General > General Technical Chat
SciFi movies and pathetic misconceptions of tech failing for the story line.
coppercone2:
--- Quote from: vk6zgo on March 19, 2023, 08:35:17 am ---
--- Quote from: coppercone2 on March 19, 2023, 04:37:17 am ---jericho is not scifi though, its a thriller war/disaster movie and show
--- End quote ---
You are really nit-picking---it is a post-apocalyptic story, just like Neville Shute's "On the Beach", John Wyndham's "The Chrysalids", Walter M Miller's "a Canticle for Liebowitz", Pat Frank's "Alas, Babylon", Ray Bradbury's "There Will Come Soft Rains" & a host of other stories which were published as "Science Fiction" books, or appeared in "Science Fiction" magazines in the 1950s and 1960s.
--- End quote ---
I don't see how its sci fi unless there was a disaster that caused some kind of changes to occur. Surviving a disaster like a nuclear war seems more a thriller like 'volcano' then something to do with space, advanced technology that we did not see, etc. I consider that a misclassification unless its about how society changed and developed differently because of some kind of event. A disaster is a prelude to scifi, but dealing with a disaster hardly seems scifi. Like cherry 2000 is scifi that was introduced with a nuclear war. on the beach has what scifi elements in it? I would say that its a highly technical thriller. I would say it has low levels of imaginative technologies, if any. There is no framework of unknown technologies introduced in which to tell a logical story, its just dealing with present day crap gone wrong.
vk6zgo:
--- Quote from: tggzzz on March 19, 2023, 09:05:42 am ---
--- Quote from: vk6zgo on March 19, 2023, 01:17:53 am ---Quite honestly, the Brits produced some seriously dire programmes back in those days, although they steadfastly believed they made the "best programmes" in the World.
--- End quote ---
Sturgeon's Law isn't just for books, nor for one country!
Some of the seriously dire programmes were extremely popular. I always hated (and was bewildered by) "The Black and White Minstrels"; nowadays it is still useful as a simple quick example of how much progress has been made. Others include "Love Thy Neighbour". (Curiously, modern idiots take "Till Death Us Do Part" as being a documentary whereas it was actually a satire).
--- End quote ---
I always found Black & White Minstrels" cringeworthy, as I couldn't see why the dancers had to wear blackface.
Sing the songs, maybe, but there was no reason to promote stupid stereotypes, no black person ever having looked like that!
From memory we also had it on TV in Australia back in the 1960s---I guess I must have been "woke" back then!
I still couldn't abide Alf Garnett, although it was a magnificent portrayal of an "Ignorant old Pommy Bastard" on the part of Warren Mitchell.
Funny thing, although I initially thought him "over the top", I met blokes like him, (all Brits) both in Oz, & during my long ago stay in the UK.
I even worked with a chap who was pretty much the manifestation in every way of another English stereotype----"Andy Capp".
Old, short & ugly, he would regale us with stories of his romantic dalliances, just like his cartoon "alter ego" who spent his time chasing what were called in that faraway time, "Dolly Birds".
Meanwhile, relatively normal, quite pleasant blokes were mostly pessimistic about their chances with members of the opposite sex.
BrianHG:
I just started watching the movie 'The Cloverfield Paradox'.
I mean, unless our sun has dissipated, how is it possible for us to just run out of energy?
I guess I'll have to watch the rest of the movie to find out what this free limitless energy BS is about.
Psi:
To watch any Sci-Fi you have to be willing to force your brain into assumptions that some currently understood laws of science are wrong or incomplete, and that a future discovery will replace or update them in such a way as to make what you're watching scientifically accurate.
Maybe try the TV Show Fringe.
It's easier to get your brain to accept 'Fringe Science' when it's presented as such.
Compared to getting annoyed when a show presents real science that is wrong, if it's presenting pseudo science it's easier to accept that it could maybe be correct for the purposes of watching the show.
Also Fringe is a great show.
Another great show is Person of Interest. It starts off more of a crime/cop show, but it's a sci'fi show under that. Mainly about AI and it really gets amazing as you get into later seasons.
tszaboo:
There are Soft Sci-fi and Hard Sci-fi movies and books. In soft, the sci-fi part is just a setting, where the rules bend to support the story. Think of Star Wars.
Hard, the story is supposed to make sense with the physics. Or at least some in universe rules. Like warping in Star Trek might not be possible with our universe, but over the years it was uphold as a semi-consistent rule (if you ignore newtrek). The Expanse is a great example for Hard Sci-Fi. Or the Martian.
--- Quote from: Psi on March 27, 2023, 11:51:48 am ---To watch any Sci-Fi you have to be willing to force your brain into assumptions that some currently understood laws of science are wrong or incomplete, and that a future discovery will replace or update them in such a way as to make what you're watching scientifically accurate.
Maybe try the TV Show Fringe.
It's easier to get your brain to accept 'Fringe Science' when it's presented as such.
Compared to getting annoyed when a show presents real science that is wrong, if it's presenting pseudo science it's easier to accept that it could maybe be correct for the purposes of watching the show.
Also Fringe is a great show.
Another great show is Person of Interest. It starts off more of a crime/cop show, but it's a sci'fi show under that. Mainly about AI and it really gets amazing as you get into later seasons.
--- End quote ---
PoI is a great show with it's over-arching story.
And yes, I could get annoyed when a story is presented as hard sci-fi and then it breaks the rules constantly. Like Gravity. Or Interstellar (none of that movie made sense in terms of physics). The latest one that I saw was a big offender was Ad Astra. If you want really really bad science, to the point where it's so ridiculous it's funny, watch Moonfall.
And what is very good was For All Mankind (apple TV series). Or Moon.
Honestly, I kinda understand why they don't make that much hard sci-fi, it could be kinda boring, where you travel months to the nearest planet, and if something goes wrong for example during EVA, you are dead in a second.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version