Hatrack River Writers Workshop: NASA: most unscientific movies

This is topic NASA: most unscientific movies in forum Open Discussions About Writing at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=006613

Posted by WouldBe (Member # 5682) on :

FYI, NASA's take on good and bad SF movies. I think they're judging the movies by how (un)scientific they are.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/nasa-silliest-film-award-goes-to-2012/story-e6frg8pf-1225980444989?from=public_rss

2012 did not fare well.

Posted by Rhaythe (Member # 7857) on :

I heard of a science professor somewhere that gave his students an essay project that required them to point out every scientific blunder that was in the move "The Core". Other rumors include NASA having a drinking game about that movie.

That said, I still really enjoy watching Armageddon.

Posted by philocinemas (Member # 8108) on :

I went to the theatre to see 2012, and at some point, it might have been when Cusack's plane was dodging lava bursts, I broke out in unexpected laughter - whichever scene it was, it so ridiculous that I couldn't contain myself. I chuckled the rest of the way throught the movie.

Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :

Interesting, but at the same time when it comes to that type of movie who cares?

I mean The Reeves Superman had a scene supposedly impossible, when he catches Lois, but I still love her line.

I don't think they are suppose to be scienctifical (I think I made up a word there but that's okay I'm a writer) .

It's good when certain types of SF movies have correct science but some are just for fun.

And I don't think I have heard of the movie Gattaca.

[This message has been edited by LDWriter2 (edited January 05, 2011).]

Posted by Lyrajean (Member # 7664) on :

You should watch GATTACA if you have any interest in SF at all. It is good. It's not flashy. No special effects and all. And the design has a very deliberate retro feel.

Posted by pdblake (Member # 9218) on :

quote:
I mean The Reeves Superman had a scene supposedly impossible

Don't forget the flying thing, and the zapping things with his eyes, and the outrunning a speeding train, turning back time by flying around the plant really, really fast....

I think NASA need to realise that these movies are made to entertain (and make lots of money), not to teach, though some do preach a fair bit.

Posted by MartinV (Member # 5512) on :

quote:
In the film, Ejiofor is the first physicist to realise that neutrino particles carried to Earth on solar flares are baking the planet's core, causing earthquakes, tsunamis and rapid continental drift.

Oh god! I've never laughed so hard in my life! Neutrinos hardly interract with matter at all and they are suppose to heat it up? Maybe I should see that movie, to laugh some more.

I boycott movies made by Roland Emmerich (2012, Independance Day, Day After Tommorow). In his movies, he kills millions and then people call Tarantino's movies bloody. Emmerich's movies are nothing but body-count and mass damage. A scene he never failes to include in his movies: people staring up with big, innocent eyes, right before something smashes down on them.

Also, his characters are always flat and uninteresting with very child-like personalities. Honestly, I think a child could be writing his screenplays.

I loved the movie Gattaca, because the science was there to spice the movie up, but it had a compelling story on its own.

I don't see them mentioning Contact (Jodie Foster) and K-Pax (Kevin Spacey), both movies with genuine science in them.

[This message has been edited by MartinV (edited January 06, 2011).]

Posted by WouldBe (Member # 5682) on :

I'm a sucker for time-travel movies and enjoyed the Back to the Future series, but it had issues with time paradoxes, both within the individual movies and spanning the series.

Here's a nice summary of the issues:
http://www.mjyoung.net/time/back1.html
http://www.mjyoung.net/time/back2.html

An aside: I remember a Six Million Dollar Man episode in which a nuclear plant had huge power distribution conduits leaving the plant. These conduits were radioactive. My question for the screenwriter is: why aren't conduits leaving a steam plant steamy, and conduits from a coal plant, well, messy?

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

After NASA's most recent "mission statement," I hold out little hope of getting man into space through their agency. We're going to have to look elsewhere.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/09/nasa-chief-revealed-muslim-outreach-plan-al-jazeera-congress/

You're barking up the wrong tree looking for scientific accuracy in science fiction movies.

Posted by redux (Member # 9277) on :

GATTACA is a great sci-fi movie. The fact that the title consists of the abbreviations for the four DNA bases is a touch of genius.

Posted by Grayson Morris (Member # 9285) on :

I personally absolutely loved Independence Day for its completely impossible save-the-day: we'll just log on to the alien computer system and upload a virus! Because they'll be compatible systems! We don't need to know what operating system they're running! Of course they've implemented IEEE 802.11-compatible wifi! There won't even be any password-protected, firewalled, encrypted layers to get through! It'll JUST WORK!

[This message has been edited by Grayson Morris (edited January 06, 2011).]

Posted by philocinemas (Member # 8108) on :

I also agree that Gattaca was a great movie. The sci-fi part of it was very subtle and made it feel more like a suspense film (which it was at a certain level).

quote:
Interesting, but at the same time when it comes to that type of movie who cares?

I think I've previously mentioned my formula for Suspense of Disbelief in films, but here it goes again:

Each and every movie is set in its own universe. The early part of the film establishes the laws in that universe. Sometimes the laws are exactly the same as that of our own universe - such as regarding motion, volume, time, etc. Examples of such would be Gattaca, Armageddon, Independence Day, and 2012. Sometimes the laws are different, such as in Star Wars, Superman, and Back to the Future. Whatever the law is, it should be followed throughout the movie. In movies like Armageddon and 2012, these laws of our universe (especially with regards to aerodynamics and physics) are severely broken. Star Wars and Superman operate under a different set of rules (a ship can make sharp maneuvers in space and a yellow sun can allow a Kryptonian to fly) so a viewer can more easily suspend his disbelief. In my opinion, Independence Day made less drastic allowances that just teetered on the edge of disbelief. WouldBe, although I enjoyed the first and third Back to the Future movies, I also had a problem with the time paradoxes. I actually tried to draw a flow chart back then (when I was in high school), and I found that the story couldn't work due to the changes not matching (specifically in the second movie).

Anyway, that's how I determine if Suspension of Disbelief is warranted within a film. I have the same expectations for literature.

Posted by WouldBe (Member # 5682) on :

quote:
I personally absolutely loved Independence Day for its completely impossible save-the-day:

I enjoyed Independence Day, too. But I got a few chuckles, too, like interstellar travelers needing Earth's geosynchronous satellites as a timer to coordinate their attack on Earth. (I was working for a satcom company, then.) A decent wrist watch would've been just fine. I seem to remember that the aliens had wrists. It also seems unlikely that the small craft used to deliver the virus would get through the mother ship's security, since it had crashed and was lost.

The mention of the computer virus (using a Macintosh) reminded me of the save-the-whales Star Trek movie. In that one, Scottie was so unfamiliar with a Mac that he tried to give voice commands to it by speaking into the mouse. Yet, moments later, he was writing a program on it at about 120 words/minute to show graphically how to make transparent aluminum. <snork> And the 20th-century fellow instantly recognized the import of the chemical formulation.

Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :

I don't know if the recognizing the importance of a new formula is that bad, after all the now have transparent aluminum even though they call it something else.