|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> 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.
>
>
A couple of things.
One of the tenets of Science Fiction is that you are allowed to change
one or two science facts and develop your world as if they were true.
human based story. As you will know, this is the suspension of disbelief
attack craft behave as if they were aeroplanes. Accelerating forward to
go faster when they are in orbit and banking when they turn.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Almost 20 years ago. I must reread it.
(Dr
> John note the spelling ;-)).
>
Duly noted
<muttering accent=Glaswegian>Feersum Endjinn, Feersum Endjinn</mutterin
g>
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/09 03:50, Chambers wrote:
> 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 :)
Didn't like the whole last third of the movie when they enter the
military complex. It was a sudden change of pace, mood, everything. If
not for that, it'd been a great movie.
--
Be independent! No, not that way! This way!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |