Science Fiction movies should stop being inaccurate

[hizuka007]

Science Fiction movies should stop being inaccurate

then dli na science FICTION, kundi science fact na.. ... ka lols ba ani..

'Define:Fiction' result:

a literary work based on the imagination and not necessarily on fact
fabrication: a deliberately false or improbable account

source: wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

[chad_tukes]

correction, electromagnetism and gravitaty/gravitation are two different forces...

then i stand corrected --- but you get the main point.

[chad_tukes]

Of course it's all about plot--isn't that what people go to movies for? For the story? Sure, there are people who just want to see a bunch of special effects splashed on a big screen, but I still believe that the general public, the majority of the populace flock to movie houses expecting to be drawn into a compelling story. And if that story is marred by inaccurate representation of the world I live in, yes it ruins the willing suspension of disbelief at least for me.

-RODION

well, we all know for a fact that not all people go to see movies because they dig the story. some go for special effects, because their favorite actors are on it, because it's produced by Steven Speilberg, and because there is air-conditioning inside. i am baffled that you gave Avatar and Star Wars as examples. aren't these movies too "science-fictiony"? yet you advocate for science realism and accuracy. James Cameron and George Lucas may have cared too much with the story plot, but as far as realism and accuracy goes, Dustin Hoffman might scratch his head.

[hizuka007]

OT: klaro kung makit-an ni sa mod ning thread madelete ni.. ...

[moy1moy1]

OT:k paman ang debate so far, hehe bsta wa lay gamitay ug offensive words sa isig ka side~

[cyraxx]

Science fiction gani. What is probable for u might not be probable. Tech might just go on where u least expected.

[grovestreet]

can a science-fiction really be that accurate? i mean, in an emergent universe where all our understandings are somewhat just surmises. Then that changes the meaning of the word accurate, it's "accuracy" is only relative to what we know today.

My example ha...

The Cosmos series of Carl Sagan was a non-fiction science education series. It was intended of course to be as accurate as possible to what science knew during the 1970's-80's. Inevitably, some of the science in Cosmos has been outdated in the years. (honestly, i have yet to know which specific ideas mentioned in the series are outdated).

i hope you get my point.

[vern]

Good science != good science fiction. If you go to Hollywood to get your science, you aren't doing it right. If you go to science to get your entertainment, you aren't doing it right. If the topic is as you say ... "about what can be done so that science education will not be skewed and distorted by bad movies" ... my question is ... who in the hell goes to a movie and believes it over say ... a teacher? If they do believe something they saw in the film, chances are they weren't taught what was correct in the first place and that is the danger, not that they received wrong information from a movie, but they weren't taught.

Hollywood is at it's best when the suspension of disbelief is in overdrive. The new Star Trek was in my opinion, the best Star Trek movie ... but there is practically no science out there that supports it.

The fact that bad science movies even engage the viewer into thinking about science is a plus in my book. Better wrong (and maybe find out how wrong they are), than no interest at all. Pythagoras and Stephen Hawking aren't exactly the best representatives of science.

[coolnezz]

it's up to the parents/guardians/teachers to tell kids that it's just make believe... fantasy... etc.
i've watched tons of sci-fi movies when i was a kid, and yeah i thought they were real, but that's the reason adults are there for, to explain stuff. but it's healthy for kids to have their fantasy/imagination run wild once in a while. and besides as they grow older, they'd eventually realize fact from fiction.

[chad_tukes]

Pythagoras and Stephen Hawking aren't exactly the best representatives of science.

...and Deepak Chopra.