 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mca### [at] aolDOT com> wrote in message
news:4adaeeaf$1@news.povray.org...
> 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
I can suspend disbelief easier regarding matters like presence of FTL or
artificial gravity. But decision of manned vs unmanned is not even a high
tech / advanced sci issue, it's about common sense. I find it very hard to
suspend my disbelief about the brightest minds of the world making such a
blunder and sending a survivor/big-brother crew (from the reviews, it looks
like we have the stereotypical young, maverick, ethnically diverse and
politically correct, emotionally pre-teen, and sequentially eliminated
bunch) on a mission that undeniably calls for an unmanned spacecraft. And
yes, of course there wouldn't be a story or a movie without astronauts on
that mission, but then again, did all the other sci-fi avenues run dry that
this movie about an implausible scenario has to be absolutely produced?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> 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.
How poorly written? Any plot holes I'm unaware of? I liked how the
story kickstarts with a supposedly love affair of a high politician... I
find the plot quite tight.
> twist endings, etc). I guess something in Deep Impact must have
> resonated with you more than Armageddon did.
Certainly the emotional involvement was great, but so was the whole trip
to the asteroid very plausible and the consequences of the half-failure.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> we can control gravity without using a
> centrifuge. I think this is more unlikely than FTL travel
Given these are both based on relativity, why would one be more likely than
the other?
> .... apart from growing to full human-size from cat-size within days without
> apparently ingesting any organic matter?
Surely the people on the ship had to eat. Maybe it found the food stores?
> Event Horizon has some great SF in it,
I have no idea why everyone liked that movie. I thought it was awful.
Also: Equilibrium.
Also: Mission to Mars (altho the movie itself was not that great)
> it makes absolutely
> zero sense to me to be sending a *manned* craft for such a mission.
Except that when the fate of the entire world hangs in balance, having
people there who can make decisions rapidly might be the difference between
8 people dying and extinction of the race. Assuming they even were supposed
to die.
There's lots of good books like this, including Niven's Known Space series
(of course, there's FTL and teleportation there and such, but it follows
rules), lots of the stuff by Robert Forward, Vernor Vinge, Robert Sawyer, etc.
I mind less having things like FTL than I do that they follow rules that are
well spelled-out, as if they're actually scientific principles. Otherwise,
it's just magic mcguffins in disguise. Indeed, excellent science fiction is
that which you could say the plot is driven by the rules the extreme science
fiction follows.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4adb5a5c$1@news.povray.org...
> > it makes absolutely
> > zero sense to me to be sending a *manned* craft for such a mission.
> Except that when the fate of the entire world hangs in balance, having
> people there who can make decisions rapidly might be the difference
between
> 8 people dying and extinction of the race.
Except that, even in these movies, the only purpose those on board serve is
to screw things up. How hard would it be for NASA to crash an unmanned craft
into the sun? All you need is 1960's dumb technology for that, scaled up
accordingly for the payload. The complexity and the number of fatal fail
points go drastically up when you need life support for such long term
missions, even if when you have emotionally, intellectually and physically
rock solid astronauts. I haven't seen the movie - do the space cowboys in
this movie do anything that truly requires human presence, or is it the same
old "turn two switches simultaneously on in slow motion to start the timer
that detonates the bomb and run for your life" ritual? (Well, I gather they
all die, so maybe not the last part).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "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.
Exactly which part of theoretical physics is the FTL travel eg. in Star
Trek or Star Wars based on? Care to give references to some scientifical
papers discussing the subject?
While are it, also give some references to theoretical physics which
explains FTL communication in Star Trek and Star Wars (which badly breaks
GR principles).
(I don't need to give you references to the Q-ball theory because the
wikipedia article has plenty at the bottom.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] ycom> 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. 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.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlexxpmjrh25rbg?from=Main.ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch
So now that you have "proven" that the movie I mentioned sucks, what next?
What was your point and goal?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> 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.
Why do people like movies which other people detest?
Why are you asking unanwserable questions?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I have no idea why everyone liked that movie. I thought it was awful.
Give me a movie which everybody likes and nobody says anything like
what you wrote there, and I'll give you a movie which doesn't exist. ;)
> > it makes absolutely
> > zero sense to me to be sending a *manned* craft for such a mission.
> Except that when the fate of the entire world hangs in balance, having
> people there who can make decisions rapidly might be the difference between
> 8 people dying and extinction of the race. Assuming they even were supposed
> to die.
That's especially true since the movie establishes that the second ship
used up all the radioactive material the world could dig up, so it was their
absolutely last chance. One small failure in the ship, which could be
trivially fixed by a human crew, and the entire world is doomed. It makes
a whole *lot* of sense to make it a manned flight.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > we can control gravity without using a
> > centrifuge. I think this is more unlikely than FTL travel
>
> Given these are both based on relativity, why would one be more likely than
> the other?
I wasn't aware we had any theories at all that might give us arbitrary gravity
control. I'm a bit behind on my cutting-edge physics though so perhaps I missed
it.
I've certainly not read any SF that offered any explanation for gravity other
than sheer mass, whereas there's lots of genuine relativity-driven FTL travel
ideas knocking around. (I believe the wormholes in Contact were even first
formulated on request specifically for that novel.)
> > .... apart from growing to full human-size from cat-size within days without
> > apparently ingesting any organic matter?
>
> Surely the people on the ship had to eat. Maybe it found the food stores?
Yeah, that's why I think it's a weak criticism. But even so, it was only a day
or two later that it was fully grown.
> > Event Horizon has some great SF in it,
> I have no idea why everyone liked that movie. I thought it was awful.
Well it was a bit of a mishmash. But they had proper acceleration tanks, and I
couldn't fault Sam Neill's pop-rendition of GR...
> Also: Equilibrium.
> Also: Mission to Mars (altho the movie itself was not that great)
Equilibrium was far too naked (and dumbed-down) a rip-off of Farenheit 451 +
1984. I almost walked out of until the kung fu started up again. Not seen the
Mars one.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Except that, even in these movies, the only purpose those on board serve is
> to screw things up. How hard would it be for NASA to crash an unmanned craft
> into the sun? All you need is 1960's dumb technology for that, scaled up
> accordingly for the payload.
I find it rather amusing how you are bashing a movie you haven't even seen.
You *think* that it was just a question of "let's send a rocket to the
Sun... oh, it failed, well, we'll just send another... oh, it also failed,
well, we'll just keep sending them until one succeeds; heck, let's send ten
ships at the same time, at least one is going to succeed".
Except that's not the case in the actual movie, which you would know if
you had actually seen it. The second ship was the absolutely last chance
humanity had. That's it. No more. If it fails, humanity is dead.
The idea was that they packed *all* the fissive material they could find
into the two ships. There was no more after the second one. Finito. If the
two ships failed, humanity is dead.
Thus it makes a lot of sense to send a manned ship. Even the smallest of
failures, something which could be trivially fixed by a crew, could mean the
mission would fail.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
