Re: Sci-Fi Films
- From: "stew dean" <stewdean@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 20 Aug 2005 23:20:43 -0700
MagentaStudios wrote:
> A light and fluffy thread ...
>
> I'm guessing that scientists both enjoy and are annoyed by sci-fi-
> they like science based entertainment, but dislike the blatant
> falsehoods or misconceptions sometimes exhibited in them.
>
> Even I, as a scientifically minded amateur, could not quite suspend
> disbelief for M. Night Shamalan's Signs: Aliens that can be killed by
> water invading this planet that is 60% covered in water, has an
> atmosphere made of water vapor, it constantly rains, and the dominant
> life forms are made out of water? What?!? If they just want to kill us,
> why have landing parties?!?
Signs was an awful film. The worst bit where the crop circles. In the
UK they are often found in 'corn' feilds. Only thing corn in the uk is
a cereal crop and in the US it's what we call 'maize' or sweet corn. No
crop circles have ever been seen in a maize feild that I'm aware as
it's be next to impossible to trample the crop by foot using the
traditional stomping board.
Often I can suspend disbelief enough not to worry. I forget that a
transporter in star trek is the ultimate weapon and once someones
sheilds are down you only need to transport out a slice of ship to
destroy the enemy, or just transport in a bomb or transport out part of
your enemies body! I even forgave Batman Begins for a similair water
based problem (I won't spoil it for those who havnt seen it - it's a
great film unlike the fantastic four). But the one film which realy
makes no sense to me was the original matrix - 'Hang on, humans are
batteries, but you'd have to put more energy in than you got out, basic
2lot, and how do you get the energy out anyway?'. The second matrix
film contains some of the worst attempts at being philosophical I know
of - other films are philosophical - this one attempted to talk about
it but the plot was as philosophical as a big mac.
> So here is the question:
>
> What sci-fi films (mainstream Hollywood or hollywoodesque faire) or TV
> shows do you think had a good, solid base in science. 2001? Contact?
> Mars needs Women?
I thought contact, was good, based on work by Carl Sagan and I like the
discussion of science vs belief, I thought that was well handled. Blade
runner (aside from Scotts' love of unusable interfaces to state of the
art technology - as also seen in Alien) was a good film, but it was
based in a Phillip K Dick book that is often very untechnology based.
I'd like to see the first film based on a Iain Banks book - his idea of
a socierty wehre super intelligent machines happily coexisted with not
so smart humans is a great one.
> Please, no Trekies... :)
Star Trek annoys me because of it's awful science - that and it's
authoritian attitude towards how humans should behave, essentialy
they're smiling fascists.
Oh yeah and ships making noise in space - nah!
Stew Dean
.
- References:
- Sci-Fi Films
- From: MagentaStudios
- Sci-Fi Films
- Prev by Date: Re: Dembski's April 1 post in August
- Next by Date: Re: Sci-Fi Films
- Previous by thread: Re: Sci-Fi Films
- Next by thread: Re: Sci-Fi Films
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
