Comments on: The Search For the Great Science Fiction Movie (or, I Am Doooomed)

By: Attention All Aspiring Science Filmmakers | The Loom | Discover Magazine

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 04:14:33 +0000

[...] they’re at it again. Alexis asked me to be on the jury, and while I warned him that I think bad science makes for good science fiction, I signed on. They’re now eager for submissions–visit their web site for more details. [...]

By: penny

penny — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:45:00 +0000

It was John Pierce that I knew, not the crew of the Apollo 13. He deserved more credit.

By: penny

penny — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:43:58 +0000

My beef with “Apollo 13″ is that the mathematical physicist John Pierce–who created the low fuel consumption orbit that aaved the lives of the crew–whom I knew—, is NEVER mentioned. Instead, they just draw a
figure eight on a blackboard.

Engineers, who jury-rigged the gadgets get credit, but not the mathematician.

By: penny

penny — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:29:49 +0000

//
I’m a fan of old Japanese SF. I just saw a movie that was still missing in my culture: “Battle in Outer Space” (Ichiro Honda, 1965). Great acting, drama, and state of the art (for the time) special effects.

Released as ” The Mysterions” in America. The theme is that advanced aliens want to save us from our destruction of the Earth’s environment” Just like K. Reeves Klatu.

It was just about as silly as the new version of ” The Day The Earth Stood Still”. Plus ca change, plus le meme chose.

By: penny

penny — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:20:39 +0000

Oops
” Use the usual maximizing geodesic –on the usual 11 dimensional Lorentz submanifold–to Starbase 11″–Sulu

Sometimes, I type too fast.

By: penny

penny — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:17:54 +0000

Sulu is training a new navigator.
” Mr Sulu, set course 106 mark 9 for Starbase 11″–Captain Jerk
” What is he talking about?”–trainee
” He thinks he is on a sailing ship–use the usual 11 dimensional maximizing geodesic to Starbase 11.”–Sulu,
in sutto voice.

Away team:
“What does your tricorder say this is?”–Captain Jerk
” What’s a Tricorder?”–ensign
” Use your portable proton stimulated nuclear decay spectromenter to analyse it.”–Mr Spock

By: penny

penny — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:10:16 +0000

Other examples of scientifically literate science fiction movies:
“On the Beach”
” Brave New World”- BBC version, based on Huxley’s story
“Gattica”
“Destination Moon”

On the edge ( probably ok)
“Charly” ( if you replace the surgery with an experimental drug)
The 1950’s George Pal “War of the Worlds”
( This beam dissolves mesons–the glue that holds matter together….)
“Things to Come”
( It contains an electromagnetic mass driver as a spaceship launcher–not bad for the 1930’s–would need the
crew to be immersed in a liquid–missed by the author–who was H.G. Wells!)

I also enjoyed “Quest for Love” which contains the line:
” I can’t duplicate your quantum teleporter, but perhaps we can build an Einstein-Rosen Bridge”
( If you accept a parallel worlds interpetation of QM).

TV Show: Genesis Two
( because we now know that hydrogen sulfide can be used as a suspended animation drug–vastly slowing
metabolism–in this show, something similar is a NASA experiment).

Even further on the edge, but worth mentioning–”Crack in the World”
” The Monolith Monsters”

So, it can be done!!

By: penny

penny — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 02:49:09 +0000

Science fiction can be all about science–this is more common in classic stories such as “Mission of Gravity” by Hal Clement, and “Marooned on Vesta” by Issac Asimov. Personally, everything else, IMHO is NOT science fiction.
Most movies fall short because movies are made for a mass audience assumed to be scientificially illiterate and not very bright.

One Tv show that was better was “Men into Space” from the early 1960’s, which was mostly accurate with science advisor Willy Ley. The movie “2001″ was already mentioned, and I would add the movie
“2010″.

“Star Trek” is garbage. The science in this garbage is also garbage. When “Star Trek” came out, it was widely panned by the professional science fiction writers as a return to the pulp fiction tropes of the 1930’s. Science Fiction had moved on, decades earlier. If you want to see how bad “Star Trek” is–at least “STTNG” read
Will Weaton’s reviews online. He played Wesley Crusher in the show.

I had hopes that Science Fiction in movies would follow the lead of “2001″ , but that was squashed by the widely popular “Star Wars”–which was not only full of trash science, but absolute drivel as literature. It was also a return to 1930′;s movie tropes–such as “Flash Gordon”. I realize that this comment might upset people who grew up on ” Star Wars” as their pablum–but to someone who had read extensively in science fiction before I saw it, I was appalled by its sheer stupidity.

“Forbidden Planet” was also decent, and mostly accurate scientifically–it mentioned such things as
” logical alphabet”, and was full of in-jokes about quantum gravity, general relativity etc. It was written assuming an intelligent and reasonably scientifically literate audience. I also enjoyed the Claude Raines vehicle
“Battle of the Worlds” –low budget, but about a mathematician–” You may have your instruments, but I have the
Calculus”. It forshadowed optical computing etc.

Science fiction was Not invented by Jules Verne. Try ” The Brick Moon” by Edward E. Hale ( about a manned space station), for example. The Science Fiction Novel was invented by Mary Shelley. Personally, I prefer
” The Brick Moon”.

By: Plausibility « Grand Moff Texan’s MOMENT OF TRIUMPH

Plausibility « Grand Moff Texan’s MOMENT OF TRIUMPH — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:45:36 +0000

[...] Odessey, firefly, science fiction writing, serenity | I think what everyone is reaching for here is the problem of plausibility, which is a consideration in storytelling of any kind. I know [...]

By: Gnomon

Gnomon — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:33:11 +0000

regarding noise in space: The eerie silence of an explosion, especially if the simulation has accurate micro-G symmetry, can be more terrifying than a fake boom.
I have never really understood why people suffer from falls, etc. on the SS Enterprise; do they really need a full 1-G?
Unfortunately, most attempts to do a simulation of micro-G are crude and vaguely comical; the exception being 2001, where it was accurate but overdone. (Magnetic boots, indeed!)
Most SF movies are really “space opera,” an analog to “horse opera,” in which the human responses to an unusual environment are more important than the environment; they’re about people, not space.
There is room in movies for “no science,” for “good science,” maybe even for “impossible science,” but not for “wrong science.” For that, there is no excuse. It doesn’t further the plot, and only labels the makers as being incompetent.
While we’re at it, let’s push for some good SF to be made into cinema. I suggest starting with “Ringworld.” There are thousands of similar novels which are not scientifically inaccurate, and could make good movies. (Phillip K. Dick’s novels, for example, have been sometimes well done in film.) I’m waiting for “The Man In The High Castle.” Probably not enough car chases or sex, and too much demand on the attention span, to be interesting to producers.

By: Andrew Miranker

Andrew Miranker — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:17:30 +0000

Jim and Spock beam down to a new planet. Jim encounters a gorgeous alien species and winds up with a deadly and wholly novel STD. Within 24 hours, ship time, Dr McCoy has identified the pathogen and developed a cure. Very far away from reality? Perhaps, but oh so inspiring. McCoy’s challenge, in part, is one of having to make/design from scratch a small protein/peptide that can bind to a novel biological target.
1960: impossible.
1970: impossible.
1985: possible: Science (1985) 228:1315-1317
2008: Commercially available, inexpensive tool.

Fantasy inspires. AND by the way, the Enterprise really does make a whoosh sound as it flies through space. We just don’t understand how.

By: Matt S

Matt S — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:06:47 +0000

As a scientist and a movie buff, I agree whole-heartedly. But I would also say – so what (in the most reverent possible tone)? I don’t think sci-fi or any fiction needs to showcase 100% accurate science to be good, and I doubt many scientists would say that.

The thing that drives my crank is when the movies/tv etc. get some well established bit of science completely wrong. Like if a movie butchers evolutionary theory, or portrays a link between autism and vaccines when there has clearly been shown to be none. Otherwise, it’s fiction so it can go where it wants. Sci-fi gets a particularly extravagant amount of leeway because those movies are entirely speculative, and who are we to say that warp drives will never exist. Even if something betrays physics as we understand it, we may find a way around it someday. So I say imagine away hollywood, and give me a call if you want a fact-checker.