Sci-Fi Movies and 'Bad Science'
Roland Piquepaille writes "Science fiction movies can be fun, and sometimes boring, when Hollywood producers want to show us a 2 1/2 hour film when 90 minutes would be enough. But what about the 'science' behind them? BBC News says it's pretty bad in 'When sci-fi forgets the science.' For example, the metamorphosis of Bruce Banner into The Hulk, based on work of marine biologist Greg Szulgit from Hiram College, Ohio, about sea cucumbers, is qualified by himself as "really awful"." The Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics website, which we've previously mentioned, is referenced in this article, and is now freshly updated to deal with movies like The Hulk.
I was gonna make a joke to illustrate a point that most people would see something entertaining that may not be real rather than some science documentary on say PBS. Then I realized that this whole site is filled with nerds that like that sort of thing.
I might as well shut up because the opinions of the community here are always expressed in "reality" (i.e. Linux domination over Windows, this issue of real vs. entertaining, and the ever popular CowboyNeal presidential candidacy).
I'll probably go see one of these "fake" sci-fi movies this weekend. At least I don't have a date with my Linux box.
Producer: NEXT!!
Ralph Wiggum: Chicken necks
Had you simply included the first paragraph of your response, I would have considered your points, and maybe even agreed that you have a case against my interpretation. You know, it's been a while since I've seen the movie, so I can't remember how fast the rotation was, or where in the ship they were...
Calling people idiots is just hostile and destroys the value of any point your were trying to make. I have a terrible suspicion I'm saying this to a high school or junior high student, however, so I am probably just wasting my time...
Give yourself a pat on the back, you managed to piss off a random stranger for several minutes. Yay. You're going places in the world, buddy.