 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> 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.
Oh, no, I just saw an asteroid that's going to hit the earth 2 1/2 years
from now, I have to rush down the mountain in the middle of the night
instead of making a phone call, so I can get killed running off the road
just so we have some reason to add tension to the first half of the movie!
That and Elijah Wood's whole story arc really bugged me. Tea Leoni is a
great actress, and all of her segments were really well done, as were
Robert Duvall's.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Why do people like movies which other people detest?
>
> Why are you asking unanwserable questions?
Because I've never heard someone actually able to explain why they think
this movie is good.
It's one thing if you watch a movie that's so bad it's good (Army of
Darkness, anyone?), or a movie that is purposely lighthearted in pursuit
of the "fun factor" (Armageddon, Transformers, etc). It's another when
a movie's fans all take the movie seriously, talk about how great the
science in it is, talk about how great the storyline is, without seeming
to realize the absurdity of it.
Like I said, the first half of Sunshine was really good, and held a lot
of potential. It was the whole Pinbacker thing I didn't like, because
it's like the story turned a corner and we were suddenly watching a
straight up slasher.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 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.
Really? I'm surprised to hear you responded that way. I always saw the
movie as focusing on the character's reactions to the desolation; from
that point of view, including the military group makes sense. Once you
make that step, the conflict between the main characters and the
soldiers becomes inevitable.
That's the main reason I don't like "28 Weeks" as much. It's a great
slasher film (which there's nothing wrong with), but it lacks the
emotional punch of the first one.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Almost 20 years ago. I must reread it.
>> John note the spelling ;-)).
>>
>
> Duly noted
> <muttering accent=Glaswegian>Feersum Endjinn, Feersum Endjinn</muttering>
>
> John
Fearsome Engine you Pearly King, you. ;)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/09 13:11, Darren New wrote:
>> Event Horizon has some great SF in it,
>
> I have no idea why everyone liked that movie. I thought it was awful.
Agreed. Was kind of scared to raise the point.
> Also: Equilibrium.
Incredibly over dramatized. I didn't like it.
> Also: Mission to Mars (altho the movie itself was not that great)
Fun movie. Not at all hard SF, though, or even close.
--
If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> 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.
Well, we're looking for the Higgs right now. We have zero theories that
would give us FTL. The closest we have, "Warp drive," assumes you're going
to frob gravity around to make it happen.
Actually, there's also the wormhole bit with "exotic matter", but it turns
out "exotic matter" means matter with negative mass, so again it's intertwined.
> 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 haven't seen any well-founded FTL mechanisms that don't assume it's done
through manipulation of gravity. Wormholes, black hole travel, exotic
matter, space warps... all gravity effects.
> 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...
Fair.
>> 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.
Plot-wise, maybe. The acting was excellent, tho.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Also: Mission to Mars (altho the movie itself was not that great)
> Fun movie. Not at all hard SF, though, or even close.
Really? They even got the orbital mechanics right and such. I thought it was
very good physics, other than the very ending of course.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
