Most movies are scientifically accurate. Your average romcom that doesn’t have simulated phone screens is scientifically accurate. Socially accurate? Not so much. Most movies are at least a little bit fantasy. If the science isn’t fantasy — like Star Trek — then something else almost surely is.

But you mean among movies with some science or tech. Okay, steve jobs., the biopic about the Apple cofounder. Pretty sure the science was accurate. Bonus, Steve talks about a NASA mission. Pretty sure that was accurate, too. Historically accurate? The NASA part, yeah. The Jobs/Apple stuff, not so much. People who loved those events say the movie is way off — Jobs was way worse. But the science was 100% there. Oh, except where Jobs tells Lisa how many songs he’s going to put in her pocket. He’s a showman, a businessman, not an engineer. He knows they’re working on the iPod but he has no idea what the capacity will be yet. Otherwise the science was solid.

But if you mean science fiction… well, by definition the science is fictional. That’s what we’re there for. We could look at something like Armageddon. Both that and Deep Impact are the result of a seminar that discussed the possibilities of what could be done if a meteor were to threaten to hit Earth. I personally prefer 君の名は。’s solution better: namely, that there isn’t one. The meteor hits. Destruction ensues. But 君の名は。 (your name., internationally) is not science fiction. It’s romantic fantasy (but not romantasy!). Anyway, Armageddon. The science isn’t proven, but it’s probably good enough. I can’t speak to the viability of landing a lunar lander on a meteor — I feel if it’s big enough, the solution wouldn’t work, and if it’s small enough, you couldn’t land on it — and drilling a nuke down to its core and playing it while Aerosmith play in Mission Control because you have the budget for that… I mean it sure sounds good. (Deep Impact fired the nuke from the surface, but part of the meteor still hit, I think that one’s a little more believable.)