created from scratch. However, few participants made

similar distinctions.

3.4. FiSci as Santa

While FiSci as Santa is not a theme in and of itself, it was

surprising that six participants likened FiSci to Santa Claus. These

references can be categorized into three types of comparison.

The ﬁrst was how Santa and FiSci are both symbols, which was

discussed previously:

“[FiSci and Science Fiction are] nothing more than

symbols that we recognize aren’t—I mean like Santa Claus.

There is no Santa Claus. . . But the idea of e ven a guy on the

street corner ringing the bell, it’s not that you really think

that guy is Santa Claus. . . [But he] represents the goodness of

mankind and the spirit of giving.” (CON-8)

Second, both FiSci (in particular, certain story-generating FiS ci

tropes) and Santa Claus exist as a common mythology. There is a

relative paucity of literature about FiSci, which this study addresses.

In contrast, the Santa Claus mythos has attracted vast and diverse

study from many social science perspectives for many years (for

just a few of many examples, see:

Belk, 1993; Miller, 2017; Kürti,

2020

). It is worth acknowledging the diversity in the Santa mythos.

Santa may be conﬂated with, or adapted from, the historical

ﬁgure Saint Nicola of Myra (

Miller, 2017; FiSci may therefore

act similarly when it is extrapolated from real science kernels).

As CON-8’s comment suggests, Santa may be a winter-themed

avatar—perhaps even an ideal toward which we should strive to

be. In some families, Santa is a role through which real people

perform “an unfolding series of good deeds and Christmas spirit”

(

Itkowitz, 2016, para. 5). Alternatively, Santa—given his likeness’s

appearance in advertisements—may represent how a holiday has

been corrupted by commercial, proﬁt-seeking entities.

That being said, most depictions of Santa share similar

features: a red suit and white beard; plump; lives above the Arctic

Circle, if not the North Pole; often accompanied by reindeer

or toy-making elves; gives coal to “naughty” children; and so

on. Hollywood has its own part to play in propagating these

Santa tropes.

The wide recognition of a recurrent piece of FiSci or Santa

allows either one to serve as an eﬀective method to garner an

audience, while not requiring a bunch of screen time to explain

how they work on a fundamental level. To the latter point , CRE-

19 spoke of such a shortcut more in the positive sense than

the subtheme FiSci as Convenience would generally suggest. They

saw FiSci as a source of fascination and perfectly acceptable

as long as the greater narrative does not treat the scenario

as plausible.

“You try to tap into something that people know, but they

don’t know too well. And that kind of mythology makes people

lean in. Do I actually think aliens built the pyramids? No, I

don’t. But almost everybody has heard it. . . To me, that’s the

Frontiers in Communication 10 frontiersin.org

Davis et al. 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1029782

scientiﬁc equivalent of Santa Claus. I don’t think there’s a real

Santa Claus, but we can make some really cool movies about

Santa Claus.” (CRE-19)

Third, FiSci was related to Santa by being a kid version of

science. Eventually, audiences have to grow up and learn it’s

ﬁctional and enter the real world of what is actually possible (yet

“we all want to believe” FiSci could still be possible; CRE-22).

This connects to Busselle and Greenberg’s (2000) discussion of

realism, wherein they re cognize “at some stage children come to

understand that people and events appearing on the television,

at least in ﬁctional programs, exist for the purpose of creating a

representation of something that does not exist in the real world”

(p. 253). To children growing up in some households, Santa is an

entity that operates within the world according to certain rules, and

explains certain phenomena (e.g., How do those stockings get ﬁlled

with treats?). Eventually, one must realize that Santa does not, in

fact, exist. Yet, ﬁctional media likes to continue to represent Santa

as real.

“Nobody ever s ays on television Santa Claus doesn’t exist.

Never. Because nobody wants to be the one to tell those under-

7-year-olds that that’s what’s going on. Everybody gets to get

over that little bit of naivety themselves.” (CRE-6)

The idea of having to grow up and realize FiSci is ﬁctional

seems to contrast wit h sentiments that some FiSci could be seen as

inspiration or hope that translates into people wanting to recreate

what they see in the real world. Hope was brieﬂy referenced in

CRE-21’s and CRE-22’s back and forth about Santa/FiSci, with

the latter seeing FiSci-ﬁlled worlds as an escape from reality,

which aligns with perceptions of FiSci as Imagination. But they

suggest reality needs to be escaped every once in a while to keep

humanity’s hopes for the future up (à la Slater et al.’s [2014]

TEBOTS model).

“Especially seeing the rise of all the Marvel ﬁlms, The

Star Wars ﬁlms. . . When you set things not in this world, or

in a slightly alternate world, I think you can tell stories with

more hope. . . As much as we know in real life right now, I

think now we want an escape. We were talking today about

Santa. . . because [CRE-21] was talking about whether to show

[their child] Miracle on 34th Street...” (CRE-22)

“. . . It’s not gonna hold up if you start picking the logic

out of it. . . And I think as they get older, they sort of demand

a more scientiﬁc explanation for things. Like back to Santa

it’s like, just saying Santa is magic is starting to become not

enough for [my child] who wants to understand exactly how

that works.” (CRE-21)

Compare also the notion that taking a break to watch a movie

featuring Santa allows us poor, jaded adults to return to our

childhoods and pretend for 90 min that magic is re al. Discussion

by these few participants highlights one important role ﬁctional

science plays within ﬁctional entertainment narratives. FiSci may

indeed provide a source of childlike wonder, evoking not a desire

to sneak out of one’s bedroom to catch a parent red-handed eating

the cookies and milk, but a desire to engage with other science

communication content and learn how FiSci connects to the real

world’s alternatives.

3.5. Creators vs. consultants

It might have been predicted that creators and consultants

would have signiﬁcantly diﬀerent perspectives on FiSci in

Hollywood, due to diﬀerences in their level of formal scientiﬁc

education and their role within Hollywood (e.g., many consultants

consult to help Hollywood get the science right). Yet, this study

demonstrates similarity in attitudes and beliefs across creator and

consultant groups. A plausible explanation for this may simply

be that only those consultants whose perspectives generally align

with creators will last in Hollywood; t hus, the overall population of

consultants may be collectively biased in their perspectives when

compared to the greater population of science experts.

Despite general similarities, there were minor diﬀerences in

the thematic codes that cre ators and consultants were more likely

to address in their interviews. Those pertinent to the results

presented in t his study include that consultants were more likely to

ascribe neutral intent (e.g., narrative shortcuts) to convenient FiSci,

whereas creators were more frequently negative. Perhaps creators

felt more comfortable with criticizing their fellow creators, whereas

consultants did not wish to use words that could come across as

insulting members of Hollywood who were willing to invite t hem

into the fold. There was also a noticeable diﬀerence in perceptions

of science itself, with consultants preferring to describe it as a

process of acquiring knowledge (e.g., the scientiﬁc method), and

creators more likely to describe it as a collection of knowledge (e.g.,

facts). This may have inﬂuenced their discussions of FiSci even after

providing our deﬁnition of the term FiSci.

4. Conclusion

This study presents a preliminary guide to t he current state of

Hollywood creators’ and consultants’ perceptions of FiSci. As such,

it can inform creators and consultants alike about how the other

thinks, and possibly dispel preconceptions held by creators who

have yet to work with a consultant, experts looking to become a

consultant, or for that matter, armchair critics in the audience on

the lookout for FiSci in the content they watch. It also answers,

in part, t he questions posed by

Kirby and Ockert (2021): “How do

scriptwriters approach science?” and “What role does science play

in storytelling?” in the context of ﬁctional representations of science

(p. 91).

According to the creators and consultants interviewed,

Hollywood perceptions of FiSci are generally context dependent.

Primarily, participants spoke of FiSci being a tool to support

engaging storyworlds and t he characters that live in them—FiSci

may be used to improve upon what realistic science can oﬀer, or as

a necessary compromise, or as a method of convenience to avoid

devoting more time and/or eﬀort to explore real science concepts

(both in the production of a project, and within the narrative

itself). Consultants were more likely to as cribe neutral intent (e.g.,

narrative shortcuts) to convenient FiSci than creators, who were

more likely to simply evoke perceptions of laziness.

Frontiers in Communication 11 frontiersin.org

Davis et al. 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1029782

Participants spoke of FiSci positively as opportunity for

exploration and imagination and as symbols which can evoke

audience reﬂection or discussion. FiSci as Symbol may also be

connected to the use of symbols in real science, helping people

understand complex topics by way of a simpliﬁed representation.

Related to FiSci as Play, there arose an interesting contrast

between statements that FiS ci exists to provide an es cape

from reality, and that FiSci inspires us to recreate ﬁction in

reality. This manifested in multiple unprompted discussions of

ﬁctional science being likened to Santa Claus. Comparisons

between FiSci and Santa also revealed a perception of FiSci

as a naive version of science we must eventually move on

from (in terms of belief), but occasionally return to for

our beneﬁt.

Negative perceptions of FiSci primarily spoke to a perceived

lack of eﬀort behind its implementation (including t hat a

representation is creatively stale), or that a given representation

is too “ridiculous” (i.e., too implausible or internally inconsistent)

within the context of a storyworld.

As the media landscape continues to evolve and the lines

between fact and ﬁction grow increasingly blurred, there is

enormous potential for further research on this topic. Hollywood’s

ﬁctional depictions of science aren’t going away anytime soon.

Nor should they, as long as t hey are used to positive eﬀect.

Increased awareness and understanding of perceptions of FiS ci

held by creators, consultants, and audiences (including science

communicators) can help produce those eﬀects.

Data availability statement

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available

because they could be used to identify participants, thus abrogating

our responsibility to maintain anonymity, as approved by our

institutional ethics committee. Requests to access the datasets

should be directed to JD,

[email protected].

Ethics statement

The study was approved by the University of Otago

Human Research Committee (reference number D20/298).

Participants provided written informed consent to participate in

this study.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, interviews, and manuscript—ﬁrst draft: JD.

Methodology: JD and NL. Analysis and review and editing: JD, NL,

and GS. All authors have read and agreed to the published version

of the manuscript.

Funding

Financial support was provided by the University of

Otago’s Postgraduate Publishing Bursary and the Department

of Science Communication.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all of the participants who generously

shared t heir perspectives in interviews. We also thank

colleagues in the Department of Science Communication for

stimulating conversations and thoughtful feedback throughout the

research process.

Conﬂict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the

absence of any commercial or ﬁnancial relationships that could be

construed as a potential conﬂict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the

authors and do not necessarily represent those of t heir aﬃliated

organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the

reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or

claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or

endorsed by the publisher.

References

21st Century Fox, The Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media, and J. Walter

Thompson Intelligence. (2018). The Scully Eﬀect: I Want to Believe in STEM.

Los Angeles: Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media. Available online at:

https://seejane.org/wp-content/uploads/x-ﬁles-scully-eﬀect-report-geena-davis-

institute.pdf

(accessed February 9, 2023).

Abbott, A. (2004). Science at the movies: the fabulous ﬁsh guy. Nature 427, 672–673.

doi: 10.1038/427672a

Adams, W. C., Smith, D. J., Salzman, A., Crossen, R., Hieber, S., Naccarato,

T., et al. (1986). Before and after the day after: The unexpected results of

a televised drama. Polit. Commun. 3, 191–213. doi: 10.1080/10584609.1986.9

962790

Anderson, P. W. S. (1997). Event hor i zon. Log Angeles: Paramount Pictures; Golar

Productions; Impact Pictures.

Aristotle. (2008). Poetics. Transl. by S. H. Butcher. Carolina: Project Gutenberg.

(Original work published ca. 350 B.C.E.). Available online at:

https://www.gutenberg.

org/ﬁles/1974/1974-h/1974-h.htm#li nk2H_4_0024

(accessed October 15, 2021).

Baldick, C. (2015). “Trope,” in The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms, 4th Edn.

Oxford: Oxford Uni versity Press. Available online at:

https://www.oxfordreference.

com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198715443.001.0001/acref-9780198715443-e-1172

(accessed September 14, 2021).

Belk, R. W. (1993). “Materialism and the making of the modern American

Christmas,” in Unwrapping Christmas, ed D. Miller (Oxford: Oxford University

Press), 75–104

Besley, J. C., and Shanahan, J. (2005). Media attention and exposure in

relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Sci. Commun. 26, 347–367.

doi: 10.1177/1075547005275443

Frontiers in Communication 12 frontiersin.org

Davis et al. 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1029782

Boudry, M., Vlerick, M., and Edis, T. (2022). “Demystifying mysteries: How

metaphors and analogies extend the reach of the human mind,” in Metaphors and

Analogies in Sciences and Humanities, eds S. Wuppuluri and A. C. Grayling (Cham:

Springer), 65–83. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-90688-7_4

Box Oﬃce Mojo. (n.d.). Domestic Yearly Box Oﬃce. Seattle, WA: IMDbPro;

Amazon. Available online at:

https://www.boxoﬃcemojo.com/year (accessed

December 27, 2019).

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2013). Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide

for Beginners. New York, NY: Sage.

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. New York,

NY: Sage. doi: 10.53841/bpsqmip.2022.1.33.46

Brinkmann, S., and Kvale, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative

Research Interviewing, 3rd Edn. New York, NY: Sage.

Brownell, S. E., Price, J. V., and Steinman, L. (2013). Science communication to the

general public: Why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as

part of their formal scientiﬁc training. J. Undergrad. Neurosci. Educ. 12, E6–E10.

Busselle, R., and Bilandzic, H. (2008). Fictionality and perceived realism in

experiencing stories: a model of narrative comprehension and engagement. Commun.

Theory 18, 255–280. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00322.x

Busselle, R., and Greenberg, B. S. (2000). The nature of television realism judgments:

a reevaluation of their conceptualization and measurement. Mass Commun. Soc. 3,

249–268. doi: 10.1207/S15327825MCS0323_05

Calhoun, W., and Jensen, S. (1997). “The one with the jellyﬁsh (Season 4, Episode

1) [TV series episode],” in (Executive Producers), Friends, eds M. Borkow, K. Bright, D.

Crane, and M. Kauﬀman (Los Angeles: Bright/Kauﬀman/Crane Productions; Warner

Bros, Television).

Compound Interest (2016). The History of the Atom: Theories and Models. Los

Angeles: CompoundChem. Available online at:

https://www.compoundchem.com/

2016/10/13/atomicmodels

(accessed February 9, 2023).

Davis, J. L. (2022). Science, Fiction, and the Hollywood Machine: Creators and

Consultants, Consensus and Conﬂict (PhD Thesis). University of Otago. Available

online at:

http://hdl.handle.net/10523/14213 (accessed February 9, 2023).

Dill-Shackleford, K. E., and Vinney, C. (2020). Finding Truth i n Fiction: What Fan

Culture Gets Right—and Why It’s Good to Get Lost in a Story. Oxford: Oxford Univ ersity

Press. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780190643607.001.0001

Doherty, J.-F. (2020). When ﬁction becomes fact: Exaggerating host manipulation

by parasites. Proc. R. Soc. B 28 7, 1–7. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2020.1081

Dudo, A., Brossard, D., Shanahan, J., Scheufele, D. A., Morgan, M., and Signorielli,

N. (2011). Science on television in the 21st century: Recent trends in portrayals and

their contributions to public attitudes toward s ci ence. Commun. Res. 38, 754–777.

doi: 10.1177/0093650210384988

Dudo, A., Copple, J., and Atkinson, L. (2017). “Entertainment ﬁlm and TV

portrayals of climate change and their societal impacts,” in Oxford Research

Encyclopedia of Climate Science, ed H. von Storch (Oxford: Oxford University).

doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.374

Frank, S. (2003). Reel reality: s c ience consultants in Hollywood. Sci. Cult. 12,

427–469. doi: 10.1080/0950543032000150319

Frayling, C. (2005). Mad, Bad and Dangerous? The Scientist and the Cinema.

London: Reaktion Books Ltd.

Funk, C., Gottfried, J., and Mitchell, A. (2017). Science News and Information

Today. London: Pew Research Center. Available online at:

https://www.pewresearch.

org/journalism/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2017/09/PJ_2017.09.20_Science-and-

News_FINAL.pdf

(accessed February 9, 2023).

Funk, C., Tyson, A., Kennedy, B., and Johnson, C. (2020). Science and

Scientists Held in High Esteem Across Global Publics. London: Pew Research Center.

Available online at:

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/sites/

16/2020/09/PS_2020.09.29_global-science_REPORT.pdf

(accessed February 9, 2023).

Galletta, A. (2013). Mastering the Semi-Structured Interview and Beyond: From

Research Design to Analysis and Publication. New York, NY: New York University

Press. doi: 10.18574/nyu/9780814732939.001.0001

Gerbner, G. (1987). Science on television: how it aﬀects public conceptions. Sci.

Technol. 3, 109–115.

Green, J. (2017). Screaming when there is sound in space: Unrealistic science and

the reception of narrative ﬁction (PhD thesis). The Australian National University,

ANU Open Research Library. Available online at:

http://hdl.handle.net/1885/117412

(accessed February 9, 2023).

Green, M. C., and Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in

the persuasiveness of public narratives. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 79, 701–721.

doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701

Greenbaum, D. (2009). Is it really possible to do the Kessel Run in less than twelve

parsecs and should it matter? Science and ﬁlm and its policy implications. Vanderbilt J.

Entertain. Technol. Law 11, 249–333.

Hall, A. (2003). Reading re alism: audiences’ evaluations of the re ality of media texts.

J. Commun. 53, 624–641. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02914.x

Hall, E. D. (2020). “Fundamental attribution error,” in The International

Encyclopedia of Media Psychology, eds J. van den Bulck, D. Ewoldsen,

M.-L. Mares, and E. Scharrer (Amsterdam: John Wiley and Sons).

doi: 10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0074

Itkowitz, C. (2016). The Story Behind the Beautiful Way this Mom Told Her

Sons the Truth About Santa. Washington, DC: The Washington Post. Available

online at:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2016/12/19/the-

story-behind-the-beautiful-way-this-mom-told-her-sons-the-truth-about-santa/

(accessed February 9, 2023).

Jacobs, G. (2013). How to spot a badly-drawn DNA helix. SciBlogs. Available online

at:

http://web.archive.org/web/20220518224950/https://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/

2013/07/22/how-to-spot-a-badly-draw-dna-helix/

(accessed February 12, 2023).

Johnson, B. K., Slater, M. D., Silver, N. A., and Ewoldsen, D. R. (2016).

Entertainment and expanding boundaries of the self: relief from the constraints of the

everyday. J. Commun. 66, 386–408. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12228

Kelley, D. E., Bier, S., Costas, C., Garrett, S., Kidman, N., Papandrea, B., et al. (2020).

The Undoing. Manhattan Beach, NY: David E. Kelley Productions; Blossom Films;

Made Up Stories; HBO Originals.

Kirby, D. A. (2011). Lab Coats in Hollywood: Science, Scientists, and Cinema. N ew

York, NY: MIT Press. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/8483.001.0001

Kirby, D. A., and Ockert, I. (2021). “Science and technology in ﬁlm: themes and

representations,” in Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology,

3rd Edn, eds M. Bucchi, and B. Trench (New York, NY: Routledge), 77–96.

doi: 10.4324/9781003039242-5-5

Kürti, L. (2020). ‘Do you want to be Krampus?’ Santa Claus, globality and locality of

Christmas tradition. Hungar. Studies Yearbook 2, 123–143. doi: 10.2478/hsy-2020-0010

LastWeekTonight. (2016). Scientiﬁc Studies: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

(HBO). Los Angeles: YouTube. Available online at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

(accessed February 9, 2023).

Le Guin, U. K. (Ed.) (1989). The Language of the Night: Essays on Fantasy and

Science Fiction (new revised ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Leyda, J., Loock, K., Starre, A., Pinto Barbosa, T., and Rivera, M. (2016). The

Dystopian Impulse of Contemporary Cli-Fi: Lessons and Questions From a Joint

Workshop Of the IASS and the JFKI (FU Berlin). IASS Working Paper.

Li, P.-Y. (2016). Communicating science through entertainment television: How

the sitcom The Big Bang Theory inﬂuences audience perceptions of science and

scientists (PhD thesis). The Australian National University. ANU Open Research

Library. Available online at:

http://hdl.handle.net/1885/101514 (accessed February 9,

2023).

Marsh, E. J., and Fazio, L. K. (2006). Learning errors from ﬁction: Diﬃculties

in reducing reliance on ﬁctional stories. Memory Cognit. 34, 1140–1149.

doi: 10.3758/BF03193260

Miller, D. (2017). Christmas: an anthropological lens. Hau J. Ethnogr. Theory 7,

409–442. doi: 10.14318/hau7.3.027

Morgan, S. E., King, A. J., Smith, J. R., and Ivic, R. (2010). A kernel of truth? The

impact of television storylines exploiting myths about organ donation on the public’s

willingness to donate. J. Commun. 60, 778–796. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01

523.x

Morreall, J. (2020). “Philosophy of humor,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy, ed E. N. Zalta (New York, NY: Springer). Available online at:

https://plato.

stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/humor

(accessed February 9, 2023).

National Science Board (2000). Science and Engineering Indicators 2000 Volume 1.

Alexandria: National Science Foundation.

Nisbet, M. C., Scheufele, D. A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D., and

Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media eﬀects

model for public perceptions of science and technology. Commun. Res. 29, 584–608.

doi: 10.1177/009365002236196

O’Connor, C., and Joﬀe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research:

debates and practical guidelines. Int. J. Qual. Methods 19, 1609406919899220.

doi: 10.1177/1609406919899220

Oxford University Press. (n.d.). “Trope,” in Oxford English Dictionary Online

(Oxford: Oxford University Press). Available online at: http://www.oed.com/

viewdictionaryentry/Entry/206679

(accessed September, 14, 2021).

Roddenberry, G. (1966–1969). Star Trek. Norway: Desilu Productions; Paramount

Television; Norway Corporation.

Schalk, S. (2017). Interpreting disability metaphor and race in Octavia Butler’s

“the evening and the morning and the night”. Afr. Am. Rev. 50, 139–151.

doi: 10.1353/afa.2017.0018

Shanahan, J., Morgan, M., and Stenbjerre, M. (1997). Green or brown? Television

and the cultivation of environmental concern. J. Broadcast. Elect. Media 41, 305–323.

doi: 10.1080/08838159709364410

Shankar, N., Fergus, M., Ostby, H., Daniel, S., Brown, J. F., Hall, S., et al. (2015–

2022). The Expanse. Washington, DC: Penguin in a Parka; SeanDanielCo; Alcon

Television Group; Just So; Hivemind; Amazon Studios.

Frontiers in Communication 13 frontiersin.org

Davis et al. 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1029782

Shen, F., and Han, J. (2014). Eﬀectiveness of entertainment education in

communicating health information: a systematic review. Asian J. Commun. 24,

605–616. doi: 10.1080/01292986.2014.927895

Sisson, G., Walter, N., Herold, S., and B rooks, J. J. (2021). Prime-time abortion on

Grey’s Anatomy: What do US viewers learn from ﬁctional portrayals of abortion on

television? Perspect. Sex. Reprod. Health 53, 13–22. doi: 10.1363/psrh.12183

Slater, M. D ., Johnson, B. K., Cohen, J., Comello, M. L. G., and Ewoldsen, D. R.

(2014). Temporarily expanding the boundaries of the self: Motivations for entering

the story world and implications for narrative eﬀects. J. Commun. 64, 439–455.

doi: 10.1111/jcom.12100

Stanton, A. (2003). Finding Nemo. Burbank: Walt Disney Pictures; Pixar

Animation Studios.

The Nielsen Company (2021). The Nielsen Total Audience Report: March 2021.

New York, NY: The Nielsen Company. Available online at:

https://www.nielsen.com/

us/en/insights/report/2021/total-audience-advertising-across-todays-media

(accessed

February 9, 2023).

Wachowski, L., and Wachowski, L. (1999). The Matrix. Washington, DC;

Warner Brothers; Village Roadshow Pictures; Groucho II Film Partnership;

Silver Pictures.

Wiegandt, K. (2017). “Futurology, allegory, time travel: what makes science

ﬁction fascinating,” in The Fascination with Unknown Time, eds S. Baumbach,

L. Henningsen, and K. Oschema (London: Palgrave Macmillan), 273–292.

doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-66438-5_13

Wilcox, C. L., Headlam, J. L., Doyle, T. K., and Yanagihara, A. A. (2017).

Assessing the eﬃcacy of ﬁrst-aid measures in Physalia sp. envenomation, using

solution- and blood agarose-based models. Toxins 9, 149. doi: 10.3390/toxins90

50149

Worth, S. (2004). Fictional spaces. Philos. Forum 35, 439–455.

doi: 10.1111/j.0031-806X.2004.00184.x

Young, R. A., and Collin, A. (2004). Introduction: constructivism and

social constructionism in the career ﬁeld. J. Vocat. Behav. 64, 373–388.

doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2003.12.005

Frontiers in Communication 14 frontiersin.org