In this blog post, we’ll examine the geoscientific, biological, and physical concepts featured in the movie ‘The Core’ and explore how closely the film aligns with scientific facts.
Although the film deals mostly with unrealistic events rarely seen in reality, it conveys a message that audiences find interesting and relatable. When watching ‘The Core’, one can see aspects that deviate significantly from scientific fact, which is why it received considerable criticism from audiences. The New York Times even criticized ‘The Core’ as “absurdly far-fetched.”
“The Core” takes on environmental issues while adopting a structure similar to a science fiction film that incorporates scientific theories. The environmental crisis depicted in the film begins with the Earth’s outer core ceasing to rotate. As the Earth’s outer core stops rotating, all life on Earth is thrown into crisis, and the only solution presented in the film is to detonate a bomb directly within the Earth’s outer core. To do so, they must drill all the way to the center of the Earth, and the film’s central plot revolves around the characters’ efforts to carry out this mission.
First, the film’s depiction of Earth’s structure—including the rotational motion of the outer core, the geomagnetic field, the auroras, and the structure of the Mariana Trench—can be considered relatively well-researched. However, given the nature of the film—which deals with unrealistic scenarios—there are various phenomena that are geoscientifically, biologically, or physically impossible or lack realism. Let’s examine these by field. First, let’s analyze the geoscientific errors.
During the film, we see the rotation of the Earth’s outer core come to a halt. This is not a naturally occurring event but a problem caused by “Project Destiny,” a form of human intervention. However, realistically, with the technology currently available to humans, it is impossible to move the massive fluid located approximately 2,900 km below the Earth’s surface. Therefore, the notion that the magnetic field generated by the outer core’s rotation disappears must also be viewed as an implausible premise, just like the cessation of the outer core’s movement. Additionally, the film depicts a hollow space within the Earth’s mantle. The deeper one goes into the Earth, the higher the pressure becomes, reaching as much as 350 GPa (approximately 3.5 million atmospheres). It is realistically impossible for a massive hollow space to exist under such pressure without the surrounding structure collapsing. In addition, there are several other implausible phenomena, such as solid quartz appearing inside the Earth at temperatures exceeding 5,000 degrees.
The film also contains biologically inaccurate information. There is a scene in which everyone wearing a pacemaker dies. A pacemaker is a medical device that regulates heartbeats using electrical impulses, but the film explains that the cause of death is interference between the Earth’s magnetic field and the pacemakers. One might speculate that the director was likely considering older, spherical models of pacemakers. If the film had taken into account newer models that operate on microwave principles, there would have been no effect at all, as the Earth’s magnetic field does not interact with the pacemaker’s signal generator. Furthermore, even if older models were considered, this scenario would only be possible under the premise that the Earth’s magnetic field had weakened to the point where radiation from the Sun could reach the Earth’s surface directly.
Second, there was a scene where birds died as the Earth’s magnetic field disappeared. While most birds, such as pigeons, are known to use the geomagnetic field to navigate and migrate, the absence of a continuous flow like the geomagnetic field does not necessarily mean that birds—or any other living creatures—will die. Thus, even if a specific correlation between living organisms and the geomagnetic field has been scientifically confirmed, one cannot categorically state that birds would die simply because the magnetic field disappears.
Additionally, there is a scene where the drill must be manually restarted at the location of the inner core. In other words, a person aboard the drill must press a switch mounted on the outside of the drill to activate it. Even assuming—as the movie claims—that the suit they are wearing can withstand temperatures of around 3,000 degrees, a person exposed to an external temperature of approximately 5,000 degrees would die instantly.
Finally, there were quite a few elements that were physically impossible. First, communication was possible despite the distance of thousands of kilometers between the surface and the drill located deep underground. In the movie, communication takes place between the drill deep underground and the surface, but in reality, long-distance communication in such an environment would be difficult to achieve as easily as depicted in the film. In another scene, Dr. Virgil is trapped between two rock formations and unable to move, so he is rescued by using oxygen from a life support system. However, in reality, if the gas pressure inside an oxygen tank is lower than the immense surrounding pressure, the oxygen cannot easily escape; and even if it did, in a high-pressure, high-temperature environment, there is a high likelihood that the oxygen would trigger a violent chemical reaction with the surrounding metals. In another scene, his suit is damaged after being pierced by a diamond, yet he resolves the problem with ease. In reality, however, even a tiny hole in such an environment poses the risk of a powerful gas eruption or a sudden change in internal pressure due to the significant pressure differential; the film shows no consideration of this scenario.
I suspect that the reason people continue to watch the film even after seeing these various scientifically unrealistic examples is because of the message the film itself conveys. However, as the public’s level of higher education rises and intellectual standards improve, they will not continue to praise such unrealistic films indefinitely. Therefore, I believe that filmmakers will continue to face the challenge of deciding which of these two qualities—unrealism for entertainment or realism for relatability—to emphasize.
