Snowpiercer is originally a French graphic novel that was first adapted into a film and later into a television series, a science fiction work if you accept it as science fiction. I said deliberately, because in my view Snowpiercer is not science fiction at all; it is closer to fantasy, almost a modern fairy tale. While it masterfully blends a dystopian setting with class conflict and reflections on human nature, it fails spectacularly when it comes to science. In this article, I aim to explain why it fails and why it falls short in terms of realism.
What Is Snowpiercer About?
Due to human greed, the Earth has overheated, and its climate has changed dramatically. In an attempt to find a solution to global warming, scientists come together to cool the planet down. However, in trying to reduce the temperature, they end up freezing the Earth entirely. Anticipating such a catastrophe, Mr. Wilford (in the TV series) builds a gigantic train that will serve as an ark. That train is Snowpiercer.
Snowpiercer consists of 1,001 cars and is approximately 15 kilometers long—truly a massive train. It is home to what remains of humanity. Or rather, it is where they struggle to survive. The train functions as a fortress, rigidly divided by class. Those at the front live in luxury, while those at the tail are barely treated as human beings. They have survived, but at what cost? Concepts such as equality and justice do not exist on this train.
Of course, every story needs a central conflict. Here, that conflict is the struggle between the lower and upper classes. All it takes is a spark. A rebellion begins, the train is overtaken, and the film ends there. Beyond its commentary on human nature and class conflict, the film does not offer many novel ideas. Numerous works have already explored these themes. What sets this series apart is its setting: a closed system, confined within a train. By approaching a familiar subject from an original angle, Snowpiercer earned the audience’s appreciation. Despite my criticisms, I must admit that I, too, enjoyed it.
Why Is It Not Realistic?
So why is this series not realistic? Anyone with even a basic understanding of physics and chemistry can answer this question easily. A perpetual motion machine and unlimited energy are impossible. No matter how advanced technology becomes or how far science progresses, such a machine cannot be built.
Science fiction, by definition, grounds itself in science and presents scenarios that are at least theoretically possible. Some works of science fiction are remarkably realistic and may well become reality one day—classic examples of this can be found throughout the genre’s canon. Snowpiercer, however, is not one of them. It is not remotely plausible. This work is not science fiction; it is, quite plainly, fantasy.
Perpetual motion machine Source: Wikipedia
The energy of the so-called perpetual engine is infinite and continuous. It operates in blatant defiance of the laws of thermodynamics. The train must never stop, because if it does, energy production will cease. But how exactly does this work? Whenever we move, we expend energy. That energy does not disappear; it merely transforms into other forms. In Snowpiercer, however, energy is not transformed; it is created. The train generates energy simply by moving. I have rarely encountered an idea this absurd.
Later on, it is claimed that the train produces hydrogen energy from the ice on the tracks. But how could such a source possibly supply enough energy for a train that is 15 kilometers long? The explanation collapses under even the slightest scrutiny.
Another major issue is temperature. We are told that the outside temperature is minus 120 degrees Celsius. Cooling the Earth down to such a level is practically impossible. Even theoretically, it is extremely difficult due to the Earth’s core and atmosphere. Minus 70 or even minus 80 degrees might be conceivable, but minus 120 is outright ridiculous. I do not know whether this was the case in the original source material, but in the TV series, they clearly went too far.
Moreover, at minus 120 degrees Celsius, those rails would not remain intact; they would crack and shatter. At some point, the train would derail and overturn. Science is sacrificed for the sake of the narrative.
Well-Handled Themes
Despite all this, Snowpiercer excels at portraying class conflict, human nature, and the burdens of power. Both the film and the series construct these conflicts effectively. The message is clear and conveyed without being heavy-handed.
In the series, we initially perceive the character of Melanie as a ruthless authority figure. In reality, she is merely an ordinary person struggling to keep the last remnants of humanity alive under immense pressure—just like everyone else on the train. Although Wilford designed the system, Melanie understands perfectly well that the train cannot survive without it. One does not need to be a scholar or a philosopher to grasp this. Some truths are self-evident, yet characters like Layton fail to see them.
In a world where civilization has collapsed, and humanity is on the brink of extinction, Layton arrives to play at revolution. Democracy is not the best form of governance. In fact, there is no such thing as a universally “best” system of governance—it changes according to time and circumstances. In such extreme conditions, what is required is an authoritarian yet merit-based rule.
Layton believes that human nature is inherently good and that resources will be sufficient for everyone. This is sheer naïveté—bordering on stupidity. After boarding the train illegally and pushing it beyond its capacity, how can one seriously believe that resources will still be enough for all? A harsh system is not a flaw of the train; it is a necessity. Some must live in better conditions, while others are forced to merely survive.
The work ultimately reminds us of a grim truth: man is the wolf of man. Human beings are, by nature, fundamentally cruel. Thomas Hobbes articulated this long ago.
Even though Snowpiercer fails miserably in terms of realism, it succeeds in making us feel social conflict down to our bones. It reminds us that holding power is never easy, and that those who govern often bear heavy responsibilities and moral burdens of their own.