I do know that the author of the books Mary Poppins was based on ran out of the theater crying at the movie premier, she hated it so much, and never sold any more movie rights.
-
This community needs YOUR help today!
With the ever-increasing fees of maintaining our vibrant community (servers, software, domains, email), we need help.
We need more Supporting Members today.Please invest back into this community to help spread our love and knowledge of multi-channel sound.
Why Join?
- Exclusive Access: Gain entry to private forums.
- Special Perks: Enjoy enhanced account features that enrich your experience, including the ability to disable ads.
- Free Gifts: Sign up annually and receive exclusive The Rocketry Forum decals directly to your door!
This is your chance to make a difference. Become a Supporting Member today:
Science fiction movies that know NOTHING about science
- Thread starter cvanc
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
Or were they science fiction at all (even if acid free)?
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 11,697
- Reaction score
- 6,362
Ender’s Game book was butchered for the movie. Final movie seen made no sense.Every science fiction movie or program requires some degree of suspension of belief/knowledge. Sometimes it's easy to suspend that knowledge; other times we'll spend the movie/program criticizing the nonsense.
Considering the time of release, Star Trek probably did the best job of any show when it came to suspension of disbelief. They did their best to make it *science* fiction. Lasers in the pilot were changed to phasers for the program because they knew that lasers couldn't do much of what was needed. "Phasing" matter into another dimension was more plausible. It seems pretty tame today but remember that it was sixty years ago. One of the comments about the pilot was that it was "too cerebral" and too good for TV.
Fun fact: CBS viewed the pilot but said "we have our own show that we like better." It was "Lost in Space".
Have to agree that the Star Wars series is more fantasy than proper science fiction. Fun, but "it ain't steak no matter how you cook it."
Movies based on books always have to cut so much from the book, or worse, add unbelievable material for audience interest. The Andromeda Strain was a fabulous movie IMO for the early 70s but a fair amount was removed from the book (which I didn't read until later). Watching the movie after reading the book was a bit of a letdown. Likewise Jurassic Park, Timeline, Sphere, and a few other Crichton books.
At least the gravity made sense (spinning station)
2001 Space Odyssey seemed decent science.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2022
- Messages
- 1,768
- Reaction score
- 1,790
Yes, well, obviously.... I mean... Kubrick.
Let's sum it up then. Sci-Fi movies where they get (mostly) the science RIGHT are:
Destination Moon (well, given what was known at the time).
2001 A Space Odyssey
Contact
Honorable Mentions:
2010: the Year we make Contact
The Martian (was good up until the final 1/3rd of the film)
Anyone else want to nominate a *good* sci-fi film where they get it right?
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2022
- Messages
- 1,768
- Reaction score
- 1,790
Here's one everyone forgets, and as a result I can't remember if the science was right or not: "Marooned".
The final part was okay, but would require a bit of luck to pull off in real life. What gets me about The Martian is the dust storm at the beginning. With an atmosphere only 1% the thickness of Earth's, even hurricane-speed wind on Mars would not likely have the force needed to threaten to blow the ascent vehicle over or impale Mark Watney with an antenna.
Fixed that for you.
Yes, exactly. I heard an interview with the author (Fresh Air, I think. A rerun of an interview about the book, aired when the movie came out) in which he acknowledged that, and more or less apologized for not coming up with a better way to strand Watney.
I would argue that it was probably both Kubrick and Clarke.
Armageddon (already mentioned) released July 1, 1998. A scientific dumpster fire.
Deep Impact, released May 8, 1998. Scientifically imperfect but reasonably good.
Deep Impact, released May 8, 1998. Scientifically imperfect but reasonably good.
Last edited:
July 1, 1998
Pem Tech
Notorious Member
Every science fiction movie or program requires some degree of suspension of belief/knowledge. Sometimes it's easy to suspend that knowledge; other times we'll spend the movie/program criticizing the nonsense.
Considering the time of release, Star Trek probably did the best job of any show when it came to suspension of disbelief. They did their best to make it *science* fiction. Lasers in the pilot were changed to phasers for the program because they knew that lasers couldn't do much of what was needed. "Phasing" matter into another dimension was more plausible. It seems pretty tame today but remember that it was sixty years ago. One of the comments about the pilot was that it was "too cerebral" and too good for TV.
Fun fact: CBS viewed the pilot but said "we have our own show that we like better." It was "Lost in Space".
Have to agree that the Star Wars series is more fantasy than proper science fiction. Fun, but "it ain't steak no matter how you cook it."
Movies based on books always have to cut so much from the book, or worse, add unbelievable material for audience interest. The Andromeda Strain was a fabulous movie IMO for the early 70s but a fair amount was removed from the book (which I didn't read until later). Watching the movie after reading the book was a bit of a letdown. Likewise Jurassic Park, Timeline, Sphere, and a few other Crichton books.
Don't forget Dune. Both films had to gut the book to make the movie under 12 hours.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2022
- Messages
- 1,768
- Reaction score
- 1,790
Yes. But let's not forget that Kubrick essentially becomes an expert in every subject he's ever made a movie about. In "Paths of Glory" he became an expert in and depicted the trench warfare better than anyone had previously done. In 'Dr. Strangelove' he and his set designer figured out the interior of a B-52 while it was still classified. Don't even get me started on Full Metal Jacket, but on 2001 -- just look at it and how much they got right on the money.
Development started around 1964/1965 and the film came out in 1968. In the film, they've pretty accurately predicted Glass Cockpits, Large handheld tablets, A.I. (which we're still trying to get to HAL 60 years later), flat-screen displays, video-conferencing, and many more little touches that make it seem so incredibly accurate (Zero Gravity Toilet). And when we have airline flights to the ISS, you can bet the Stewardesses will be using velcro to walk the cabin. And airlines today have TV sets in the back of each headrest probably due to the work of Kubrick and Clarke.
The *only* thing I can think of that they get wrong in 2001 is Dave Bowman holding his breath before he gets catapulted out of the pod and into the emergency airlock. We now know you should take deep breaths to get your blood rich with O2, but then empty your lungs before plunging into a vacuum.
Of course I wasn't in the room, but I'm still inclined to give Clarke first credit. If Kubrick became an expert on the subject, Clarke was his teacher.
The science in Marooned was good, except for the launch of a rescue ship in the eye of a hurricane.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2022
- Messages
- 1,768
- Reaction score
- 1,790
I'm willing to forgive because the design of that XRV was mega-ultra-uber-kool!
Looks a lot like the Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser mini shuttle and the X-37B. The producers of Marooned did their homework.
Stargate SG-1 is a great show largely because it doesn't take itself too seriously.
Co-leader of the LRP
stability is overrated
I’m amazed 2012 hasn’t made it on here yet. It is by the same director as moonfall though, which was mentioned.
They get very little right, but making fun of it is part of what makes watching it entertaining; I enjoyed both of them.
They get very little right, but making fun of it is part of what makes watching it entertaining; I enjoyed both of them.
GlenP
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2014
- Messages
- 3,066
- Reaction score
- 1,583
Salvage 1 starring Andy Griffith.
Maybe there is a reason that it is called science fiction.
Explorers, but more of a space fantasy.
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0089114/?ref_=nm_flmg_c_95_act
Maybe there is a reason that it is called science fiction.
Explorers, but more of a space fantasy.
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0089114/?ref_=nm_flmg_c_95_act
Last edited:
I guess there's a difference between science fiction and science fiction.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2022
- Messages
- 1,768
- Reaction score
- 1,790
Any Dean Devlin movie is more about blowing things up and very little in the way of actual science. This is the same guy that made "Independence Day" for god's sake.
If you haven't yet watched the "Window of Opportunity" episode, I won't spoil it. I think it's #1 rated by the SG1 fans.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2022
- Messages
- 1,768
- Reaction score
- 1,790
For Stargate SG1 I would not care one whit if they got the science right or not. The show was simply so much fun and so well put together that it's a delight. The casting was perfect. the effects were well done and overall I'd rate it as one of the best sci-fi series ever made. Yeah, they had some stinkers of episodes, but the vast majority of the show was stellar. There's a reason it lasted as many seasons as it did.
Forbidden Planet is considered pretty cheesy today but was fantastic for the 50s. Yes, there was a space monster. Yes, it killed people. But it didn't magically rise from the sea, land with a meteorite, form from intense radiation, etc. It had a rational cause that was central to the movie, and it killed people for a very specific reason, also central. And it had its moments of fun. And don't call me Shirley! 
"200" is also a very funny episode. Their spoofs of other shows were fantastic.
Heck, their spoof of their own opening episode was fantastic.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2022
- Messages
- 1,768
- Reaction score
- 1,790
I think my favorite line from any show ever comes from when Jack is on the set of "Wormhole Xtreme!" and the girl character is asking the producers "So I can walk through walls?" and they say to her "Yes, because you're OUT OF PHASE".
So she pauses and asks them 'So why don't I fall through the floor?"
And they look at each other... "Ahhhh, we'll get back to you on that."
Dead aliens, off the set!
Similar threads
