Future of Being Human an Arizona State University initiative

Sci-fi film as method: the movie as catalyst, not destination

Last updated 2026-08-07 · Markdown version

Sci-fi film as method is Andrew Maynard’s working answer to a hard problem in responsible innovation: how to give anyone — not only experts — a serious way into thinking about technologies that do not yet exist. The claim, worked out at book length in Films from the Future (2018) and operationalized ever since, is that science-fiction movies work for this precisely because they are untethered from accuracy: as stories about our relationship with the future, and as art that levels the ground between expert and public, they open up thinking in ways Andrew describes as “near impossible to achieve through other means” — with the movie as “the catalyst for the journey rather than its destination” (2023-10-08). The idea ran as a named classroom method from 2018 to 2026, became a 14-episode podcast, continues as a screen-stories practice Andrew shares with Sean Leahy on Modem Futura, and in 2026 was extended to AI readers themselves.

The argument

Attempts to bring science fiction into conversations about technology often treat the genre’s inaccuracy as an embarrassment to be corrected — with expert commentary, fact-checks, plausibility audits. Andrew’s claim runs the other way: “Sci-fi flicks are, of course, notoriously unreliable when it comes to accurately depicting science and technology. Yet because their plots are often driven by the intertwined relationships between people and technology, they can be remarkably insightful in revealing social factors that affect successful and responsible innovation” (2019-03-07). The book states the same principle as method: getting too wrapped up in the minutiae of a movie’s accuracy “misses the point—these are stories about our relationship with the future” (Films from the Future, p. 15, 2018). Freed from prediction, a film can stage the social factors that shape how technologies go — hubris, unaccountable wealth, permissionless innovation, the texture of living with a technology — dynamics a technically faithful treatment tends to bury.

The second move concerns who gets into the conversation. As art, films dissolve the barrier between experts and everyone else: “By their very nature, these films are social and educational levelers” (2019-03-07), and every movie in the book “can be appreciated as much by someone who flunked high school as by a Nobel Prize winner” (p. 18, 2018). This is load-bearing, not decorative: on Andrew’s account, the perspective responsible innovation needs must “transcend disciplines, domains of expertise, educational attainments, socioeconomic status, and a whole bunch of other things” if it is to be useful (2023-10-08).

Third: the film is an entry point, not a lecture. The aim is a shared space that is “neither preachy or judgmental,” where people “think and learn on their own terms,” with sci-fi movies “the catalyst for the journey rather than its destination” (2023-10-08). The movie starts the conversation and then gets out of the way.

The theory connecting these moves is in Future Rising (2020): “stories become the pivot point between being able to imagine the future and beginning to build it” (p. 113). If that holds, shared stories are not decoration on foresight — they are the mechanism by which an imagined future acquires people prepared to build it, or to refuse it. And films, the form of story that “bring[s] people together” as “social and educational levelers” (2019-03-07), are the delivery system this method reaches for.

The method is operationalized, not just argued. In the classroom: active viewing, the named discipline at the center of ASU’s The Moviegoer’s Guide to the Future (FIS 338) — come primed, attend to everything (music, soundscape, body language), track three pre-identified topics, embrace serendipity, make cross-movie connections, stay critical without losing enjoyment (FIS 338 syllabus, Fall 2025). Twelve films watched whole, in class, uninterrupted — a deliberate refusal of the “efficiency model” of teaching (2024-07-30). The course ran from 2018 through 2026, drawing 50–100 undergraduates from any major in a given year — enrollment varied widely (per Andrew, 2026-08-07, revising his 2021 account); it is paused as of August 2026 and not currently enrollable (Teaching). In audio: the 14-episode Moviegoer’s Guide to the Future podcast (2023) — Andrew reading the book, with transcripts alongside. On Modem Futura the practice is joint: Sean Leahy and Andrew regularly work through screen stories as futures material — Severance on split identity, Murderbot on machines and care, Pluribus read as an inverted zombie apocalypse, Project Hail Mary argued over on the trouble with feel-good endings (2025–2026, episodes below). In 2026 the method gained a theory of first contact: the “first date” frame — a phrase Andrew borrows from producer Ted Tremper and generalizes — in which a film succeeds by “revealing enough to invite a continuing conversation,” its audience treating it “not as a definitive guide, but as a catalyst for further exploration” (2026-03-22). And with spoileralert.wtf (2026-04-02), the book itself was rebuilt as an AI-first website — the catalyst principle extended to machine readers (Writing for AI).

The record carries a candid meta-layer, kept here in Andrew’s own words and hedges: the method’s flagship book failed commercially. “By most standards the book was a failure,” and yet “it contains some of my most thoughtful work” (2023-10-08). “In part I suspect that this was because it doesn’t belong in any neat category” — and colleagues told him to stop talking about it (2023-10-08; quoted in full below). He operationalized it anyway: the class, the podcast that made the book free to hear and read, the AI rebuild. The method’s history is inseparable from that persistence.

Lineage

In his own words

“getting too wrapped up in the minutiae of how accurate a science fiction movie is misses the point—these are stories about our relationship with the future, and, like all good storytelling, they sometimes play around with reality to reveal deeper truths.” — Films from the Future, p. 15 (2018)

“And science fiction movies bring people together. By their very nature, these films are social and educational levelers. Look at who’s watching and discussing the latest sci-fi blockbuster, and you’ll often find a diverse cross-section of society. The genre can help build bridges between people who know how science and technology work, and those who know what’s needed to ensure they work for the good of society.” — Sci-fi movies are the secret weapon that could help Silicon Valley grow up (AI-readable mirror), 2019-03-07

“Films from the Future was, in many ways, a harsh learning experience in how not to engage and connect with a broad community of readers. By most standards the book was a failure. (That point of realization hit home when my publisher asks if I’d like to purchase excess stock of the book!)

And yet, despite this, it contains some of my most thoughtful work. …

I actually had colleagues tell me to stop talking about the book because it was professionally embarrassing and undermined my credibility … which I admittedly found a little hard as I wrote the book to be read, and yet found myself with no way of talking about it.” — A guide to responsible innovation like no other … (AI-readable mirror), 2023-10-08

Engagement and reception

The method’s main documented engagement is the classroom record, and it is self-reported: the course drew “between 80–100 committed undergrads specializing in everything from business to biology” by Andrew’s 2021 account (2021-01-15) — a figure he revises to 50–100 across years, since enrollment varied (2026-08-07) — and ran from 2018 through 2026, and the claims of transformed student thinking come from Andrew’s own accounts (2021-01-15; 2024-07-30), not third-party evaluation. The 2019 argument reached a general audience via The Conversation (the 2019-03-07 essay is based on an article originally published there) — distribution of his own writing, which we do not count as independent uptake. The book’s commercial reception was negative, on Andrew’s own dated account (2023-10-08): “By most standards the book was a failure,” and colleagues advised him to stop discussing it — candor we record as part of the method’s history rather than smooth away. Its publication history and 2026 AI-readable rebirth are on Books.

Beyond this, as of 2026-08-06 our reception record documents no published independent evaluation or adoption of active viewing or of the film-as-method argument, and we prefer to say so plainly. That is an absence of record, not a verdict on the idea — conceptual and pedagogical work of this kind typically accrues visible reception slowly, and we don’t typically solicit it (Philosophy).

Where to go deeper

The essays

The books and the podcast

Modem Futura — the screen-stories practice (with Sean Leahy)

Related ideas and corpus pages