Ed Bloomer, an astronomer at the Royal Observatory Greenwich, examines how well science fiction films have predicted futures that, by now, are already part of our past.

Take 1982’s Blade Runner, set in a neon-lit 2019 filled with flying cars, advanced humanoid robots and off-world colonies. While it is true we now have space stations orbiting Earth, that is about as far as we have come. Establishing colonies beyond our planet, even on Mars, which is relatively nearby, is still a massive challenge.

Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, released in 1968, comes closer to modern reality in some ways. The film, argues Bloomer, was remarkably realistic about space travel, accurately depicting how objects move in space, the engineering challenges involved and even how people might interact in such environments. However, the film’s artificial intelligence, HAL 9000, is said to have been “born” in 1992. However, at that time, AI technology was far from that level of sophistication. Even today, we haven’t reached the technological heights imagined in the film.

In Space: 1999, a mysterious source of electromagnetic radiation triggers an explosion in a massive nuclear waste dump that is powerful enough to knock the moon out of its orbit around Earth. In reality, says Bloomer, such an explosion would be likely to destroy the moon entirely, not send it hurtling through space.

Perhaps, then, it is a good thing these films didn’t get everything right. While some imagined technologies would be welcome, others, like the world of Blade Runner, paint a far darker picture of the present than most of us would hope for.

From Raiders of the Lost Ark to Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, films about archaeologists have long captured the public imagination, offering thrilling quests to uncover the hidden histories of humanity’s ancient past. But how accurately do these cinematic adventures reflect the real work of scientists in the field?

Palaeoanthropologist Ella Al-Shamahi has mixed feelings about cinema’s most iconic portrayals. There are some good depictions, she says, and a fair few not-so-good.

Take Lara Croft, protagonist of the Tomb Raider series, for instance. While well intentioned, she’s in it for the shiny things more than items of scientific value, says Al-Shamahi. Archaeological sites rarely contain treasure; it’s the tiny, carefully collected details that tell the story of past lives. Modern archaeology is about analysis and context, not explosions and looting. With guns blazing and dynamite flying, Lara Croft might be entertaining, but she would destroy the very history she’s supposedly trying to uncover.

Then there’s Indiana Jones, the most iconic fictional archaeologist of all. He’s got the whip, the hat and the gun, but he’s missing the most essential tools of the trade: a trowel, some notebooks and a methodical approach. Surprisingly, argues Al Shamahi, the Nazis in the films are shown doing more textbook archaeology, carefully digging through each soil layer. Still, when it comes to the spirit of archaeology, Indy takes the prize for his curiosity, adventure and passion for the past.