Worst Movies for Science

[steve_bnk]

And being vacuum-headed makes you credible? <G>

I gather this is humor... what is <G>?

I'd say in this case an insult. It will be a wasted effort to try and respond.

 

[Emily Lake]

The trick is to throw concerns for whether others get it out the window, and type the shit that makes you laugh...

...because it doesn't matter that you look weird laughing to yourself so long as you're having fun. Which you are, because you're laughing...

...Unless it's a nervous laugh of despair about how you're laughing to yourself without good reason. I hate it when that happens.

Oh I'm not concerned; I just wanted to let you guys know that I know that I suck at this bit. I also don't generally get insulted very easily, because I assume that everyone else sucks at it too - they're just not as apt to wear it on their sleeve as I am

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And being vacuum-headed makes you credible? <G>

You can ascertain the credibility of my criticisms for yourself. You can easily verify that I am making no statements that are in conflict with mainstream science. And in fact, the "scientists" who credoconsolans said had reviewed the movie for its scientific accuracy are in complete agreement with me on the physics. I made the statement only to point out that I am at least as credible as the sources that credoconsolans seemed to believe were credible reviewers of the movie, not to make an argument from authority.

It would behoove you to respond to my comments themselves and not my person. If you dislike my comments from another thread you should respond to them there, not here.

Did you not notice the <G>?

I was making a joke about your profession, not actually saying you don't know what you're talking about!

- - - Updated - - -

And being vacuum-headed makes you credible? <G>

I gather this is humor... what is <G>?

The old fashioned version of

In the quick editor we don't have the smilie list available and I didn't recall how to make it off the top of my head. Thus I used what we did in the old days before we had the graphics.

 

[Perspicuo]

Documentaries are meant to be good science.

Scifi movies are for escapist fantasies and fictional stories for entrainment. They are not meant to be reality based.

Star Trek in all its incarnations was far from reality based science.

In Star Trek, its future tech is perhaps better than its science.

 

[Sarpedon]

Star Trek, for all its questionable science, nevertheless portrays scientists positively, working to solve problems and improve people's lives. This is in contrast to the vast majority of movies, were scientists are portrayed as incompetent, evil, crazy, dogmatic fools.

 

[steve_bnk]

Star Trek, for all its questionable science, nevertheless portrays scientists positively, working to solve problems and improve people's lives. This is in contrast to the vast majority of movies, were scientists are portrayed as incompetent, evil, crazy, dogmatic fools.

I agree.

if you want an abysmal portrayal of scientists watch The BB Theory show,

 

[barbos]

Star Trek, for all its questionable science, nevertheless portrays scientists positively, working to solve problems and improve people's lives. This is in contrast to the vast majority of movies, were scientists are portrayed as incompetent, evil, crazy, dogmatic fools.

I agree.

if you want an abysmal portrayal of scientists watch The BB Theory show,

LOL, I love that show too.
The irony is, science mumbo-jumbo in BB theory is actual science, as opposed to Star Trek where "science" has very little to do with science.
As for negative portrayal then it's closer to the reality too, unfortunately.

 

[Peez]

Star Trek, for all its questionable science, nevertheless portrays scientists positively, working to solve problems and improve people's lives. This is in contrast to the vast majority of movies, were scientists are portrayed as incompetent, evil, crazy, dogmatic fools.

Most "mad scientists" are actually mad engineers.

Peez

 

[barbos]

Star Trek, for all its questionable science, nevertheless portrays scientists positively, working to solve problems and improve people's lives. This is in contrast to the vast majority of movies, were scientists are portrayed as incompetent, evil, crazy, dogmatic fools.

Most "mad scientists" are actually mad engineers.

Peez

Most engineers think they are scientists

 

[Kharakov]

And being vacuum-headed makes you credible? <G>

I gather this is humor... what is <G>?

The old fashioned version of

Loren's pulling your leg. It's a masonic symbol. The < and > are the square and compass.

Masons are required to lie about it to those who don't know. I never took a vow, and besides that, they would not want me in their ranks.

 

[Musing Man]

What angers me more than it should is what I consider to be - by far - the dumbest line in all history of sci-fi:

Shields up!

Star Trek (all iterations) has it, Stargate (all three series) has it, obviously Star Wars has it - and virtually all movies or series or novels that involve FTL.
Assuming we'll ever have that kind of protective ”shielding” - and I won't even touch FTL or space enemies roaming around - shields will be up by default (or at the very least automated) long before we'll even attempt something remotely near FTL...


Now, as far as the storylines are concerned, they're all actually built around one single theme - good vs. evil. Good guy meets bad guy and after a few mishaps for added drama good guy wins (even if he dies) and gets Schrödinger's pussy (can be dead, alive or in both states at once - just in case, for a sequel).

Good sci-fi is any sci-fi that has any public/cultural value - be it inspirational (ST, SW, SG), entertaining (Pacific Rim) or introspective (psychological) - ”The Road”, ”The Man From Earth”, ”A.I.”, ”Quantum Leap” and many others; plus any possible combinations between those values.

Bad sci-fi, including OP's very specific category of bad for science, is any sci-fi that promotes ”belief” over critical thinking.

One blockbuster which did just that - along with very, very bad science (while being promoted as ”hard - aka ”accurate” - sci-fi) - was that horrible piece of shit called Prometheus.

 

[Peez]

What angers me more than it should is what I consider to be - by far - the dumbest line in all history of sci-fi:

Shields up!

Star Trek (all iterations) has it, Stargate (all three series) has it, obviously Star Wars has it - and virtually all movies or series or novels that involve FTL.
Assuming we'll ever have that kind of protective ”shielding” - and I won't even touch FTL or space enemies roaming around - shields will be up by default (or at the very least automated) long before we'll even attempt something remotely near FTL...

Note that shields are "raised" automatically at least sometimes in Star Trek TNG.

Peez

- - - Updated - - -

barbos:
Most engineers think they are scientists

Good point.

Peez

 

[Musing Man]

Note that shields are "raised" automatically at least sometimes in Star Trek TNG.

Droplets in a planetary ocean.
My contention still stands, won't you agree?

 

[barbos]

At least Stargate has seat belts. And overall it has more "believable" plot.

 

[fromderinside]

What could be worse than  Lost in Space (film). A mutated spider man complete with sac and an evil scientist all in the same package. A heros who goes outside physical possibility, some kids who like to do things (who ever heard of kids who like to do things when technology abounds around them), other life forms, ships form the planet the escaped because it was dying launched hundreds of years after the team left. Come on. As far as the detail stuff, well ....... then there's the bad acting.....

 

[Shadowy Man]

Did you not notice the <G>?

It's the first time I'd ever seen that particular symbol. I, like Emily Lake, had no idea what it meant. I would have assumed that "colon and end parenthesis" would be the standard way to make a smiley. : ) =

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What angers me more than it should is what I consider to be - by far - the dumbest line in all history of sci-fi:

Shields up!

Star Trek (all iterations) has it, Stargate (all three series) has it, obviously Star Wars has it - and virtually all movies or series or novels that involve FTL.
Assuming we'll ever have that kind of protective ”shielding” - and I won't even touch FTL or space enemies roaming around - shields will be up by default (or at the very least automated) long before we'll even attempt something remotely near FTL...

I disagree. Shields obviously use a lot of power, not to mention wear on the equipment. They are no more going to keep them up 24/7 than a warship keeps it's weapons systems hot 24/7.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Did you not notice the <G>?

It's the first time I'd ever seen that particular symbol. I, like Emily Lake, had no idea what it meant. I would have assumed that "colon and end parenthesis" would be the standard way to make a smiley. : ) =

I've been online since before we had smileys. In the days of pure text we had things like <G>, <LOL> etc.

 

[skepticalbip]

What could be worse than  Lost in Space (film). A mutated spider man complete with sac and an evil scientist all in the same package. A heros who goes outside physical possibility, some kids who like to do things (who ever heard of kids who like to do things when technology abounds around them), other life forms, ships form the planet the escaped because it was dying launched hundreds of years after the team left. Come on. As far as the detail stuff, well ....... then there's the bad acting.....

But then Lost in Space did give us that immortal phrase, "Danger, Will Robinson".

 

[Shadowy Man]

I've been online since before we had smileys.

Doesn't mean you can't get updated.