somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> I would consider several things, such as their growth rate without apparent
> nutrients, physically and biologically implausible. I think Aliens series is
> much closer to "horror when mutant, 20 foot ants attack" genre than hard
> sci-fi.

  Granted that the film took a "shortcut" with the growth rate. What are
the other several things?

> >   Besides Alien (and Aliens), this one is a perfect example of what I'm
> > looking for: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448134/

> I just had a quick glance, but sun going out and being kick started by
> humans both seem like definition of supernatural.

  It's based on theoretical science, not handwaving:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ball

(See the "Fiction" section for a reference to the Sunshine movie.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Btw, can anyone recommend *good* sci-fi movies? 


down a storm with me ;)
I find that my internal eye is so much better than any camera.

Probably not what you want, though.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > I just had a quick glance, but sun going out and being kick started by
> > humans both seem like definition of supernatural.

>   It's based on theoretical science, not handwaving:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ball

> (See the "Fiction" section for a reference to the Sunshine movie.)

  Btw, I consider that as a trait of *good* science fiction: If it contains
something based on actual theoretical physics which you can then go and look
up in wikipedia and learn something new, rather than simply containing some
completely made-up physics or technology.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4ada43b1@news.povray.org...

>   It's based on theoretical science, not handwaving:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ball

In that case, I'm surprised you exclude FTL travel, which is typically based
on as just as solid (or shaky) theorizing.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/17/09 15:55, Warp wrote:
> - No far-fetched supernatural phenomena (unknown to modern science).

	This is perhaps too restricting. Go back 100-150 years and write a 
story about modern times. See what scientists will think of it.

Anyway:

- Moon
- People say Solyaris (the original) is good - I haven't seen it.
- The original Planet of The Apes.
- The Andromeda Strain
- Forbidden Planet (not sure if it violates Faster Than Light travel, I 
don't think they ever discuss the travel methods).
- Contact should really fit what you're asking for. Not everything is 
"explained", but it involves a lot of discussions about science.
- Gattaca
- Deep Impact is nice in some ways. It suffered from the fact that 
Armageddon came out the same year. It's *much* better than its rival, 
though.
- Blade Runner
- The Fly (I've seen only the 80's version). First half is not 
impressive. Second half is awesome.
- The Thing (perhaps - the story it's based on was somewhat hard sci fi, 
I forget if the movie is).

But likely you've seen most of the above.

Your requirements perhaps don't include movies like:

The Man From Earth
Stalker
Twelve Monkeys
Serenity

-- 
Be independent! No, not that way! This way!

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> - Deep Impact is nice in some ways. It suffered from the fact that
> Armageddon came out the same year. It's *much* better than its rival,
> though.

Much, much better.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Besides Alien (and Aliens), this one is a perfect example of what I'm
> looking for: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448134/

Why do people like this movie so much?  It was one of the most 
disappointing denouements I've ever seen.  Really great beginning half, 
but totally let down in the end.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Btw, can anyone recommend *good* sci-fi movies? Preferrably hard science
> fiction. "Hard" in this context means physically plausible technology and
> physics, which imples, among other things:

One based on biology rather than physics: 28 Days Later.

It's not a movie about zombies.  It's a movie about rabies on crack - 
and it's one of the best movies of the decade :)

(The sequel, 28 Weeks, was good, but not anywhere near the same league. 
  It was more a straight up slasher).

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> - Deep Impact is nice in some ways. It suffered from the fact that
>> Armageddon came out the same year. It's *much* better than its rival,
>> though.
> 
> Much, much better.

I'd only partially agree.  Deep Impact had much better emotional 
development, but was overall poorly written.  Combined with the fact 
that it took itself so seriously, it was just painful for me to watch. 
Armageddon was poor in quality throughout, but was lighthearted and 
didn't take itself seriously at all.  In all, it was a much more 
enjoyable film.

But I guess it all depends on what you look for.  I find that many Sci 
Fi fans, for instance, are willing to overlook the common failings of 
the genre (poor characterization, dialogue, plot development, etc) and 
focus only on the parts that grab them (the societal observations, the 
twist endings, etc).  I guess something in Deep Impact must have 
resonated with you more than Armageddon did.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:4ada66c5@news.povray.org...
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:4ada43b1@news.povray.org...
>
> >   It's based on theoretical science, not handwaving:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ball
>
> In that case, I'm surprised you exclude FTL travel, which is typically
based
> on as just as solid (or shaky) theorizing.

Reading up a little bit more about the movie, manking will apparently have
artificial gravity (!?) in a couple of decades, on top of the other
nonsense. Even if we can ignore all the bad physics, it makes absolutely
zero sense to me to be sending a *manned* craft for such a mission. What do
you need astronauts for, to steer the ship in the right direction so it
doesn't miss (!) the sun? Maybe it's explained somewhere in ironclad logic,
but I highly doubt it. All in all, it sounds like a really bad rehash of
last-minute-space-heroics-to-save-the-world genre. I don't understand the
relatively high IMDB score - maybe there's some terrific acting and
supremely zany dialogue to make up for plot deficiencies and bad science.

Post a reply to this message