Re: Re: Science and Spider-Man 2
Indeed, this rather says it all. I'm still upset about the entire skyhook concept. My college profs wouldn't accept skyhooks as a means to support a structure....
I'm more disappointed with the science in Day After Tomorrow (or whatever the name is), which starts out with a somewhat sound scientific concept and then *******izes the hell out of it. I saw a couple minutes of an interview between the directors and Buzz Aldrin, who was downright insulted by the *******izations of science made in the movie.
It all boils down to "willing suspension of disbelief" when going to watch a Science Fiction/Fantasy movie. How many people were in an uproar because Harry Potter's broom levitates? Or that Yoda could lift an entire spacecraft out of a quagmire with only his mind? Get over it and find something worthwhile whining about.
Mark
Indeed, this rather says it all. I'm still upset about the entire skyhook concept. My college profs wouldn't accept skyhooks as a means to support a structure....
I'm more disappointed with the science in Day After Tomorrow (or whatever the name is), which starts out with a somewhat sound scientific concept and then *******izes the hell out of it. I saw a couple minutes of an interview between the directors and Buzz Aldrin, who was downright insulted by the *******izations of science made in the movie.
It all boils down to "willing suspension of disbelief" when going to watch a Science Fiction/Fantasy movie. How many people were in an uproar because Harry Potter's broom levitates? Or that Yoda could lift an entire spacecraft out of a quagmire with only his mind? Get over it and find something worthwhile whining about.
Mark
Why are you coughing? Let's see, you're in Vansterdam...
But really, the whole issue of science and movies is one that I'm very ambivalent about. On the one hand, it's just a freakin' movie. These are entertainment, not college lectures. OTOH, waaaay too many people get their beliefs about the world from things they pick up at movies. Every time, and I mean EVERY time, I would talk with someone about human cloning to try to understand the objections from opponents, it got down to "cloning armies of Hitlers." That's great, form opinions about cutting edge technologies from viewing "Boys From Brazil" instead of reading "Molecular Biology of the Gene."
Same with the Spiderman flicks. I only saw the first half-hour of the first one and gave it up as stupid beyond words. Have no desire to see the sequel. Not because of the science or the cheesy special effects, but because it's a lousy movie.
Now, "It Happens Every Spring", THERE is a movie with ridiculous science that is just an absolute joy to watch. Ray Milland at his best.
But really, the whole issue of science and movies is one that I'm very ambivalent about. On the one hand, it's just a freakin' movie. These are entertainment, not college lectures. OTOH, waaaay too many people get their beliefs about the world from things they pick up at movies. Every time, and I mean EVERY time, I would talk with someone about human cloning to try to understand the objections from opponents, it got down to "cloning armies of Hitlers." That's great, form opinions about cutting edge technologies from viewing "Boys From Brazil" instead of reading "Molecular Biology of the Gene."
Same with the Spiderman flicks. I only saw the first half-hour of the first one and gave it up as stupid beyond words. Have no desire to see the sequel. Not because of the science or the cheesy special effects, but because it's a lousy movie.
Now, "It Happens Every Spring", THERE is a movie with ridiculous science that is just an absolute joy to watch. Ray Milland at his best.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science and Spider-Man 2
Thanks..it just kinda fell into place...lucky shot, that was..
What I am referring to has a more local flavor..some activists here play fast and loose with radiation facts, and the public does not have the knowledge or background to even understand the correct explanations.
Cool, I was unaware of that.. it'd be interesting to see if you get a response..
I agree.. and it doesn't say much for our science educational system.
Actually, I didn't put words in your mouth..I copied your words verbatim..had you said frozen solid tritium, then I would have agreed entirely...I noticed you're from Canada, perhaps our altercation was simply a language thing...
Your recent post was most pleasant..thank you for toning it down..
I apologize for coming on so strong also...
Cheers, John
Prune said:
Thanks..it just kinda fell into place...lucky shot, that was..
What I am referring to has a more local flavor..some activists here play fast and loose with radiation facts, and the public does not have the knowledge or background to even understand the correct explanations.
Cool, I was unaware of that.. it'd be interesting to see if you get a response..
I agree.. and it doesn't say much for our science educational system.
Actually, I didn't put words in your mouth..I copied your words verbatim..had you said frozen solid tritium, then I would have agreed entirely...I noticed you're from Canada, perhaps our altercation was simply a language thing...
Your recent post was most pleasant..thank you for toning it down..
I apologize for coming on so strong also...
Cheers, John
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science and Spider-Man 2
I thought my erstwhile signature elucidated I take a contrariant stance to that of the Green "just-like-watermelons-green-on-the-outside-red-on-the-inside" activists.SY[/i] Why are you coughing? Let's see said:
There's more to this than you suppose, for I was born Bulgarian and English is a second language for me.
The glass would burst. Unless it was a solid sphere of some very strong transparent material. But how would you get it inside if that was the case? There would be no point in doing such a thing. In any case, it is possible to discern whether the sphere was hollow or not by observing if there was any significant amount of refraction of the background by the sphere.
http://www.moviemistakes.com/film3843
Note that there's a second page too. Pathetic! And to those who keep saying "it's just a movie", I quote here a reply from a Slashdot post that should shut you up:
Note that there's a second page too. Pathetic! And to those who keep saying "it's just a movie", I quote here a reply from a Slashdot post that should shut you up:
Emphasis mine.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science and Spider-Man 2
Honestly, I couldn't figure out what your stance was from your signature..
Just saw the movie..yah, the eigenvalue question was funny..you'da thought they could have gotten some prof to proof at least that..
Solid room temp tritium..major pressure...but, given that the sphere was floating in air, obviously there were force fields involved. So, why not also with the sphere..
I like the fact that for the most part, the writers no longer have to dwell on explaining to the audience things like force fields, fusion, levitation, acupuncture, silicon chip implants. I remember the old sci fi days, when most of the effort went into explaining the concepts used in the movie...now, they can just assume the audience understands those things, so the writers can concentrate on developing the human character side of the plot..
My favorite line?...On the L....If you want him, you gotta go through me first..the actor's expression was perfect, in line with the story....and cheers to the writers for having doc ock just push the riders aside rather than kill them.
Cheers, John
Prune said:
Honestly, I couldn't figure out what your stance was from your signature..
Just saw the movie..yah, the eigenvalue question was funny..you'da thought they could have gotten some prof to proof at least that..
Solid room temp tritium..major pressure...but, given that the sphere was floating in air, obviously there were force fields involved. So, why not also with the sphere..
I like the fact that for the most part, the writers no longer have to dwell on explaining to the audience things like force fields, fusion, levitation, acupuncture, silicon chip implants. I remember the old sci fi days, when most of the effort went into explaining the concepts used in the movie...now, they can just assume the audience understands those things, so the writers can concentrate on developing the human character side of the plot..
My favorite line?...On the L....If you want him, you gotta go through me first..the actor's expression was perfect, in line with the story....and cheers to the writers for having doc ock just push the riders aside rather than kill them.
Cheers, John
So I guess you never saw Fast & The Furious huh???
Technical inacuraccies abound. "Blew the weld on the intake manifold".......
On the same topic, I really like Contact, I think it's the most real movie on the subject it pertaines to. I think its the most "accurate" of what would happen in that situation.
Technical inacuraccies abound. "Blew the weld on the intake manifold".......
On the same topic, I really like Contact, I think it's the most real movie on the subject it pertaines to. I think its the most "accurate" of what would happen in that situation.
http://www.moviemistakes.com/film300Hybrid fourdoor said:
Quoting just a few of the mistakes:
"In the zoom-out at the very beginning, we hear broadcasts going back in time as we zoom out through the solar system. However, we hear broadcasts going back through time roughly 40 years. Shouldn't we be 40 lightyears out from Earth to hear them, rather than just in the Oort Cloud beyond Pluto? Radio waves travel at the speed of light like any electromagnetic wave."
Or how about:
"The slew rate of the radio telescopes at the VLA has been greatly increased for the movie. They are actually quite slow and make little to no noise."
Or:
"In the scene when the signal is first received, and they realize it is transmitting prime numbers, if you listen closely, the signal hits 11, starts over, but continues on up into the 30s, completely skipping all the prime numbers after 11."
Or:
"Hadden tells Ellie that the zero gravity and low oxygen environment aboard Mir is slowing the progress of his cancer. Quite apart from this being medically absurd, he isn't breathing Mir's atmosphere - he has a nasal air line installed."
There's a bunch more. Accurate my @$$. There's not a single sci-fi movie or show that's even close to the quality of a decent hard sci-fi book (including movies based on said books). It's just entertainment for the lowest common denominator.
I'm gonna go back over to Loudspeakers now.
enjoy.
And remember....
"The events depicted in this movie are fictitious. Any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental."
"This story is based on actual events. In certain cases incidents, characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes. Certain characters may be composites, or entirely fictitious."
enjoy.
And remember....
"The events depicted in this movie are fictitious. Any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental."
"This story is based on actual events. In certain cases incidents, characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes. Certain characters may be composites, or entirely fictitious."
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.