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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.

Ok, I see what you mean. (I don't like warp drive personally, it's a retrofitted
contortion that, as you say, requires quite fine gravity control. I rate it
alongside star wars' hyperdrive to be honest. I was thinking of wormholes etc.)

> 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.

Yeah, I guess that does push it into hyperdrive realms doesn't it. It just feels
a bit better developed because you can hide the detail in the exotic matter,
whereas I've not heard of any engineering applications of the Higgs Boson yet!

> > 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.

Hmm, the 'manipulation of gravity' that I was thinking about wasn't any cleverer
than piling big fat masses up in interesting ways - ever read any Stephen
Baxter? He's a big fan of going to the end of the universe to watch the last
protons of humanity decay... :)

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> 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!

You gotta start somewhere.  Not exactly genius, but not particularly 
buggy that one.

In any case, he did get killed because was on a rush to get the digital 
data delivered ASAP (mail server was down) and was trying to phone while 
driving.  yeah, just watched again to be sure... :)

tension is good.

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Ok, I see what you mean. (I don't like warp drive personally, it's a retrofitted
> contortion that, as you say, requires quite fine gravity control. 

Well, it's the one that actual scientists are actually talking about. :-)

> I rate it
> alongside star wars' hyperdrive to be honest. I was thinking of wormholes etc.)

Generally speaking, "hyperdrive" and "warp drive" tend to mean the same 
thing - going somewhere that the speed of light is faster. (Assuming it's 
explained at all.)

> whereas I've not heard of any engineering applications of the Higgs Boson yet!

Well, it depends what you can do with it! Higgs provides inertial mass, as I 
understand it, so it's really likely the basis of any "generated" gravity.

> Hmm, the 'manipulation of gravity' that I was thinking about wasn't any cleverer
> than piling big fat masses up in interesting ways - ever read any Stephen
> Baxter? 

The few I've read have been awful. :-)

And piling up big fat masses isn't gravity manipulation to achieve FTL 
travel? :-)

As an aside, I just got back from the bookstore and it seems they have no 
actual science fiction in their science fiction section. There was some 
heinlein and asimov and other dead authors, a whole shelf of star wars and 
star trek, another shelf of manga, and everything else was vampires and 
dragons.  Oh, except for the John Ringo type stories. (Many of which I'm not 
even sure why they're listed under Science Fiction, except the author also 
writes some science fiction.)  WTF guys? Haven't you written any actual 
science fiction in ten years? Is America so hopelessly stupid and luddite 
that nobody reads something with actual science in it?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message