| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:55 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Any Michael Moore movie!
For a 'scientifically accurate' film, see Michael Moore Hates AMerica. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
billybrobby
Joined: 09 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Regarding Starship Troopers, all the advanced calculations are done by the brain bug. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greedy_bones
Joined: 01 Jul 2007
Location: not quite sure anymore
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Battlefield Earth has got to be up there. The psychlos' home planet "reacts with radiation"
Red Planet. While the movie as a whole isn't that bad with its science, the line "I'm a geneticist; I see things in A, C, T and P" made me cringe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fresh Prince
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: The glorious nation of Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
About Starship Troopers: The film really had very little to do with the original book by Robert Heinlein.
Heinlein wrote the book as a political essay attacking socialist and communist ideology in favor of capitalism, and the lack of morals in the youth at the time (late 1950's).
The book was filled with a lot less "action," than the movie, and had a lot more philosphical discussions between characters, arguing for the merits of a society that treated criminal activity harshly, and for the "earning," of citizensip rights, through military service, rather by simply giving them to everyone at birth. The bugs were probably meant to represent socialists or communists.
Heinlein received a lot of criticism for the book because he was an officer that never actually served in combat during WWII or Korea, yet wrote a book glorifying war on the front lines, from the perspective of an enlisted soldier. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A2Steve
Joined: 10 Nov 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I hope thats not a veiled attempt to get us to read it.
Just remember the lyrics to mystery science 3000:
If you're wondering how he eats and breathes
and other science facts (la la la),
Then repeat to yourself, "It's just a show,
I should really just relax..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bassexpander
Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Location: Someplace you'd rather be.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PeteJB wrote: |
| The Grumpy Senator wrote: |
I would think that advances in space travel would also lead to advances in weaponery.
|
Advances yes, but changes no. The guns themselves in Starship Troopers may still use conventional old bullets, but that doesn't mean the weapons themselves aren't further advanced. One gripe you can say though is, why didn't the ships have any weapons such as missiles and artillery cannons. My guess is they are just carriers... ? Anyway, I think just because it's in the future doesn't mean they have to use lasers and beams or what have you. Battlestar Galactica does a very good job of representing space combat, check some of the battle scenes from that show and see why conventional weapons just "feel" more realistic than phasers. |
I knew a guy back home who owned one of the prop guns, helmet and armor suits used in Starship Troopers. He was so proud of that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stormy
Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Location: Here & there
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think we need to add Spaceballs to this list - there was some very dodgy science going on in that movie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cheonmunka
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If the Orwellian society of Libria were real, Cleric Preston would have been quickly taken out by Father long before he got to a point of being able to kill all the leaders and destroy the entire Librian society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gollywog
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Debussy's brain
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
No! Say it ain't so!
I thought Jurassic Park was a true story. Are you saying it isn't? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stormy wrote: |
| I think we need to add Spaceballs to this list - there was some very dodgy science going on in that movie. |
Suck suck suck suck!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R-Seoul
Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Location: your place
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you want to watch a scientifically accurate movie then check out Primer (about time travel), then please tell me what happened?
[url] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer_(film) [/url] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Great movie.
They use real jargon but I wouldn't call it scientifically accurate. Superconductor research has yet to develop into time travel.
The plot is more complicated than the science. The thing to remember is that basically time travels backwards in the time machines to the point where the machine was turned on. At points in the movie there are up to three of the same character in existence at the same time since the two scientists each have two machines. It's hard to know who you are looking at at any given time.
There are some good synopsis online but they don't make it much clearer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
