FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Sci-Fi films that ignored the science but completely
Sci-Fi films that ignored the science but completely
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
As a scientist (I love saying that, makes my degree worth it), I would say;
Day after Tomorrow, they're literally outrunning climate change on foot.
In Pacific Rim they talk about Dinosaurs having two brains. Which is again not true.
Any movie that depicts invisibility.The retina needs to absorb light, if it was invisible you would be blind.
The martian on the other hand is quite good on the science front. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As a scientist (I love saying that, makes my degree worth it), I would say;
Day after Tomorrow, they're literally outrunning climate change on foot.
In Pacific Rim they talk about Dinosaurs having two brains. Which is again not true.
Any movie that depicts invisibility.The retina needs to absorb light, if it was invisible you would be blind.
The martian on the other hand is quite good on the science front. "
Ding ding ding we have a winner. Day after tomorrow is number 2 on the list. Even Elsa couldn't cause an ice age in a matter of days. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Space movies are the worse, in gravity they are spinning on a line, cutting a rope wouldn't do shit because friction and gravity are non existing.
Also any space movie with sound because space is a vacuum so no sounds in space. Or firey explosions due to lack of oxygen lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *apidaryMan
over a year ago
Chipping Norton |
"E.T. There is simply no scientifically valid way to revive a dead pot plant.
I swear I've brought back some but maybe I just didn't check for a heartbeat."
If you can rejuvenate supermarket pots of herbs, you've got powers beyond the limits of science. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aitonelMan
over a year ago
Travelling |
One thing you need to separate is the science that would make a movie impossible to work/be cinematic vs science that is fabricated/ignored for little to no reason at all. Oh and how much of Sci fi vs Sci fantasy is it.
I can't remember the exact quote but I think it was during the filming of or editing of Lord of The Rings somebody asked about lighting "should the light be like that, where is the light coming from for this scene?" and the dude replied "the same place the music is" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"One thing you need to separate is the science that would make a movie impossible to work/be cinematic vs science that is fabricated/ignored for little to no reason at all. Oh and how much of Sci fi vs Sci fantasy is it.
I can't remember the exact quote but I think it was during the filming of or editing of Lord of The Rings somebody asked about lighting "should the light be like that, where is the light coming from for this scene?" and the dude replied "the same place the music is" "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ooleyMan
over a year ago
preston |
I always remember that story from Prof. Brian Cox. Apparently Danny Boyle brought him in as scientific advisor on "Sunshine" to check the script for any inaccurate science. "Sure," says Cox, "what's the movie about?"
"It's about a group of astronauts on a dangerous mission to reignite the dying Sun using a nuclear bomb."
Cox. "...." |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *apidaryMan
over a year ago
Chipping Norton |
This is why science fiction is inferior to fantasy. I will always believe in the possibility of going through the back of the wardrobe into a land of eternal winter, or sailing across the sea to where the wild things are, or of the Dread Pirate Roberts and Princess Buttercup. But those daleks would never have conquered any worlds with kerbs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is why science fiction is inferior to fantasy. I will always believe in the possibility of going through the back of the wardrobe into a land of eternal winter, or sailing across the sea to where the wild things are, or of the Dread Pirate Roberts and Princess Buttercup. But those daleks would never have conquered any worlds with kerbs."
In fantasy you can just say 'A wizard did it'
If its in a universe that's not set where we are then anything could be scientific. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Terminator.
Why would the terminator have an Austrian accent rather than speaking actual Austrian?
"Get to the chopper" oh wait wrong film."
Don't they try to retcon that in a deleted scene in Terminator 3? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As a scientist (I love saying that, makes my degree worth it), I would say;
Day after Tomorrow, they're literally outrunning climate change on foot.
In Pacific Rim they talk about Dinosaurs having two brains. Which is again not true.
Any movie that depicts invisibility.The retina needs to absorb light, if it was invisible you would be blind.
The martian on the other hand is quite good on the science front. "
I don't think they are dinosaurs are they? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As a scientist (I love saying that, makes my degree worth it), I would say;
Day after Tomorrow, they're literally outrunning climate change on foot.
In Pacific Rim they talk about Dinosaurs having two brains. Which is again not true.
Any movie that depicts invisibility.The retina needs to absorb light, if it was invisible you would be blind.
The martian on the other hand is quite good on the science front. I don't think they are dinosaurs are they? "
It's some bullshit that they say the Robots need two pilots because they are so big. Then they say something like they got the ideas from Dinosaurs that also have two brains.
Then they try and kill the monster by shooting it in both its brains.
In the 1900s scientists believed that Dinosaurs had two brains, but its since been proven two brains play no advantage in any animal. Including the small one in everymans pants
But they didn't |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
