|
Post by blueknight on Nov 25, 2005 21:28:02 GMT -5
What is your opinion of them?
I myself find them laughable but a little annoying.
For example, the first Jurassic Park movie featured Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops. They didn't even live in the Jurrasic. They lived in the Cretaceous. Another movie was a made for TV movie on the Sci-Fi Channel called Mansquito. In the movie a man gets mutated into some kind of half-man-half-moquito and starts sucking blood. Only the females do that.
These things make me laugh because they are so wrong they're funny. They're annoying because I know they are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by numbmelody on Nov 25, 2005 21:49:54 GMT -5
I don't know ... I've never seen an accurate sci-fi movie, but then again I'm not that big a fan of those. Do you know of any?
|
|
|
Post by blueknight on Nov 25, 2005 22:35:55 GMT -5
I don't really know of any accurate Science Fiction Movies so I decided to fix the title of the topic. Hopefully it works with my first post.
|
|
|
Post by Mac Dragard on Nov 26, 2005 0:59:37 GMT -5
Actually, the "Jurassic" in Jurassic Park was just a clever name. If you remember in the beginning when they were driving in the off road jeeps, that one lady, I think her name was Elly, said "these creatures have been extinct since the Cretacious Period". I will agree the whole DNA process was bogus though. I think I also heard that real raptors were the size of dogs and not humans.
As for the Mansquito movie, I've never seen it, but how do you know he just didn't get the attributes from an actual female mosquito?
I will agree that there are some movies/shows that are scientifically inaccurate. Take Anaconda for example. Anacondas neither attack humans nor do they move at the speed as the snake in Anaconda did. There's also a lot of fallacies in Star Trek. I remember one from Voyager where there was a truck floating in space that never deteriorated at all and the radio worked. Apparently FM/AM signals can reach halfway across the galaxy, huh?
|
|
|
Post by blueknight on Nov 26, 2005 1:19:49 GMT -5
It has been a while since I had seen the first movie so I'll take your word for it on the quote. As for the DNA thing, yes that is wrong. A scientist could never get enough DNA from a small Mosquito to clone or genetically engineer a whole Dinosaur. There was also a problem with the Dilophosaurs (known in the movie as spitters). There is no proof that any dinosaurs spit poison and it's quite hard to prove it.
With Mansquito you make a good point. They never specified anything like that in the movie. Although it had male tendencies because it did, as with all insectlike movie monsters, want to mate with another of it's species.
The whole Anaconda thing. You're probably right. I have not known any of those snakes to attack human. It's just like the whole Jaws movies. In reallity sharks aren't maneaters. I haven't seen the much of the Star Trek movies but there is a problem with the physics of what happens when the weapons are fired. The ship doesn't really move back from the jolt when they are being fired. As for radio signals reaching halfway accross the galaxy I'd have to agree with you there depending upon how long ago the truck was abandoned and when the movie in question took place.
|
|
|
Post by Mac Dragard on Nov 26, 2005 1:49:57 GMT -5
I don't know about sharks being maneaters, but they do attack people, and 1/3 of all shark attacks come from great whites. Interesting, there was actually a huge great white shark swimming in Cape Cod sometime last year.
|
|
|
Post by blueknight on Nov 26, 2005 2:16:39 GMT -5
The whole maneating-shark idea is a myth. Since they don't have hands they use their teeth to see if it's edible or not. Other times it's mistaken identity. They don't hunt humans at all. Unfortunately, before they were protected people would go out and hunt them. I don't think the Jaws movies helped the sharks either.
|
|
|
Post by Mac Dragard on Nov 26, 2005 9:35:50 GMT -5
Makes sense.
Alligators and crocodiles are a different story though. Alligators will attack people mainly if you just piss them off, like get in their nest or disturb them in any way. Crocodiles, on the other hand, will attack you regardless. There have been incidents where people would be rowing a boat down the river and a crocodile on the shore would come after them.
Piranahs eat people too.
|
|
|
Post by blueknight on Nov 26, 2005 13:32:11 GMT -5
I wasn't sure about what you have said about Piranhas so I looked it up. It does seem that you are right. The book I looked in said that they ARE opportunistic eaters and that there have even been reports of attacks on people. So that is mostlikely true. With the crocodiles that is true as well. The Nile crocodile attacks anything that comes to the water for a drink.
|
|
|
Post by Mac Dragard on Nov 26, 2005 18:19:59 GMT -5
Yeah, sometime in the 1970s, there was some tour boat that traveled down the Amazon River, and a whole school of piranhas attacked the boat and ate everyone inside.
|
|
|
Post by blueknight on Nov 26, 2005 18:30:04 GMT -5
I have never heard of that before. That must have been bad.
|
|
|
Post by arwentheelf02 on Nov 28, 2005 17:16:34 GMT -5
I'm a big Star Wars fan. I've never noticed any true inaccuracies, but I have noticed they stay away from terminology and true scientific mumbo-jumbo. They refer to planets and their respective moons as "The ___ system", which is kind of interesting. I'm not sure how else one can refer to something like that...how do we say that in real life?
|
|
|
Post by blueknight on Nov 28, 2005 22:26:23 GMT -5
From my standpoint Star Wars seems pretty scientifically accurate. Many of the creatures seem very much like they fit into their respective habitats. Of course that might be because many of them seemed to have been taken from real earth animals that either did or do exist. With the whole planetary system thing, I suppose that could be right in some way. After all we call our "star system" the solar system and we can just as easily call Jupiter and it's moons the Jupiter system. I myself never heard this happening yet though. Other parts of Star Wars that I have seen is when most of the ships are firing their weapons they are moving. I even see using lazers for swords as plausible. Plus many of the intelligent life forms seem to have four limbs (seeing as how too many would use a lot of brain power to coordinate each of them).
|
|
|
Post by arwentheelf02 on Nov 28, 2005 23:05:46 GMT -5
From my standpoint Star Wars seems pretty scientifically accurate. Many of the creatures seem very much like they fit into their respective habitats. Of course that might be because many of them seemed to have been taken from real earth animals that either did or do exist. With the whole planetary system thing, I suppose that could be right in some way. After all we call our "star system" the solar system and we can just as easily call Jupiter and it's moons the Jupiter system. I myself never heard this happening yet though. Other parts of Star Wars that I have seen is when most of the ships are firing their weapons they are moving. I even see using lazers for swords as plausible. Plus many of the intelligent life forms seem to have four limbs (seeing as how too many would use a lot of brain power to coordinate each of them). Woo! Go SW! I agree, when SW introduces a new creature/species, they usually include its habitat, etc. (Not usually in the movie, but if you get the books and stuff they show stuff like that.) For example, remember that really long-necked guy in the Jedi Council in Episode I? According to one of the books, his species has two hearts: one to pump blood into his brain, and one for the rest of the body.
|
|
|
Post by blueknight on Nov 28, 2005 23:24:45 GMT -5
You are talking about the pale colored one I'm guessing? Either way that does make sense. The people invoved with the movies seemed to have done a lot of research for when they made them.
|
|