Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Off topic discourse and banter encouraged.
User avatar
Orca
Science Officer
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:58 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by Orca » Fri Jul 17, 2020 11:50 pm

As folks with an interest in astronomy and science in general, I am curious about your thoughts on how science is portrayed in movies, games, and TV shows. Do you get irritated by things like ‘space bombers’ (Star Wars: Episode VII) and ‘red matter’ (Star Trek [Reboot])? Or are you generally able to maintain your suspension of disbelief and just “roll with it?”

Personally I can usually let some pretty large issues go if the characters are well-written, the story is interesting, and there a certain level of internal consistency within the established "rules" of the fictional world. I do find it odd that - considering how hostile space is to humans - directors feel the need to invent elaborate, physics-breaking events to drive a plot. I do appropriate it when a piece of fiction makes at least an attempt to be grounded in reality.

Here's a fun video of Astronaut Chris Hadfield weighing in on a handful of popular science fiction movies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RkhZgRNC1k

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 10544
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by Ann » Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:15 am

Orca wrote:
Fri Jul 17, 2020 11:50 pm
As folks with an interest in astronomy and science in general, I am curious about your thoughts on how science is portrayed in movies, games, and TV shows. Do you get irritated by things like ‘space bombers’ (Star Wars: Episode VII) and ‘red matter’ (Star Trek [Reboot])? Or are you generally able to maintain your suspension of disbelief and just “roll with it?”

Personally I can usually let some pretty large issues go if the characters are well-written, the story is interesting, and there a certain level of internal consistency within the established "rules" of the fictional world. I do find it odd that - considering how hostile space is to humans - directors feel the need to invent elaborate, physics-breaking events to drive a plot. I do appropriate it when a piece of fiction makes at least an attempt to be grounded in reality.

Here's a fun video of Astronaut Chris Hadfield weighing in on a handful of popular science fiction movies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RkhZgRNC1k
Thanks for that link, Orca! Very interesting!

Personally I'm not a great fan of space movies in general. I know I wouldn't want to go to the Moon or Mars, even as a fantasy. They would be terrible places, and what would I want to do there? That in turn means that I can't muster a lot of interest in movies that are set on Moon or Mars. I really believe that The Martian was a good movie, and Chris Hadfield praised it, but I just couldn't muster the time or energy to see it.


I did like Gravity a lot. Actually I loved it. I know, Chris Hadfield shot it to pieces, and I realize that it is as full of holes as a cosmic version of Swiss cheese. But it was absolutely visually stunning and fantastic, and I loved the setting of it off the Earth but close to it, so that you constantly got the panicked feeling of "so near and yet so far!!!". And it was beautifully choreographed, like a magnificent space dance with constant adrenaline kicks.














My favorite space movie of all time is 2001- A Space Odyssey. I was so young when I saw it, 14 years old, and I knew so little about space at the time, and this movie was like the most magnificent revelation. The beauty and splendour of space, along with its unimaginable power and scope - to say that I was bowled over was an understatement.

I can honestly say that 2001- A Space Odyssey was the start of my lifelong fascination with space. I saw the magnificence of space, and that is what I have been looking for in the real Universe ever since, the magnificence and beauty of the cosmos. The Moon doesn't do it for me, sorry, and not Mars, either.

Interestingly, 2001- A Space Odyssey is supposedly about man's first meeting with aliens. Well, I didn't see any aliens there, and my interest in aliens has been lukewarm at best. It would be closer to the truth to say that I'm a hardcore skeptic. I don't mean that I reject the possibility that there may be lots of aliens out there and many exo-civilizations, but I do mean that I'm extremely, extremely skeptical of the idea that we humans might just run into those aliens out there. I don't believe in it for a moment, and any movie that is seriously trying to sell me the idea that we are, particularly in the near future, is not going to find any favour with me.

An idea that I hate in "serious" space movies is the thought that black holes can be "tamed" or "domesticated" to do our bidding and propel us over arbitrary distances in time and space according to our wishes. I actually shudder at the idiocy of this idea, since in reality a black hole couldn't do anything else with us than rip us to shreds. Not to worry, though, because there will be no gravitational ripping to shreds of anything until we actually make it (in ordinary slow space) to the nearest black hole, which is sure to be at the very least dozens of light-years away.

Anyway, that's why I shuddered when I had the plot of Interstellar described to me. That's a movie that I'm not going to see if I can avoid it.

A TV series that I loved was the original Star Trek series, mostly because I just loved Mr Spock. For his sake I accepted all the faster-than-light travel, all the M-class planets that the crew of the Enterprise could just beam down to and walk about on without any protective gear whatsoever, and even all the other extremely human-like aliens, although I were a bit skeptical of those. They didn't have the benefit of Mr Spock's mysterious air.

The Star Trek TV series was just fine, but the Star Trek movies were ponderous. It was like seeing a guy who used to do 30 minute skits trying to be funny for hours, after he had been gone for several years and had started to look old, too.







Then there was Star Wars. I found Luke cute but uninteresting. Leia turned me off when she saw Darth Vader blow her home planet to smithereens and she seemed to react with a, "Oh, how rude!". That scene actually got me thinking of what it would be like to have your home planet - come on, your home planet! - blown to smithereens. It was not as if I had nightmares about the idea, because how could it happen? Yeah, a ginormous asteroid or another rogue planet like Theia, but - no. Still, that scene came close to ruining the movie for me.

In spite of that, the first installment of the Star Wars saga was kind of fun and childlike. I accepted it, even liked it, but I was not a real fan. But after the first installment, the Star Wars movie series became dark and serious in a way that I just couldn't deal with, because I didn't find the characters interesting, and I didn't for a moment believe in the faster-than-light speed or the insane number of aliens or all those various space fights, let alone the Force. In short, I didn't care.


I liked Apollo 13. Didn't love it, but liked it. There is a scene in it that I absolutely love. The astronauts are trying to get control of the Moon landing unit they have evacuated to, and it is kind of spinning, and one of the astronauts say, "Aim for the Earth!". And you see Earth, small and blue, slowly gliding past the window. That scene brought home to me, with such force, the tiny size of the Earth that practically all humans tend to take for granted. Anyway, I say to myself sometimes, "Aim for the Earth!"
















I loved Wall-E. It was a beautifully animated film, extremely good looking, about a most terribly serious situation, the apparent destruction of life on Earth. All that was left was skyscrapers built of garbage and a little robot going about his skyscraper-building job. And then all the people of the Earth had been sent into space, and had become fat and pacified, and Wall-E, along with his girl friend robot Eva, had to save them and save the Earth at the same time. The movie was fun and serious and fun, and yeah! I loved it!

Ann
Color Commentator

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 15141
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by Chris Peterson » Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:43 pm

Orca wrote:
Fri Jul 17, 2020 11:50 pm
As folks with an interest in astronomy and science in general, I am curious about your thoughts on how science is portrayed in movies, games, and TV shows. Do you get irritated by things like ‘space bombers’ (Star Wars: Episode VII) and ‘red matter’ (Star Trek [Reboot])? Or are you generally able to maintain your suspension of disbelief and just “roll with it?”

Personally I can usually let some pretty large issues go if the characters are well-written, the story is interesting, and there a certain level of internal consistency within the established "rules" of the fictional world. I do find it odd that - considering how hostile space is to humans - directors feel the need to invent elaborate, physics-breaking events to drive a plot. I do appropriate it when a piece of fiction makes at least an attempt to be grounded in reality.

Here's a fun video of Astronaut Chris Hadfield weighing in on a handful of popular science fiction movies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RkhZgRNC1k
Movies are sometimes fun, but they're limited. TV is where it's at. And for science, that's The Expanse. Near perfect science (allowing for a fudge or two that would be hard to avoid to make it work for an audience) and near perfect political commentary.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
rstevenson
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Posts: 2612
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Dartmouth, NS, Canada

Re: Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by rstevenson » Sun Jul 19, 2020 1:08 am

I started reading science fiction when I was 10 years old, and that pretty much ruined me for reality. If the author/scriptwriter is good enough, I can accept whatever they throw at me with equanimity. I mean, if you can accept faster than light travel, which is a requirement for any kind of space story outside of our very local environment, then all the rest is easy to accept. But the writer(s) must make the effort to make it sound plausible to some degree at least. Just throwing out a bunch of polyunpronouncable words is not enough.

Rob

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 17244
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by neufer » Sun Jul 19, 2020 4:28 pm

Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 10544
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by Ann » Sun Jul 19, 2020 5:04 pm

rstevenson wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 1:08 am
I started reading science fiction when I was 10 years old, and that pretty much ruined me for reality. If the author/scriptwriter is good enough, I can accept whatever they throw at me with equanimity. I mean, if you can accept faster than light travel, which is a requirement for any kind of space story outside of our very local environment, then all the rest is easy to accept. But the writer(s) must make the effort to make it sound plausible to some degree at least. Just throwing out a bunch of polyunpronouncable words is not enough.

Rob
I get what you mean, sort of. I really enjoyed The Sixth Sense, even though I don't for a minute believe that anyone can "see dead people", let alone that dead people can sort of stay alive to ask the living for help with their problems.

But I'm much more critical of wildly unrealistic sci-fi movies. Diving into a black hole? Coming out the other side, finding oneself dumped on a planet, doing some important/thrilling business there, jumping back into the black hole and getting transported back home sweet home, in one's own time sweet time. Uh-uh. No, not for me.

Yes, I accepted this kind of stuff with Star Star Trek, but Star Trek had Spock, and then the entire concept was like a kid's adventure story with so much fun and games in it. The TV show, I mean. The movies were ponderous, and they were trying to be serious. Bad mistake.

As for Wall-E, the combined sense of wonder and fun is why I loved it. And the splendid animation. And Wall-E was also a kiddie story, so you were allowed to have fun all the time.

That's also why I liked the first installment of Star Wars, because it was (moderately) light-hearted. The rest was just so serious (I gave up after seeing the next two movies).


I find myself being drawn to the outrageous when it comes to sci-fi. I happened to see a part of an old, old Flash Gordon movie once, which was utterly ridiculous but fun just because of that. Of course, Flash Gordon was trying to be serious but failing miserably from our point of view (although I guess it was both racist and sexist, sigh).

And I've seen most of Georges Méliès A Trip to the Moon from 1902. It was fun, it really was!


I find it much easier to put up with the stupidity of old science fiction movies than with that of new ones. That's not to say that I usually enjoy the old 1950s stuff (I don't). But I was incredibly impressed with, and scared out of my pants by, Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

So in short, I have no patience with modern-day sci-fi movies that try to be extremely serious, spout ridiculous pseudo-scientific dialogue and tell the most pretentious stories. They should know better.

Ann
Color Commentator

User avatar
rstevenson
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Posts: 2612
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Dartmouth, NS, Canada

Re: Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by rstevenson » Sun Jul 19, 2020 7:26 pm

Hi Ann,

Some of my favorite science fiction films and TV programs have been very close versions of prize winning science fiction stories. Two come to mind: Harlan Ellison’s novella A Boy and His Dog, a dystopian after-the-bombs-fall kind of story with a shock ending which was made into a full-length movie; and Inconstant Moon, an excellent short story by Larry Niven which became an episode of The Outer Limits on TV. In both cases the story is almost entirely about the people and their reactions to the situation they find themselves in, with only enough of the science fiction element to set the plot in motion. No FTL, no multi-colored aliens, no “red matter”, just good story telling. If you can possibly track down the stories and read them and then find the film and video, you may enjoy them.

Rob

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 15141
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by Chris Peterson » Sun Jul 19, 2020 7:58 pm

rstevenson wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 7:26 pm
Hi Ann,

Some of my favorite science fiction films and TV programs have been very close versions of prize winning science fiction stories. Two come to mind: Harlan Ellison’s novella A Boy and His Dog, a dystopian after-the-bombs-fall kind of story with a shock ending which was made into a full-length movie; and Inconstant Moon, an excellent short story by Larry Niven which became an episode of The Outer Limits on TV. In both cases the story is almost entirely about the people and their reactions to the situation they find themselves in, with only enough of the science fiction element to set the plot in motion. No FTL, no multi-colored aliens, no “red matter”, just good story telling. If you can possibly track down the stories and read them and then find the film and video, you may enjoy them.

Rob
I always liked Inconstant Moon. Didn't know it had been adapted. I don't even know that it's reasonable to call it science fiction. A Boy and His Dog was an amusing movie, although I don't know that I'd include it in my favorites. Maybe I just don't have good taste.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
rstevenson
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Posts: 2612
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Dartmouth, NS, Canada

Re: Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by rstevenson » Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:15 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 7:58 pm
I always liked Inconstant Moon. Didn't know it had been adapted. I don't even know that it's reasonable to call it science fiction. A Boy and His Dog was an amusing movie, although I don't know that I'd include it in my favorites. Maybe I just don't have good taste.
I suppose the only science fiction aspect of Inconstant Moon was the idea that the Sun had “exploded” to some degree. (I won’t reveal specifically what happened so as not to spoil it for any new reader.) After that the story was all about the reaction of a few humans. I saw it again about 5 years ago and it was just as effective as it had been “back in the day.”

I found the ending of the Boy and His Dog story had more of an impact in written form. The movie was played up a bit for dark humor and social commentary. Not sure what I’d think of it if I saw it now. I doubt it has aged well.

Rob

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 15141
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by Chris Peterson » Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:23 pm

rstevenson wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:15 pm
Chris Peterson wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 7:58 pm
I always liked Inconstant Moon. Didn't know it had been adapted. I don't even know that it's reasonable to call it science fiction. A Boy and His Dog was an amusing movie, although I don't know that I'd include it in my favorites. Maybe I just don't have good taste.
I suppose the only science fiction aspect of Inconstant Moon was the idea that the Sun had “exploded” to some degree. (I won’t reveal specifically what happened so as not to spoil it for any new reader.) After that the story was all about the reaction of a few humans. I saw it again about 5 years ago and it was just as effective as it had been “back in the day.”

I found the ending of the Boy and His Dog story had more of an impact in written form. The movie was played up a bit for dark humor and social commentary. Not sure what I’d think of it if I saw it now. I doubt it has aged well.

Rob
If the lockdowns are getting you down, there's always Barbarella or Zardoz! Movies I saw in college around the same time as A Boy and His Dog. And I still like watching the acid trip that is Dune, as bad as it is in so many ways.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
rstevenson
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Posts: 2612
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Dartmouth, NS, Canada

Re: Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by rstevenson » Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:29 pm

I never saw Zardoz, but alas, I did see both the embarrassing Barbarella and the unbearable Dune. I sort of liked the first Dune novel, it had intriguing ideas, but I never made it through the next one.

While I consider 2001 A Space Odyssey to be one of the best sci-fi movies because of its realistic portrayal of a space station and space flight, I’ve tried watching it recently and the wooden acting completely spoils it for me.

And coming back to Ann’s point about being able to watch something that is childishly fun, has anyone else here seen Guardians of the Galaxy? It’s highly implausible and highly entertaining. I particularly love the massive city in space, as well as the gorgeous peaceful planet that looks like the finest south sea island vacation spot money could buy. The actors pull it all off as if they actually knew how to act, and it’s great fun all the way through.

Rob

User avatar
rstevenson
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Posts: 2612
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Dartmouth, NS, Canada

Re: Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by rstevenson » Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:34 pm

I almost forgot to mention my favorite recent sci-fi (ish) movie, Pandora. It’s actually a morality play about the Amazon and similar sites of human mismanagement of the planet, but it’s just plain beautiful to watch. And other than floating mountains (Unobtainium!) and actually getting there quickly (good ol’ FTL again) it’s not full of nonsense. It has plausible life forms (if you accept the planetary consciousness thing) and reasonable behavior by the characters. I highly recommend it.

Rob

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 15141
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by Chris Peterson » Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:33 am

rstevenson wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:34 pm
I almost forgot to mention my favorite recent sci-fi (ish) movie, Pandora. It’s actually a morality play about the Amazon and similar sites of human mismanagement of the planet, but it’s just plain beautiful to watch. And other than floating mountains (Unobtainium!) and actually getting there quickly (good ol’ FTL again) it’s not full of nonsense. It has plausible life forms (if you accept the planetary consciousness thing) and reasonable behavior by the characters. I highly recommend it.

Rob
Guardians of the Galaxy just doesn't do it for me. But in that general category, Galaxy Quest is a gas. Unless you don't like Star Trek or are unfamiliar with it.

Pandora? I think you're talking about Avatar, right?
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
rstevenson
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Posts: 2612
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Dartmouth, NS, Canada

Re: Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by rstevenson » Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:38 am

Oops, yes, Avatar! My brain insists on calling it Pandora. I am not in control of its output.

Rob

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 15141
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by Chris Peterson » Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:40 am

rstevenson wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:38 am
Oops, yes, Avatar! My brain insists on calling it Pandora. I am not in control of its output.

Rob
Not a great movie. Preachy and predictable. But worth watching multiple times for the fantastic visuals.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
bystander
Apathetic Retiree
Posts: 20024
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by bystander » Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:12 am

For pure fun and entertainment, I thoroughly enjoyed the series "The Orville", Seth MacFarlane's spoof of Star Trek and Next Gen.
Know the quiet place within your heart and touch the rainbow of possibility; be
alive to the gentle breeze of communication, and please stop being such a jerk.
— Garrison Keillor

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 15141
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by Chris Peterson » Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:24 am

bystander wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:12 am
For pure fun and entertainment, I thoroughly enjoyed the series "The Orville", Seth MacFarlane's spoof of Star Trek and Next Gen.
The Orville is great, and has themes that run a good deal deeper than the scatological humor on its surface. It's actually more than just a spoof. Another season is coming.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 17244
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by neufer » Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:56 am

My daughter likes Space Force.

Anyone else into this one?
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 10544
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by Ann » Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:15 am

rstevenson wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 7:26 pm
Hi Ann,

Some of my favorite science fiction films and TV programs have been very close versions of prize winning science fiction stories. Two come to mind: Harlan Ellison’s novella A Boy and His Dog, a dystopian after-the-bombs-fall kind of story with a shock ending which was made into a full-length movie; and Inconstant Moon, an excellent short story by Larry Niven which became an episode of The Outer Limits on TV. In both cases the story is almost entirely about the people and their reactions to the situation they find themselves in, with only enough of the science fiction element to set the plot in motion. No FTL, no multi-colored aliens, no “red matter”, just good story telling. If you can possibly track down the stories and read them and then find the film and video, you may enjoy them.

Rob
I read some stories by Harlan Ellison, and they were sad and wrenching but good. So I don't doubt that A Boy and His Dog is good. Don't know if I'll track it down, though.

I read part 1 and part 2 of Ringworld by Larry Niven. I was mildly put off by the fact that hero of the book was a 200-year-old man who had a 20-year-old girl friend. I was also mildly put off by the fact that when he was on this Ringworld, he met large group of people that he had to say hello to by having sex with all of their women. Mildly put off, as I said.

But in the second book, the hero had to stop Ringworld from gyrating out of control by stabilizing it by hitting a part of it with a huge laser (or something). The thing was, he had to fire the laser on the part of Ringworld that was inhabited by the people he had said hello to by having sex with all their women. Firing the laser on them would kill them all. So our hero saved Ringworld by killing all the women that he had previously had sex with.

And what about the 20-year-old girlfriend? He had been separated from her when they landed on Ringworld. After he had saved this world by killing all the women he had said hello to by having sex with them, he then met his girlfriend again. Only she had turned into a monster. So he had to kill her too, and the way I remember it, he used his laser pistol to take her apart piece by piece - a hand there, an arm there, a knee there, an ear there...

I was absolutely shaken by the extreme sexism of this story, so much so that I still shudder slightly when I hear the name Larry Niven. So I won't be making much of an effort to get to see Inconstant Moon.

Ann
Color Commentator

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 10544
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by Ann » Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:21 am

rstevenson wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:29 pm
I never saw Zardoz, but alas, I did see both the embarrassing Barbarella and the unbearable Dune. I sort of liked the first Dune novel, it had intriguing ideas, but I never made it through the next one.

While I consider 2001 A Space Odyssey to be one of the best sci-fi movies because of its realistic portrayal of a space station and space flight, I’ve tried watching it recently and the wooden acting completely spoils it for me.

And coming back to Ann’s point about being able to watch something that is childishly fun, has anyone else here seen Guardians of the Galaxy? It’s highly implausible and highly entertaining. I particularly love the massive city in space, as well as the gorgeous peaceful planet that looks like the finest south sea island vacation spot money could buy. The actors pull it all off as if they actually knew how to act, and it’s great fun all the way through.

Rob
I've seen 2001- A Space Odyssey twice since I first saw it as a 14-year-old. I quite agree with you about the wooden acting. It's the memory of the incredible impact this movie had on me (as well as many stunning visuals) that makes me like it.

I tried reading Dune and fell asleep almost immediately. So I never gave the movie a chance.

Hmm, Guardians of the Galaxy? Highly implausible and entertaining? That sounds like a lot of fun!

Ann
Color Commentator

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 10544
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by Ann » Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:44 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:40 am
rstevenson wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:38 am
Oops, yes, Avatar! My brain insists on calling it Pandora. I am not in control of its output.

Rob
Not a great movie. Preachy and predictable. But worth watching multiple times for the fantastic visuals.
Exactly so.

Ann
Color Commentator

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 15141
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by Chris Peterson » Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:46 am

Ann wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:44 am
Chris Peterson wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:40 am
rstevenson wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:38 am
Oops, yes, Avatar! My brain insists on calling it Pandora. I am not in control of its output.

Rob
Not a great movie. Preachy and predictable. But worth watching multiple times for the fantastic visuals.
Exactly so.

Ann
Not to mention all the blue, eh?
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 15141
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by Chris Peterson » Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:49 am

Ann wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:15 am

I read part 1 and part 2 of Ringworld by Larry Niven. I was mildly put off by the fact that hero of the book was a 200-year-old man who had a 20-year-old girl friend. I was also mildly put off by the fact that when he was on this Ringworld, he met large group of people that he had to say hello to by having sex with all of their women. Mildly put off, as I said.

But in the second book, the hero had to stop Ringworld from gyrating out of control by stabilizing it by hitting a part of it with a huge laser (or something). The thing was, he had to fire the laser on the part of Ringworld that was inhabited by the people he had said hello to by having sex with all their women. Firing the laser on them would kill them all. So our hero saved Ringworld by killing all the women that he had previously had sex with.

And what about the 20-year-old girlfriend? He had been separated from her when they landed on Ringworld. After he had saved this world by killing all the women he had said hello to by having sex with them, he then met his girlfriend again. Only she had turned into a monster. So he had to kill her too, and the way I remember it, he used his laser pistol to take her apart piece by piece - a hand there, an arm there, a knee there, an ear there...

I was absolutely shaken by the extreme sexism of this story, so much so that I still shudder slightly when I hear the name Larry Niven. So I won't be making much of an effort to get to see Inconstant Moon.
Niven's a bit off (sometimes more than a bit). But Inconstant Moon is nothing like most of his stuff. It's short and clever and worth checking out. Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex now... well, that's a different matter. But hilarious.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 9085
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Modesto, CA

Re: Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by geckzilla » Mon Jul 20, 2020 4:40 am

Aside from the aforementioned The Expanse, one of my favorite sci fi TV shows is Altered Carbon. It's kind of far out there as far as science goes, but the social commentary is interesting. I usually don't care much for shows that feature violent fight choreography just for the sake of well, watching people have fights, but I admit I enjoyed it a lot despite that. Plus there's giant glowy singing trees, so that's a plus.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 10544
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Portrayal of Science in Entertainment

Post by Ann » Mon Jul 20, 2020 4:56 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:46 am
Ann wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:44 am
Chris Peterson wrote:
Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:40 am


Not a great movie. Preachy and predictable. But worth watching multiple times for the fantastic visuals.
Exactly so.

Ann
Not to mention all the blue, eh?
Haha! Yes! :D

Ann
Color Commentator