Worst Hollywood pseudoscience?

[Enlightenment]

Was there ever a Hollywood writer that didn't flunk high school science? If there is, why aren't they the ones writing these type of movies? There were a lot of corny pseudoscientific movies a few decades back.

The problem is not the writers. The problem is that movie plots have to be dumbed-down enough for the average american redneck--and worse still, the average scum industry PHB--to understand them.

[Durandal]

Actually, the writers of Deep Impact acknowledged their complete lack of any knowledge of the logistics of such a scenario, so they asked a team of astrophysicists to tell them how much advance notice the planet would need, what would the best solution would be and all that stuff.

Granted, the writers fudged a few things to keep the plot moving smoothly, but overall, they stayed in a pretty straight line with what the guys told them. The result: a favorable review on badastronomy.com.

[Graeme Dice]

[*]The railgun's projectiles are said to be aluminum slugs. Why would they choose non-ferromagnetic aluminum instead of steel, which would be a smaller, harder penetrator for the same weight, and would respond well to EM forcefields?

Raligun's don't need a magnetic slug, they just need a conductor as the force is developed due to the interaction of fields from the current and a stationary outside field. Aluminum's light, so it will reach a higher velocity, but that's kind of pointless.

[Master of Ossus]

[*]The sale is for $52,000,000 for 1,000 units. This means that each gun costs $52,000. Since the US army already pays $35,000 for the fully loaded weapons of a single Delta Force commando (according to Newsweek; somebody please correct me if I'm wrong), it seems ridiculous to say that they would refuse to pay for $52,000 railguns which can see through walls (while the Russian mafia could, hence the illegal arms sale).

35,000 dollars for a Deltas weapons? That sounds like they took the cost of all weapons Delta force has on hand, including MANPADS Stingers and ATGW's and any armed vehicles, and then divided by the number of Commandoes in the unit. In reality where looking at more like 800 dollars for personal weapons.

That’s how you get things like the 700-dollar USAF hammers, the reporters include the price of things like APU and diagnostic computers in the total and then divide that by the total number of tools. In reality, the Air Force paid a couple bucks for them.

No, it's the actual cost for some of DF's weapons. Consider their capabilities, that they are usually COMPLETELY customized to each individual soldier, and that they are often modified by those soldiers with additional features and equipment. If you read Blackhawk Down, or similar, you will recognize that that is a reasonable estimate.

[Wicked Pilot]

According to the Netbook of Modern Firearms, an M16 equipped with an M203 grenade launcher and thermal weapon sight currently costs about $29,000. The complete M16 modular weapon system, with a digital laser, compass, thermal weapon sight and laser pointer, costs $35,000.

[Peregrin Toker]

I sometimes find it amazing that so few notice a science glitch which is so common that it is alarming.... sounds in space. (It's not as it would make the movies more boring... did any of you find 2001 - which didn't have sounds in space - boring? I don't think so)[/b]

[Lusankya]

In 2001, was the pod bay on the rotating thingy?

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Ah yes, Eraser. Let's look at the problems:




1. The pure energy of the gun. Let's say a standard 10 gram bullet was at .8 c (near the speed of light) We're talking 6e14 J of KE or 143 KILOTONS and 4e6 kg·m/s of momentum. The bullet should have sliced through the person, and anything behind him.

2. No sonic boom. Nuff said.

3. Recoil. Poor Ahnuld should have been killed by it.

4. Ahnuld mentions a railgun mounted on a Battleship. If we take the 1,225 kg 16" round of an Iowa, that's 7.350E19 J of KE, or 17 GIGATONS and 4.900E11 4e6 kg·m/s of momentum. OUCH!

[Darth Wong]

I sometimes find it amazing that so few notice a science glitch which is so common that it is alarming.... sounds in space. (It's not as it would make the movies more boring... did any of you find 2001 - which didn't have sounds in space - boring? I don't think so)

Yes. I found 2001 horribly boring. I'm a heretic. I think it's painfully slow-moving, I think the acid-trip at the end is a complete waste of time, and I was checking my watch during most of it. I think it's 20 minutes of plot dragged out to 3 hours, and that people think it's profound because it basically screams in your face that you'd better think so or you're not educated enough. I think that critics like it precisely because ordinary people don't. And I'm tired of hearing that any "real" sci-fi fan must love 2001.

Sounds in sci-fi are a minor issue. It is presumed that the sounds are added on, just as they are often added onto silent WW2 footage. It's obviously an embellishment, and has no detrimental effect on realism as it usually does not affect the plot ("Balance of Terror" excepted, but then again, Star Trek never did care for realism).

[Durandal]

OK, I've decided to check out this film, The Core, because I just refused to believe that any Hollywood writer is stupid enough to think that there would be material for a film if the Earth suddenly stopped spinning.

Luckily, I was right. It's not the surface that stops spinning in the film; it's the core. The core at the Earth spins independently of the Earth's rotation at a faster rate. The core is basically an 800km in diameter ball of iron. Its spin is a major factor in the existence of Earth's magnetic field.

The trailer (located here: http://www.cinemovies.fr/medias/ba/thecorebavo_320.mov) starts off with the usual foreboding voice telling us that every 700,000 years, the Earth gets ravaged by some major event, caused by an "unknown force." As far as scientists know, there is no giant clock ticking down to the next major disaster. The Earth could be struck by an asteroid at any time.

Naturally, no one bothers explaining just what made the core simply stop spinning. It just does. This is where everything dips into Armageddon-style bullshit. The brilliant solution to the problem is to go to the core and detonate a 1,000 megatons of nuclear explosives. Apparently, this will do ... something.

But how are they going to get to the core? Well, some nondescript genius has built ... a vehicle. This thing can apparently go to the center of the Earth with no trouble, even though there is no element in existence which could survive the pressures and temperatures near the core of the Earth. Don't even ask how they're going to drill there. Modern drills can only go up to about 10km or so down. What they're going to do to drill 4,000km+ is completely beyond me.

So, there's my analysis of the film. It's predictable enough that I can simply extrapolate the whole thing from the trailer.

[Imperial Federation]

I sometimes find it amazing that so few notice a science glitch which is so common that it is alarming.... sounds in space. (It's not as it would make the movies more boring... did any of you find 2001 - which didn't have sounds in space - boring? I don't think so)[/b]

I'd rather listen to screaming particle weapons, starship engines and explosions than half an hour of Dave Bowman breathing in his spacesuit and nothing else.. realism be damned.

[Graeme Dice]

I sometimes find it amazing that so few notice a science glitch which is so common that it is alarming.... sounds in space. (It's not as it would make the movies more boring... did any of you find 2001 - which didn't have sounds in space - boring? I don't think so)[/b]

Yes, I find 2001 to be dreadfully boring, followed by semi-interesting psychedelics.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Yes. I found 2001 horribly boring. I'm a heretic. I think it's painfully slow-moving, I think the acid-trip at the end is a complete waste of time, and I was checking my watch during most of it. I think it's 20 minutes of plot dragged out to 3 hours, and that people think it's profound because it basically screams in your face that you'd better think so or you're not educated enough. I think that critics like it precisely because ordinary people don't. And I'm tired of hearing that any "real" sci-fi fan must love 2001.

You are not alone. I did not like 2001. I saw it in 7th grade and the music drove me nuts. The only thing I really liked was when the monkey beat down the other monkey with a buffalo femur.

[Witness]

According to the Netbook of Modern Firearms, an M16 equipped with an M203 grenade launcher and thermal weapon sight currently costs about $29,000. The complete M16 modular weapon system, with a digital laser, compass, thermal weapon sight and laser pointer, costs $35,000.

Personally, I'd rather go with the SOPMOD-M4 kit. The M4's more streamline than the M16 and more compact.

[lgot]

Personally, I do like 2001 a lot (but the lack of sound have nothing to do with that. Movies must use what will work better. Star Wars without the sounds would lost in my opinion. 2001 did not needed it. ) and I think is very moronic anyone thinking its a good movie because it is a "Must see science fiction". Its not Clarke best book and the movie is good only because Kubrik is a one director in a million. There he showed a domain of cinema technics very impressive and it was much more important than the plot. It was not made to have big public (not that means popular stuff is bad. Popular can be good also).

[Shadow WarChief]

I don't like 2001 because of the lack of sound, I don't like 2001 because of the actual lack of a plot. Even the worst episodes of voyager have a task which must be completed. There's NONE of that in this movie.


.5 hours Ancient humans find freaky stone slab

1 hour: man finds freaky stone slab on moon

1.5 hours: psycho advanced computer tries to kill crew trying to get to Jupiter....and they're doing this after finding supposed alien artifacts why?~!


3rd hour: Finally find out they're going to jupiter caus that's where the aliens are

3.5 hours: After freaky psychadellic shit and a guy doing nothing in a big ass hose for 20 minutes, we see a giant fucking floating fetus over the earth.



The end.




what the bloody fuck was that?


The movie had not one coherent thought at ALL.

[Tsyroc]

Yes. I found 2001 horribly boring. I'm a heretic. I think it's painfully slow-moving, I think the acid-trip at the end is a complete waste of time, and I was checking my watch during most of it. I think it's 20 minutes of plot dragged out to 3 hours, and that people think it's profound because it basically screams in your face that you'd better think so or you're not educated enough. I think that critics like it precisely because ordinary people don't. And I'm tired of hearing that any "real" sci-fi fan must love 2001.
.

I find watching all of 2001 boring. Every now and then I like to rent it just to watch the part with the space plane going to the station. I love the visuals and the Blue Danube music. I also get a kick out of the retro/futuristic stuff on the station and the plane. It makes me nostalgic for what they thought we'd be able to do by now. The space station and the various bases on the Moon.

[Raziel]

Anything to do with genetics and/or cloning. No, clones of yourself do NOT magically have all of your memories and personality. No, clones do NOT appear as fully grown adults (I'm talking about movies that take place in modern times).

*shaking head* no wonder there's such a hullabaloo about human cloning, especially in the US. Everybody thinks it'll be like a drive-in B movie if they grow organs in vats for transplants.

[Lusankya]

I quite liked 2001, but that could just be because I got to have a little perv on the asttronauts through the movie.

But I'm pretty sure that the pod bay wasn't in the centrifuge, yet they had gravity in it! I can't check at the moment, because one of my friends has my copy of the movie.

If I'm right, though, it does detract from 2001's realism.

[Andrew J.]

I like 2001 for two reasons only:

1. Also Sprach Zarathustra while overlooking the sun, earth and moon. 'Nuff said.

2. HAL 9000. Just a classic.

The rest was pretty boring, though.

[Imperial Federation]

I think 2010 was a lot better, at least it had a point.
Plus I liked how HAL wasn't the Evil Machine(tm) anymore.

[Darth Wong]

2001 is like a really long drum solo. For a while, you admire the technical proficiency. Then you start checking your watch and looking around to see if anyone else has fallen asleep.

[NecronLord]

No the pod bay is not meant to be in the centrifuge. I think the film makers messed up there, unless it's on a seperate centrifuge that stops spinning when they launch. Which is horrendously unlikely. That's what happens when you turn a short story into a film.

[Peregrin Toker]

*shaking head* no wonder there's such a hullabaloo about human cloning, especially in the US. Everybody thinks it'll be like a drive-in B movie if they grow organs in vats for transplants.

Actually, full-grown bodies were cloned in Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, which is a quite expensive movie.

[SPOOFE]

I don't mind how cloning is depicted in movies. In AOTC, they mention the difficulties of accelerated growth, and presumably they have the technology to control a clone's thoughts and memories as it grows.

In The Sixth Day, I like how they show "blank" clones, ready to be given a specific DNA pattern and memories, despite the fact that this is pretty unlikely (hey, grow a body, and it's going to have SOME kind of DNA). But the memory thingy was pretty cool.

And I've never minded sound in space... I just take it as a given these days. It's one of those disbeliefs that's easy to suspend.