Does inaccuracy in a science fiction movie or book take away from your enjoyment of it?

To read or watch Sci-Fi you have to suspend your belief somewhat.

The extent to which you are willing to ignore outright ridiculous items in the story

will determine how much you enjoy the book or movie.

For myself, they lose me when it becomes obvious that they did not care

about our intelligence.

Generally this is the fault of a film maker, rather than the novelist,

who diverges from the details of the original work for their own egos

or visual impact. (In my opinion more often the former)

If you enjoyed "I Am Legend" you should watch the original "The Omega Man" (1971)

with Charleton Heston. It is a much better work, although today's special effects

in "I Am Legend" do have an impact.

I find that scientific/historical accuracy has a tremendous impact on my enjoyment of a movie or book if the primary events that consist of the plot are implausible.

If a car bomb blast throws a man back 50 yards (conservation of energy), I'm not so concerned; that's just special effects.

If a single missile destroys an enormous comet/asteroid (same principal) that's on a collision course with Earth, well that's kind of central to the storyline.

It's fiction, so it may not have ever happened, (or may not ever happen). But it's a lot more fun for me if it could have happened (or could still happen).

Yeah, I know. I'm kind of a buzzkill.

An example of an extremely well done science-fiction film is "2001". Even if the timeline was way off (we don't have colonies on the moon or manned space travel to Jupiter), the physics and astronomy is solid. But then, it wasn't an action film either.

An example of an extremely poorly done science-fiction film is "The Core". The physics is so terrible that it has been known to be shown to a high school sciences classes to teach about what DOESN'T (or COULDN'T) happen.

Generally, no, it doesn't bother me. It is a movie and not a documentary; sometimes I enjoy stories that can't happen or rewrites of a historical event because they are often refreshing. "Cinderella" is a gross impossibility, but it doesn't stop little kids (or some of us big kids, hehe) from believing in magic and love.

I think if I was scholarly in something or if it was a glaring inaccuracy, it might bother me. There was an old cable show called Silk Stalkings which was on USA. It took place in Palm Beach (on the east coast of Florida) yet the actors always managed to watch the sun setting on the beach. It was dumb but made me laugh. It didn't detract from my enjoyment of the show; it enhanced it because I was inspired to look for more errors.

the very suited Sci-fi character EVER is Frank N Furter (Tim Curry) Rocky Horror photograph tutor the subsequent suited is a tie for Scientist Sam Beckett (Scott Backula) and Admiral Al Calavicci (Dean Stockwell) of Quantum leap. And the full forged of the unique megastar Trek is the 0.33 suited characters!

So called documentaries aren't even accurate anymore. As far as scifi goes, as long as it's not too off the mark, I still enjoy it. My favorites are the old scifi B movies and nothings accurate in them.