PDA

View Full Version : Why do bad movies even get made?



SkepticJ
2004-Dec-18, 02:05 AM
It puzzles me that $100,000,000 dollars can and is spent to make movies that have gaping plot holes and the "science" is just as bad. How hard would it be for producers and directors to hire good writers(they do exist), and a few people that know half an @ss about geology, physics, biology etc.? If for a few hundred thousand more dollars they could make an action or sci-fi movie that could win awards why oh why aren't they willing to pay it? There's only one SF movie I can think of that I can't rip on because there aren't ANY science flaws, at least none I've noticed. Anyone care to guess the movie I'm talking about? Do you feel the pain
to?


Ye short list of crap science and or logic movies

The Core
ID4
Armaggedon
Deep Impact
The Day After Tomorrow
10.5
Lost in Space
Mission to Mars
Red Planet
The Matrix 1, 2 and 3
Alien 4, actually all of them if you want to get really technical
Star Wars, all of them
Close Encounters of the Third Kind

I really need not go on.

wedgebert
2004-Dec-18, 02:32 AM
Well, here's a little defense about some of those movies:

ID4: Not meant to be a realistic flick. It was a funny action movie and it filled that role nicely.

TDAT: Granted the science was on the "wow that's fast" scale, but give the movie a little credit for the occasional poke that from various characters.

Matrix 1: Good movie all around.

Alien and Aliens: Again, not supposed to be scientifically sound movies, just good action movies involving aliens. These are two sci-fi classics. It's the last 2 (and AvP) that bring shame to the series.

But I believe the reason why they get made is because they make money. The best way to make money is to cater to the lowest common denominator. Look at it this way, I just picked up the gameboy versions of Final Fantasy I & II for the plane ride over Christmas, on the back of the box it says "Basic reading ability is requried to enjoy this game". What does that say about our country?

HerrProfessorDoktor
2004-Dec-18, 02:40 AM
"Basic reading ability is requried to enjoy this game".

But you would have to have basic reading ability to read that statement wouldn't you? Aaaaaah! Does not compute! *boom*

SkepticJ
2004-Dec-18, 02:48 AM
Matrix 1: Good movie all around.

Look at it this way, I just picked up the gameboy versions of Final Fantasy I & II for the plane ride over Christmas, on the back of the box it says "Basic reading ability is requried to enjoy this game". What does that say about our country?

First off I would have enjoyed the Matrix if they would have not disobeyed Entropy, the talk of fate and the blood spitting by the people back in the real world when they die. In my view they could have made an awsome hard SF movie that explored the logical possibilities involved in living in a virtual world. They did do that to an extent in that the fights involved doing things that would be impossible outside of a computer world not bound by physics. Sigh, maybe someday good SF movies will be made.
Good horror, humor, fantasy and other movie genres are made. Only one, or two if you count the recent I Robot SF movies have ever been made. So many people flame this movie for some reason. It's a decent movie in my view and I'm hard on movies.

This does sound sad but it might be so parents know it wouldn't be the best game for their five year old. Either that or the game companies in Japan have read our kid's test scores.

HerrProfessorDoktor
2004-Dec-18, 03:23 AM
I agree with your assessment of "I, Robot." (C'mon, it's nothing like the book, so let's just pretend it doesn't have the same name!) The only piece of egregiously bad science in that movie was the "positronic brain." Why did they have to rip of Treknobabble rather than just keep their mouths shut? #-o

SkepticJ
2004-Dec-18, 03:30 AM
I agree with your assessment of "I, Robot." (C'mon, it's nothing like the book, so let's just pretend it doesn't have the same name!) The only piece of egregiously bad science in that movie was the "positronic brain." Why did they have to rip of Treknobabble rather than just keep their mouths shut? #-o

What are you talking about? It was Asimov himself that "invented" the positronic brain. The problem in the movie is if you inject nanites made of "normal" matter into a brain that has anti particles in it you're going to have a bang. Other than this and the quip from the cop "Well there was this one dude a long time ago." I give it thumbs up.

HerrProfessorDoktor
2004-Dec-18, 03:36 AM
Doh! It's been awhile since I read the books, less time since I've watched Star Trek, so I guess I got my "homages" mixed up.

SciFi Chick
2004-Dec-18, 04:59 AM
Bad movies are made because they make money. People in Hollywood really do think we're dumb, and the fact that they keep making money might make them right.

Technology is changing, and I fully believe we'll see more quality work as a result.

At the same time, there is a limit to how much quality there can be, because there aren't that many smart people making movies.

People who like science are generally scientists. There might be a few that go to Hollywood, but most of them become actors, not writers. :lol:

HerrProfessorDoktor
2004-Dec-18, 05:43 AM
Or, most of them are SFX designers.

Awhile back I was unfortunate enough to catch "Fortress II: Re-entry (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0179183/)" on late night cable. The plot is, basically, that Christopher Lambert is captured and sent to a high-tech prison. Which, he finds out, is really IN SPAAAAACE! in a high Earth orbit.

The movie is utterly ridiculous, containing one scene where he has to get from one section of the prison to another to escape to an Earth-bound shuttle. Unfortunately, the passage is blocked by guards. So, he holds his breath, goes out the airlock and "swims" through vacuum for about a minute with no adverse effects to the airlock on the other side. #-o

However, whenever a shuttle or other ship is shown, they are extremely well designed and well thought-out. It was as if the SFX guys thought they were working on a totally different caliber of movie. The same goes for any of the exterior shots. The light and shadow is perfect for space. The only good contrivance in the movie besides the ship design is that the "hole" they put prisoners in for solitary confinement is a cell with a giant window with no radiation shielding at all. After a few days there Lambert emerges with his face red and peeling. They show occasional outside shots of the window with the Earth and sun spinning behind it and very good lighting that looks superb.

What a waste!

SciFi Chick
2004-Dec-18, 05:46 AM
See my thread in this section entitled "There's Hope!" Then, keep your fingers crossed. :D

SkepticJ
2004-Dec-20, 05:01 AM
The movie is utterly ridiculous, containing one scene where he has to get from one section of the prison to another to escape to an Earth-bound shuttle. Unfortunately, the passage is blocked by guards. So, he holds his breath, goes out the airlock and "swims" through vacuum for about a minute with no adverse effects to the airlock on the other side.

The swimming is bad and so is swimming in air I've seen, but you really could live for a min. outside in a vacuum as long as you're not in the sun but are in shadow. You wouldn't hold your breath though. I'd be like the scene in 2001:ASO but longer. Not totally as bad as it seems. Couldn't one be exposed to vacuum in shadow for as long as they can survive from the lack of oxygen and the build up of CO2? How fast does one radiate heat to a vacuum?

beck0311
2004-Dec-20, 05:13 AM
The movie is utterly ridiculous, containing one scene where he has to get from one section of the prison to another to escape to an Earth-bound shuttle. Unfortunately, the passage is blocked by guards. So, he holds his breath, goes out the airlock and "swims" through vacuum for about a minute with no adverse effects to the airlock on the other side.

The swimming is bad and so is swimming in air I've seen, but you really could live for a min. outside in a vacuum as long as you're not in the sun but are in shadow. You wouldn't hold your breath though. I'd be like the scene in 2001:ASO but longer. Not totally as bad as it seems. Couldn't one be exposed to vacuum in shadow for as long as they can survive from the lack of oxygen and the build up of CO2? How fast does one radiate heat to a vacuum?

What temperature does blood boil at essentially zero pressure?

Edymnion
2004-Dec-20, 05:19 AM
How fast does one radiate heat to a vacuum?Very slowly, as there is no other matter out there to accept the heat from you, its gotta be lost the hard way. It takes hours for even small things to cool, a human body would retain it's heat for quite some time.

Space is not cold. In fact, every movie you ever saw where something froze in space is dead wrong. Liquid suddenly exposed to the vacuum of space would actually boil before it froze from the sudden drop in pressure.

As for the list of movies in the original post, all I can say is... well... really man, relax.
It doesn't HAVE to be perfectly scientific to be a good watch. Star Wars had terrible physics and astronomy, but it wasn't about the science. It was just the backdrop to the story.

Heck, almost all of the ones you mentioned were still fun to watch. I even liked The Core. Sure it sucked where the science was involved. It knew it too. I mean, come on, they named the material the ship's hull was made of "Unobtainium". As in "This stuff doesn't exist, it can't exist, but we need it to actually be able to tell the story, so just live with it and lets move on." Or the guy in the car at the beginning, when the super-sunlight was frying his car, when he should have baked to death from the ambient heat of the light whether he was in the shade or not. I mean, it burned through concrete and steel, but didn't heat the air?

But come on, a lot of those were good movies. They don't have to be accurate, thats why they're sci-fi.

HerrProfessorDoktor
2004-Dec-20, 05:34 AM
Couldn't one be exposed to vacuum in shadow for as long as they can survive from the lack of oxygen and the build up of CO2? How fast does one radiate heat to a vacuum?

Do a search on the board for "vacuum+survive." There are a bunch of threads that discuss the gory details.

Unfortunately, he wasn't in shadow in the movie, and he was literally holding his breath with his cheeks bulging. Had his eyes open too, which is not a good idea. The moisture would boil off pretty quickly.

One issue I haven't seen addressed is "vacuum rose," which I think Greg Bear uses in Moving Mars. It was a bruising of the skin caused by blood being drawn to the surface and capillaries rupturing, turning you into a giant hickey. I don't know if it's legit, but it seems like it could be, especially if only part of you is exposed, causing a pressure differential in that area. Like a suction cup.

You should still be a mess after a minute out there. What got me is that he was completely unscathed. But he is the Hero, so I guess he can take that sort of beating...

SkepticJ
2004-Dec-20, 05:38 AM
You can call me anal if you like but the definition I've read for science fiction a story that has elemnts that will someday be possible with the advancement of science and technology. Example, heavier than air craft were once science fiction. We knew flight was possible because we've watched birds, bats and insects for thousands of years. If Jules Verne would have written about planes it would have been science fiction in his day. He wrote about submarines(technically they already existed but not nearly as advanced as he wrote about) and for about 40 years they were science fiction. Brain dead action movies with shakey foundations do not entertain me. I tollerate fantasy because although not a fan myself I could be accused of being a killjoy if I didn't. Pseudoscientific is a waste. Use fictional magic or real science; why this inbetween stuff? Or if speculative fiction is the goal at leaste have the "science" consistent with itself. Take the aformentioned The Core. Cars melt from solar heat or microwaves...whatever; but said guy inside is just fine. :roll: See what I mean?

Careless
2004-Dec-20, 08:33 AM
the matrix is the only one on this list that really bothered me. Mostly because I'd really hope that every american would get a basic understanding of thermodynamics in their junior high education. Really, it's not complicated. Star wars? that's just fantasy. Plus the end battle of ANH is farrrrrrr stupider by virtue of the tactics used.

archman
2004-Dec-20, 09:40 AM
= Plus the end battle of ANH is farrrrrrr stupider by virtue of the tactics used.
Lucas pretty much ripped off the battle plan used by the brits when they were using those "bouncing bombs" to blow up German-held dams during WW2. It's shameless... Lucas even used the exact same dialogue in his movie that the bomber pilots used. The man has no imagination.

Bawheid
2004-Dec-20, 09:47 AM
= Plus the end battle of ANH is farrrrrrr stupider by virtue of the tactics used.
Lucas pretty much ripped off the battle plan used by the brits when they were using those "bouncing bombs" to blow up German-held dams during WW2. It's shameless... Lucas even used the exact same dialogue in his movie that the bomber pilots used. The man has no imagination.

I hadn't thought of that, but good point. Given the name of Guy Gibson's dog I can't see "The Dam Busters" getting re-made anytime soon though.

Careless
2004-Dec-20, 10:27 AM
= Plus the end battle of ANH is farrrrrrr stupider by virtue of the tactics used.
Lucas pretty much ripped off the battle plan used by the brits when they were using those "bouncing bombs" to blow up German-held dams during WW2. It's shameless... Lucas even used the exact same dialogue in his movie that the bomber pilots used. The man has no imagination.
their battle plan involved not using the numerous fighters flying overhead to cover the bombers making a run?

JonnyWishbone
2004-Dec-20, 10:46 AM
Ah, thank you, Bawheid. At some point, my brain had flipped the dog with the now-unusable name from The Dam Busters to Sink the Bismarck.

Btw, watch The Empire Strikes Back and then watch the 1950's version of Scaramouche with Stewart Granger and Janet Leigh, among others. Lucas cited this film for its sword fights -- and they are awfully familiar. Also quite wonderfully choreographed, if you like sword fights.

Cheers, Jon

Bawheid
2004-Dec-20, 11:20 AM
Ah, thank you, Bawheid. At some point, my brain had flipped the dog with the now-unusable name from The Dam Busters to Sink the Bismarck.

Of course Spielberg will remake it with a USAF crew, a black Guy Gibson and a golden retriever called Blondie. :roll:


Btw, watch The Empire Strikes Back and then watch the 1950's version of Scaramouche with Stewart Granger and Janet Leigh, among others. Lucas cited this film for its sword fights -- and they are awfully familiar. Also quite wonderfully choreographed, if you like sword fights.

Cheers, Jon

I'll watch out for it. Olympic fencing should involve tables, candleabra, staircases etc. rather than back and forward along a length of hall carpet.

mid
2004-Dec-20, 11:37 AM
Ye short list of crap science and or logic movies

Worldwide box office, courtesy of BoxOfficeMojo:

ID4 - $816,969,268
Armaggedon - $553,709,788
The Day After Tomorrow - $542,545,811
The Matrix 1, 2 and 3 -
Star Wars -

Frankly, that answers any and all questions you might ever have as to why a producer might be prepared to make a big-budget SF movie that contains science holes.

(I'll come back and fill in those gaps - BOM is being v. slow right now. They are huge, though)

JonnyWishbone
2004-Dec-20, 11:52 AM
I'll watch out for it. Olympic fencing should involve tables, candleabra, staircases etc. rather than back and forward along a length of hall carpet.

Yeah, they involve an entire opera house in the third and longest battle between Granger and his nemesis (who's played by Mel Ferrer, I think), complete with chandeliers and some fun with curtains and swinging around and jumping and chasing up and down staircases. I think one has to be in a pretty forgiving mood for this film -- Granger isn't the world's most inspiring actor, and there's a lot of Technicolour eye-candy padding in terms of sets and set pieces -- but it's a lot of fun regardless, and bears about the same relation to ESB as Dam Busters does to Star Wars.

Cheers, Jon

captain swoop
2004-Dec-20, 12:08 PM
Timelords can survive in Vacuum.

As for the bombing run at the endof of ANH it's a rip off from '633 Squadron' about Mosquito fighter bombers attacking a German installation at the head of a Norwegian Fjiord. It has the flack on the valley sides and a sudden pull up after releasing the bomb to avoid flying into a cliff face.

(Not to be confused with the similar 'Mosquito Squadron' which was about an attack on a French prison holing resistance fighters.)

And it's a better theme tune than Dam Busters.

Bawheid
2004-Dec-20, 12:33 PM
You're right, 633 it is.

JonnyWishbone
2004-Dec-20, 12:50 PM
Right partially about 633, but there's no need to pick -- Lucas used to cite Dam Busters as one of the inspirations for the final assault, and one of the bits of dialogue mentioned above (it's about towers and gun numbers during the rebel assault...i mean, the RAF assault) is pretty much verbatim from DB to SW.

Cheers, Jon

Bawheid
2004-Dec-20, 04:54 PM
I'll look out for that, I have DB on video somewhere, and ANH on DVD. It explains why Uncle Owen wouldn't let Luke have a pet though. :D

Glom
2004-Dec-20, 05:42 PM
What was the dog's name?

Disinfo Agent
2004-Dec-20, 08:26 PM
Ye short list of crap science and or logic movies

[...] Alien 4, actually all of them if you want to get really technical
Star Wars, all of them
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
What do you feel is crap science and or logic about those movies?


If Jules Verne would have written about planes it would have been science fiction in his day.
He did. See Robur, the Conqueror.

JonnyWishbone
2004-Dec-20, 09:36 PM
What was the dog's name?

The name rhymes with 'Trigger', which is how I believe it was redubbed for the American release, though I can't confirm that as all I've seen is the Canadian broadcast version, which is the same as the British one.

Cheers, Jon

Maksutov
2004-Dec-21, 12:26 AM
Most movies are designed by committees. The higher the budget usually the larger the committee.

Here are two examples of horses designed by committees:

Link One (http://camelphotos.com/GraphicsP7/camels_saddles3.jpg)

Link Two (http://www.ultimateungulate.com/Images/Okapia_johnstoni/O_johnstoni1.jpg)

Any questions?

nomuse
2004-Dec-21, 09:19 AM
Oh, but you see, a camel may look silly to the untrained eye but by the Prophet's Beard, how that thing is engineered! Just as a for instance, long bony legs to lift the mass of the body out of the worst of the heat coming off the sand...and yet when it settles in for the night it folds those same legs under a nice blanket of hair and fat and conserves as much as possible of that self-same heated sand.

Which is sort of my feeling on movies...I think so many properties look fine, run okay, and the typical reply to any plaint about the science is "It's entertainment, dammit -- get a life!" But, yet, a few changes that didn't change the plot, didn't change the visuals, but made the science a little closer to reality might just hop the whole film up a notch. I wonder, sometimes, if part of the draw of National Geographic, Nova, Imax offering, etc. is that (to paraphrase Mark Twain) real life can get away with stuff no design team would dare imagine. Particularly when you are dealing with a feature film, for every location scout who points out just how amazing the real locals and their costumes and crafts are, there is some much larger producer's assistant who says "The audience will never get it. Let's just rip off Lord of the Rings again."

skwirlinator
2004-Dec-21, 10:20 AM
Draw a fuzzy circle just off center on a piece of white paper, In the circle write the symbol for pie and color the symbol. On one edge draw an outline of your favorite image and color it your least favorite color. Now fold the paper 6 times and unfold it. Now present this to every person you ever met.
Observe their reaction. Present it to people you have never met. Observe their reaction.
Now imagine some people copied you and some imitated you and some did the same but different. What would you have?
I have a 5" diameter spiked ball colored orange near the center top of a piece of white paper that has a bunch of random folds near the bottom left corner. There's a blue scribble thing in the center of the ball that looks like a piece of pie. A drab green christmas tree is drawn on the right center of the paper.

Is it a bad drawing?
Does everyone think it's a bad drawing?
Is yours the same as mine?
Is yours a good drawing?

I guess my answer to this topic would be:

They get made because not everyone thinks they are bad. They become popular because more people think they are good that those who feel they are bad. To me, BAD movies don't exist. I just don't like some of them.

captain swoop
2004-Dec-21, 11:32 AM
They get made because not everyone thinks they are bad. They become popular because more people think they are good that those who feel they are bad. To me, BAD movies don't exist. I just don't like some of them.

I disagree, some films are made be people who know they are bad and know they could do better. At the end of the day they want the most profit from a film so it will be aimed at the biggest audience with the most cash to spend. Hollywood is business, it's an industry, it was founded to make short throwaways and churned them out by the thousands. At heart it's still the same.

Watch the films you think are good and avoid the bad ones.

Disinfo Agent
2004-Dec-21, 01:03 PM
Most movies are designed by committees. The higher the budget usually the larger the committee.

Here are two examples of horses designed by committees:

Link One (http://camelphotos.com/GraphicsP7/camels_saddles3.jpg)

Link Two (http://www.ultimateungulate.com/Images/Okapia_johnstoni/O_johnstoni1.jpg)

Any questions?
Yes.
Can you show me a movie that was not designed by a committee? :P

Bawheid
2004-Dec-21, 02:05 PM
El Mariachi. Clerks. Can't think of a Hollywood film though.

Glom
2004-Dec-21, 02:09 PM
Doug Naylor was saying on the 'Dwarfing USA' feature on the Red Dwarf V DVD that when they had got the pilot going, he heard a bunch of producers celebrating, "We're going to be rich! We're going to be so so rich!" and he found it sickening. I think there are decent writers out there want to make good films, but the producers are the ones with the money.

Makgraf
2004-Dec-21, 05:52 PM
To me, BAD movies don't exist. I just don't like some of them.
Obviously, you've never seen Battlefield: Earth. :)

skwirlinator
2004-Dec-21, 07:55 PM
My advice to you is to Burn every copy of that movie. I read the book, go read the book, burn the movie, I'd watch it again though....(I am so sick!)

Van Rijn
2004-Dec-21, 10:15 PM
No thanks. I try to avoid all things Hubbard related. Anyway, from reviews of the book, it sounded pretty bad. I have to admit I did finally see the movie on cable though - terrible. Science, plot, acting, EVERYTHING. I put it right up (or down?) there with "Waterworld" and the "Time Machine" remake. Ugh.

skwirlinator
2004-Dec-21, 10:19 PM
They're remaking Forbidden Planet too....This will likely be a disaster-

Dark Helmet
2004-Dec-21, 11:34 PM
Ypu hire a french director who speaks no english to adapt a film in english. And remove half of the character and completly alter the ending at the same time.

That describes the 1966 adaptation of Fahrenheit 451. The Frank Darabont (Shawshank Redemption) re-adptation should be a lot better.

Krel
2004-Dec-22, 02:08 PM
I think there are decent writers out there want to make good films, but the producers are the ones with the money.

Have you ever read William Goldman's take on producers? Here you have the person that finds a project. Gets the funding. Hires the writer, director, actors, ect.. Lives with the directors demands during filming (but I NEED another $100,000,000.00!). Works with the editor after principle filming. Deals with the studio, and it's demands. Works with the distributors. After all this, what does he see on the screen? A (insert directors name here) movie. :lol:

Also the director and stars usually make more money than the producer.

They have been talking about a FP remake for years. I really hope that it fails again, FP is my favorite sf movie.

David.

SkepticJ
2004-Dec-22, 03:49 PM
Ye short list of crap science and or logic movies

[...] Alien 4, actually all of them if you want to get really technical
Star Wars, all of them
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
What do you feel is crap science and or logic about those movies?

Alien 4: Clone of Ripley has personality and memories of her dead DNA donor. Acid blood, yeah it won't damage veins.

Star Wars: The asinine battles where the Rebels don't take out the gun turrets before sending in the bombers for the attack run on the reactor. The Imperials created a shaft straight to the reactor, couldn't they put right angle bends in it? How about building it like they did in Jedi? No one uses nukes? :roll: It's space, it doesn't hurt you years down the road if you do. The "elite" Storm Troopers and every one else in Star Wars can shoot a target about as well as a blind man. Sound in space. You say that's in every movie. Doesn't make it right. Sub light speed lasers, one might rationalise this that they aren't lasers but instead plasma bolts. If so slow though why do they use them? Jedi can block them they are so slow. Why not shoot a piece of a heavy metal like we earth humans do? I'd like to see a Jedi block a Mach 2 lead rifle slug. I could go on and on if wasting server space is the goal.

Humaniod aliens, that's pretty much it. It's a good movie other than that and the beating skepticism takes in it.

Don't get me started on the Terminator movies. :)

Dark Helmet
2004-Dec-22, 05:19 PM
Halo and To a Lesser extent Halo 2. both have EXCELLENT science and phsyics in them.

The lasers is the Halo universe are actually go a c and most weapons are still ballistic. And the most powerful wepon is the MAC(Mageniticly Accellerated Cannon) cannon.

But the Halo universe acually takes place in one that has laws of physics.

And in the first game, there is no sound in space during the cutscenes.

Disinfo Agent
2004-Dec-22, 05:23 PM
Your other criticisms are pertinent, SkepticJ, but about these:


No one uses nukes? :roll: It's space, it doesn't hurt you years down the road if you do.
Perhaps they have weaponry more powerful - or more precise - than nukes.


The "elite" Storm Troopers and every one else in Star Wars can shoot a target about as well as a blind man.
Otherwise the good guys could never win... :)

SkepticJ
2004-Dec-22, 05:42 PM
Your other criticisms are pertinent, SkepticJ, but about these:


No one uses nukes? :roll: It's space, it doesn't hurt you years down the road if you do.
Perhaps they have weaponry more powerful - or more precise - than nukes.


The "elite" Storm Troopers and every one else in Star Wars can shoot a target about as well as a blind man.
Otherwise the good guys could never win... :)


If they do exist you never see them used. It's all proton torpedos and blasters. If you have the technology to create 2km long starships that travel at many times the value of c through another dimention(hyperspace) then wouldn't you also have the technology to make savant level guided weapons? A nuclear fusion warhead with thrusters all over it, or maybe if it's possible to make inertialess thrusters that impact the warhead into whatever you want to within cm.


But the Rebels drop like flies being hit also. :x

SkepticJ
2004-Dec-22, 08:16 PM
Halo and To a Lesser extent Halo 2. both have EXCELLENT science and phsyics in them.

The lasers is the Halo universe are actually go a c and most weapons are still ballistic. And the most powerful wepon is the MAC(Mageniticly Accellerated Cannon) cannon.

But the Halo universe acually takes place in one that has laws of physics.

And in the first game, there is no sound in space during the cutscenes.


I knew it was a cool game. I didn't notice those aspects though. Is there sound in the second one or just nothing happens in space?

One thing that bothered me was the handleing of the gun truck. That steering didn't seem realistic to me. What kind of military would put up with a conveyance that slides around so much?

The Supreme Canuck
2004-Dec-22, 08:50 PM
Well it's a scout vehicle, so I suppose speed was the prime consideration. One would think that handling would be important too, but it's fun either way. :P

AndrewGPaul
2004-Dec-22, 10:32 PM
Halo and To a Lesser extent Halo 2. both have EXCELLENT science and phsyics in them.

The lasers is the Halo universe are actually go a c and most weapons are still ballistic. And the most powerful wepon is the MAC(Mageniticly Accellerated Cannon) cannon.

But the Halo universe acually takes place in one that has laws of physics.

And in the first game, there is no sound in space during the cutscenes.


I knew it was a cool game. I didn't notice those aspects though. Is there sound in the second one or just nothing happens in space?

The first level in Halo 2 has a section where you fight in space. there's no 'external' sounds (enemies, gunfire, etc), and the sound of your own weapon is muffled, as if the vibration is being transmitted through your armour :)

Careless
2004-Dec-22, 10:35 PM
Your other criticisms are pertinent, SkepticJ, but about these:


No one uses nukes? :roll: It's space, it doesn't hurt you years down the road if you do.
Perhaps they have weaponry more powerful - or more precise - than nukes.


The "elite" Storm Troopers and every one else in Star Wars can shoot a target about as well as a blind man.
Otherwise the good guys could never win... :)


If they do exist you never see them used. It's all proton torpedos and blasters. If you have the technology to create 2km long starships that travel at many times the value of c through another dimention(hyperspace) then wouldn't you also have the technology to make savant level guided weapons? A nuclear fusion warhead with thrusters all over it, or maybe if it's possible to make inertialess thrusters that impact the warhead into whatever you want to within cm.


But the Rebels drop like flies being hit also. :x
Well, if you want to look at stardestroyer.net, A) they do use nuclear weapons and B) turbolasers and proton torpedoes are far more powerful. And I'd call a proton torpedo that does a 72,000 g turn to hit a man-sized target an example of some pretty incredible guidance technology.
But this is fantasy. the technology doesn't have to make sense. that said, that's not an excuse for the attack itself not making sense.
edit: oh, just checked, apparently proton torpedoes are some form of nuke.

AndrewGPaul
2004-Dec-22, 10:37 PM
Sub light speed lasers, one might rationalise this that they aren't lasers but instead plasma bolts. If so slow though why do they use them? Jedi can block them they are so slow. Why not shoot a piece of a heavy metal like we earth humans do? I'd like to see a Jedi block a Mach 2 lead rifle slug. I could go on and on if wasting server space is the goal.

You said it yourself; if it's slower than c, it isn't a laser. Especially since the beam emits radiation in directions other than along the beam. The Death Star 'superlaser' ignition beams meet at the focus of the emitter dish, and combine.

As for Luke deflecting blaster shots, I think that's down to Jedi prescience; he knows where the bolt will be, and places his 'saber in its path. Presumably, he can do the same thing against a rifle bullet (although the higher RoF might be a problem).

In any case, if you check out StarDestroyer.net (http://www.stardestroyer.net) and The Star Wars Technical Commentaries (http://theforce.net/swtc/index.html), there's evidence that the starship weapons are comfortably more destructive than nuclear explosions, anyway :)

mid
2004-Dec-23, 09:47 AM
As for Luke deflecting blaster shots, I think that's down to Jedi prescience; he knows where the bolt will be, and places his 'saber in its path. Presumably, he can do the same thing against a rifle bullet (although the higher RoF might be a problem).

Yes - Jedi don't just have good reactions, they actually see a short bit into the future and anticipate the shot. It's mentioned in Episode 1 that is how Anakin is capable of flying a race pod, when normally the reaction speeds required rule out the participation of humans.

Star Wars 'lasers' are plasma discharge devices, I think - there is a whole load of gumph somewhere about using electrical weapons rather than hot lead due to the problems shooting in space would cause with your pressure walls.

Dark Helmet
2004-Dec-23, 06:42 PM
Halo and To a Lesser extent Halo 2. both have EXCELLENT science and phsyics in them.

The lasers is the Halo universe are actually go a c and most weapons are still ballistic. And the most powerful wepon is the MAC(Mageniticly Accellerated Cannon) cannon.

But the Halo universe acually takes place in one that has laws of physics.

And in the first game, there is no sound in space during the cutscenes.


I knew it was a cool game. I didn't notice those aspects though. Is there sound in the second one or just nothing happens in space?

The first level in Halo 2 has a section where you fight in space. there's no 'external' sounds (enemies, gunfire, etc), and the sound of your own weapon is muffled, as if the vibration is being transmitted through your armour :)

In the second one the sound is muffled as the parent poster said.

BUT there is dound in the cut-scenes that are in space on that level.

SkepticJ
2004-Dec-25, 08:54 PM
I'd call a proton torpedo that does a 72,000 g turn to hit a man-sized target an example of some pretty incredible guidance technology.

Then why don't they shoot these at the TIEs? What is the point of plasma bolt blasters when one can shoot super smart missles? Why don't they take out the blaster turrets with proton torpedos long before they even get to the Death Star? I'm sorry but illogic like this just bugs me.

You said it yourself; if it's slower than c, it isn't a laser. Especially since the beam emits radiation in directions other than along the beam. The Death Star 'superlaser' ignition beams meet at the focus of the emitter dish, and combine.-AndrewGPaul

Except they are referred to as lasers in the movies. Laser: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation

So they are sub light beams of photons. If you wish to say "laser" doesn't mean the same thing as what laser does to Earth humans then what other words in Star Wars don't mean the same thing? Perhaps "star" doesn't mean a star.

Van Rijn
2004-Dec-25, 10:02 PM
Well, we know "parsec" in Star Wars isn't the same as our "parsec" and that people don't need pressure suits on an asteroid ...

Don't take Star Wars seriously. It is fantasy, after all, dressed up as science fiction. Magic swords, good and evil wizards, mystical forces, golums ... all dressed up with different words. Great fun if you don't look too closely.

Unfortunately, I have to admit I just can't get worked up about the new set of Star Wars movies. With CGI, Lucas has let things get completely out of hand. It just isn't enjoyable for me anymore.

SkepticJ
2004-Dec-25, 10:11 PM
and that people don't need pressure suits on an asteroid ...

Well you don't, all you'd need in an asteriod cave would be an oxygen mask. Now outside in space you'd need something that would reflect radiation from the local star to keep from being cooked. People don't blow up or freeze dry like they do in the movies. People were exposed to vacuum by the Air Force back in the Fifties. No ill effects. I must correct this error wherever I go because I had it wrong for so many years. Superman away! 8)

Van Rijn
2004-Dec-25, 11:21 PM
and that people don't need pressure suits on an asteroid ...

Well you don't, all you'd need in an asteriod cave would be an oxygen mask. Now outside in space you'd need something that would reflect radiation from the local star to keep from being cooked. People don't blow up or freeze dry like they do in the movies. People were exposed to vacuum by the Air Force back in the Fifties. No ill effects. I must correct this error wherever I go because I had it wrong for so many years. Superman away! 8)

Exploding is one thing. Survival is another. No, you won't explode in a vacuum, but if unprotected you can only remain conscious for 15-20 seconds. It would be extremely dangerous (and futile) to attempt to hold your breath, and an oxygen mask would be out of the question. Brain damage will begin within a minute or two. You would need some form of pressure suit. For the body this pressure could be applied mechanically using a "skinsuit" design, but breathing requires something more than that.

For example from:

http://traveller.mu.org/house/space.html


At NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center (now renamed Johnson Space Center) we had a test subject accidentally exposed to a near vacuum (less than 1 psi) in an incident involving a leaking space suit in a vacuum chamber back in '65. He remained concious for about 14 seconds, which is about the time it takes for O2 deprived blood to go from the lungs to the brain. The suit probably did not reach a hard vacuum, and we began repressurizing the chamber within 15 seconds. The subject regained conciousness at around 15,000 feet equivalent altitude. The subject later reported that he could feel and hear the air leaking out, and his last concious memory was of the water on his tongue beginning to boil.

(bolding added for emphasis) Under controlled conditions, for a very short time, if the person is in good health, they probably won't suffer many ill effects.

Disinfo Agent
2004-Dec-27, 12:54 PM
And what about the cold? :o

We can only assume the asteroid was large enough to hold an atmosphere, but even that sounds unbelievable. I love ESB, but that's one of the silliest scenes in Star Wars ever, especially since it wouldn't take much to do it right: just have Han and Leia wear some spacesuits!

SkepticJ
2004-Dec-27, 08:34 PM
And what about the cold? :o

You only lose heat to a vacuum by radiating it away. It would take you hours to cool off after you've died from lack of oxygen. If you had these in your blood you could stay outside a spacecraft for hours playing around.--> http://www.foresight.org/Nanomedicine/Respirocytes1.html#Sec1

SkepticJ
2004-Dec-27, 08:41 PM
(bolding added for emphasis) Under controlled conditions, for a very short time, if the person is in good health, they probably won't suffer many ill effects.

I fail to see the added effect a hard vacuum would have that 1psi wouldn't.
sure the water in your mouth would boil and the fluid on the surface of the eyes, but so what?

Disinfo Agent
2004-Dec-27, 08:45 PM
You only lose heat to a vacuum by radiating it away. It would take you hours to cool off after you've died from lack of oxygen. If you had these in your blood you could stay outside a spacecraft for hours playing around.
But they had oxygen masks, and the asteroid might not be a perfect vacuum. Besides, wouldn't they lose heat to the rock they were stepping on?

SkepticJ
2004-Dec-27, 09:02 PM
Besides, wouldn't they lose heat to the rock they were stepping on?

Good point, they are wearing rubber bottom shoes though. Note I wasn't apologizing for Star Wars. Apologetics make me sick. There is some gas in the "cave" in the asteriod. Water vapor or something.

Van Rijn
2004-Dec-27, 09:47 PM
I fail to see the added effect a hard vacuum would have that 1psi wouldn't.
sure the water in your mouth would boil and the fluid on the surface of the eyes, but so what?

? I don't understand your question. The point is that it isn't clear just how low the pressure was for the fellow in the test, but it hadn't reached a hard vacuum yet. So, that would likely be even worse. But the point is clear: You can't function for more than a few seconds in a vacuum. You will die quickly, you cannot use an oxygen mask.


ood point, they are wearing rubber bottom shoes though. Note I wasn't apologizing for Star Wars. Apologetics make me sick. There is some gas in the "cave" in the asteriod. Water vapor or something.

I didn't see any airlock.

SkepticJ
2004-Dec-27, 10:01 PM
I didn't see any airlock.

That's because there wasn't one. You've seen the movie haven't you? They would loose body heat to the water vapor in the space slug's gut.(that fog you see) If the inside was cold though there wouldn't be fog, it'd be tiny ice crystals, and I think they'd settle down onto the "cave" floor because the weak gravity of the asteriod would pull them down. There isn't an atmosphere for the ice crystals to be suspended in. Now we're getting technical; what fun. 8) :D

Van Rijn
2004-Dec-28, 07:45 AM
I didn't see any airlock.

That's because there wasn't one.


Exactly. No airlock means there is nothing to hold onto an atmosphere. With no atmosphere, pressure suits are required.


There isn't an atmosphere for the ice crystals to be suspended in. Now we're getting technical; what fun. 8) :D

And you said it yourself ...

Anyway, I think I've wandered off the original point plenty far enough: There is plenty of silliness in Star Wars, so there is no point in arguing about technical details (such as what a "laser" is supposed to be). Just enjoy it for what it is: Fantasy wrapped in a thin science fiction shell.

Gillianren
2005-Jan-10, 03:31 AM
actual true movie development story:

someone, at some point, bought the rights to Terry Pratchett's Mort. (for those of you who haven't read it [you should], it's about a kid who becomes Death's apprentice.) and they said to Terry Pratchett at one point, "so, we love the story, but can you take out the Death part?"

and he said, "what?"

and they said, "we love your story; we think it's great. we just don't think the whole thing with the skeleton will sell in the US."

and he said, "have you read the book?"

the option, gods be praised, ran out. the movie was never made. but that, I suspect, has more than a little to do w/why bad science ends up in movies. many of the decision makers just aren't that bright.

admission time: I watch at least a little tiny bit of Armageddon whenever it's on FX or whatever. but that's only because my cousin's kid plays the little kid. I wish he'd be in better movies. he was in Stephen King's Storm of the Century, too.

A Thousand Pardons
2005-Jan-10, 09:19 AM
admission time: I watch at least a little tiny bit of Armageddon whenever it's on FX or whatever. but that's only because my cousin's kid plays the little kid. I wish he'd be in better movies. he was in Stephen King's Storm of the Century, too.
what was wrong with Seabisquit (http://imdb.com/name/nm0160553/)? (I haven't watched the movie)

Laurie
2005-Jan-11, 09:03 AM
Getting back to "Scaramouche" really quick. I read Stewart Grainger's autobiography some time back where he spoke about that particular fight. It was done in an actual theater because of the artdesign. However, the chair seats folded up......he nearly broke a leg during the filming of the sequence while stepping wrong on one. Mel Ferrer was an indifferent swordsman and sometimes did not pay good enough attention to the choreography. Grainger did take his seriously and that sequence had to be shot several times.

But for the longest time, that scene was the longest Hollywood swordfighting sequence made.

Getting back to this thread's subject, though. Yes, bad science fiction can be entertaining and once in a while, information. Or give you something to think about and go learn what is REALLY right. With most of these, I just put aside my brain and enjoy the ride.

My personal passion for History and Science/Science Fiction came from watching "Land of the Pharoahs" and "Forbidden Planet" when they first came out in the 1950s. Just how many bad science fiction films captured the imagination of a young viewer to go further will be never known. But I just bet a few did.

Gillianren
2005-Jan-12, 12:56 AM
what was wrong with Seabisquit (http://imdb.com/name/nm0160553/)? (I haven't watched the movie)

wow. you looked up who my cousin's kid is. I'm impressed, yet vaguely alarmed.

um . . . I don't know what's wrong w/Seabiscuit; I haven't watched it yet. I stopped renting Dyllan's movies in new release after Storm of the Century. (sigh . . . and I like Stephen King.)

A Thousand Pardons
2005-Jan-12, 09:34 AM
There's only 212 actors with second cousins in Olympia WA :)

Sock Munkey
2005-Jan-12, 01:52 PM
What bugs me even more than the bad science itself is the seeming laziness and/or stupidity of the people involved and that in so many cases they could have done just as well or better by getting the science RIGHT.

SeanF
2005-Jan-12, 02:41 PM
There's only 212 actors with second cousins in Olympia WA :)
Assuming the cousin in question is a first cousin, the kid would be a first cousin once removed, not a second cousin. :)

The cousin in question would have to be a first cousin once removed to begin with in order for the cousin's kid to be a second cousin.

Cousin, cousin, cousin. Is that spelled right? It's lost all meaning and become just a sequence of letters after typing this post . . . #-o

A Thousand Pardons
2005-Jan-12, 07:49 PM
Assuming the cousin in question is a first cousin, the kid would be a first cousin once removed, not a second cousin. :)
Depends upon who you use as an authority. My Ame.Her.Dic lists only "The child of one's first cousin," whereas dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=second%20cousin) lists both definitions. There's a sig on the BABB that says it's only the other definition.

Me, I was deliberately ambiguous. :)

Tensor
2005-Jan-12, 08:00 PM
Me, I was deliberately ambiguous. :)

When did you start doing that? :wink:

SeanF
2005-Jan-12, 08:03 PM
Assuming the cousin in question is a first cousin, the kid would be a first cousin once removed, not a second cousin. :)
Depends upon who you use as an authority. My Ame.Her.Dic lists only "The child of one's first cousin," whereas dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=second%20cousin) lists both definitions.
Interestingly enough, dictionary.com credits both those definitions as coming from the Ame.Her.Dic., and the one you used is the second one. :-?

It doesn't list it the other way, though - if the child of one's first cousin is a second cousin, then so should be the first cousin of one's parent, no? If you're my second cousin, aren't I yours?


There's a sig on the BABB that says it's only the other definition.
Really? Whose?


Me, I was deliberately ambiguous. :)
You? Deliberately ambiguous? No way! :)

A Thousand Pardons
2005-Jan-12, 08:10 PM
when we were hatched!

Gillianren
2005-Jan-13, 05:13 AM
to my understanding, since Danny is my first cousin, his son Dyllan is my first cousin once removed. however, my grandfather's sister's grandchildren are my second cousins. I have no idea what that makes her kids.

and here I assumed you'd gone on IMDB and looked up both Armageddon and Storm of the Century and cross-referenced, or some such. I don't even want to know how you found out what actors had cousins of any sort in Olympia. or maybe I do.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Jan-13, 05:24 AM
to my understanding, since Danny is my first cousin, his son Dyllan is my first cousin once removed. however, my grandfather's sister's grandchildren are my second cousins. I have no idea what that makes her kids.

and here I assumed you'd gone on IMDB and looked up both Armageddon and Storm of the Century and cross-referenced, or some such. I don't even want to know how you found out what actors had cousins of any sort in Olympia. or maybe I do.

Second Cousins, Once Removed.

As long as I'm on the Subject, my Third Cousin, Once Removed, was Someone Famous; Anyone Remember, Who that is?

SeanF
2005-Jan-13, 02:48 PM
to my understanding, since Danny is my first cousin, his son Dyllan is my first cousin once removed. however, my grandfather's sister's grandchildren are my second cousins. I have no idea what that makes her kids.
Your grandfather's sister's children would be your parent's first cousins, so they would be your first cousins once removed.

You grandfather's sister's grandchildren's children (::pause for breath::) would be your second cousins once removed.

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Maksutov
2005-Jan-13, 02:58 PM
to my understanding, since Danny is my first cousin, his son Dyllan is my first cousin once removed. however, my grandfather's sister's grandchildren are my second cousins. I have no idea what that makes her kids.

and here I assumed you'd gone on IMDB and looked up both Armageddon and Storm of the Century and cross-referenced, or some such. I don't even want to know how you found out what actors had cousins of any sort in Olympia. or maybe I do.

Second Cousins, Once Removed.

As long as I'm on the Subject, my Third Cousin, Once Removed, was Someone Famous; Anyone Remember, Who that is?
Your famous third cousin, once removed, you should be so lucky! Oy, how could we forget such an important person? For shame, for shame!

Sorry, as they say in the State of Maine, that's enough to give you a bad case of the trots, ski through it!

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Jan-13, 03:48 PM
to my understanding, since Danny is my first cousin, his son Dyllan is my first cousin once removed. however, my grandfather's sister's grandchildren are my second cousins. I have no idea what that makes her kids.

and here I assumed you'd gone on IMDB and looked up both Armageddon and Storm of the Century and cross-referenced, or some such. I don't even want to know how you found out what actors had cousins of any sort in Olympia. or maybe I do.

Second Cousins, Once Removed.

As long as I'm on the Subject, my Third Cousin, Once Removed, was Someone Famous; Anyone Remember, Who that is?
Your famous third cousin, once removed, you should be so lucky! Oy, how could we forget such an important person? For shame, for shame!

Sorry, as they say in the State of Maine, that's enough to give you a bad case of the trots, ski through it!

Funny ...

:lol:

Just for the Record, though: Lev Davydovich Bronstein, a.k.a. Leon Trotsky.

BTW, Cute Pun, on his Name ...

A Thousand Pardons
2005-Jan-13, 08:10 PM
You? Deliberately ambiguous?
Sure, because I was aware of both (conflicting) definitions. In that case, what other way is there to be?

Careless
2005-Jan-13, 09:27 PM
I'd call a proton torpedo that does a 72,000 g turn to hit a man-sized target an example of some pretty incredible guidance technology.

Then why don't they shoot these at the TIEs? What is the point of plasma bolt blasters when one can shoot super smart missles? Why don't they take out the blaster turrets with proton torpedos long before they even get to the Death Star? I'm sorry but illogic like this just bugs me.

You said it yourself; if it's slower than c, it isn't a laser. Especially since the beam emits radiation in directions other than along the beam. The Death Star 'superlaser' ignition beams meet at the focus of the emitter dish, and combine.-AndrewGPaul

Except they are referred to as lasers in the movies. Laser: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation

So they are sub light beams of photons. If you wish to say "laser" doesn't mean the same thing as what laser does to Earth humans then what other words in Star Wars don't mean the same thing? Perhaps "star" doesn't mean a star.
Answer: the point of "lasers" in this situation is that they are far more powerful than your nuclear weapons. and, while your nukes are quite maneuverable, their guidance systems are retarded At least, that's my best guess.

tjm220
2005-Jan-13, 09:59 PM
I'd call a proton torpedo that does a 72,000 g turn to hit a man-sized target an example of some pretty incredible guidance technology.

Then why don't they shoot these at the TIEs? What is the point of plasma bolt blasters when one can shoot super smart missles? Why don't they take out the blaster turrets with proton torpedos long before they even get to the Death Star? I'm sorry but illogic like this just bugs me.

You said it yourself; if it's slower than c, it isn't a laser. Especially since the beam emits radiation in directions other than along the beam. The Death Star 'superlaser' ignition beams meet at the focus of the emitter dish, and combine.-AndrewGPaul

Except they are referred to as lasers in the movies. Laser: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation

So they are sub light beams of photons. If you wish to say "laser" doesn't mean the same thing as what laser does to Earth humans then what other words in Star Wars don't mean the same thing? Perhaps "star" doesn't mean a star.
Answer: the point of "lasers" in this situation is that they are far more powerful than your nuclear weapons. and, while your nukes are quite maneuverable, their guidance systems are retarded At least, that's my best guess.

I suppose all "rifles" in the various sci-fi universes are just hollow metal tubes that impart spin to chemically propelled metal slugs. In-universe explanation - rifle, laser etc are just antiquated terms whose origins are probably lost and are only casually related to the objects associated?