PDA

View Full Version : The absolute worst movies with bad astronomy! (spoilers aler



g99
2002-Jul-11, 06:20 PM
I have just seen THE absolute worst movie that had the characters goping into space!!! SUPERMAN 4!!! Come on. They had superman and nuclear man going into sopcae without any protection. Talking!!! Brathing!!! and fighting about like there is not problem at all.
While you could say, "Hey G99 they are superpoeple!! they can do stuff that we can't" Well i will say "shut up and listen to my incredable intelegence and wisdom!!!" At the begining of the movie, They show russian astronaughts in SPACE SUITS stuck in a space station that is about to be hit by a large sattelite traveling at a very large rate of speed towards them. There is nuthing wrong with this, this is good, but somehow later they forget the whole, no air in space thing. At the end of the movie (Spoilers Alert!!) Nucler man kidnaps Lois Lane and travels into space with her, and she is wearing no protection!! Also she is screaming the whole way, even in space. He tavels to the moon with her in about a minute, (while he takes several minutes to travel the with of a city, i don't understand that) and then superman, also without protection, saves her and takes her back to earth unscaved. They are not even affected by travel back into the atmosphere. WHY DO MOVIES HAVE TO BE SO BAD!!

Has anyone seen other REALLY BAD ASTORONMY in movies? Not just something like a wrong colour of a star, something really bad.

SpacedOut
2002-Jul-11, 06:46 PM
I only have one thing to say - Armageddon.

Aodoi
2002-Jul-11, 09:32 PM
http://www.jabootu.com/s4.htm

I think this link pretty well covers why Superman 4 was so bad.

Matherly
2002-Jul-12, 04:41 PM
One of the things I loved about the Superman cartoon was that thy made the Man of Steel wear a breathing apperatus (or was it a full suit? Dang, can't remember) when he went into space [i]sans[/s] ship.

Of course, Lobo didn't wear any protective gear, but I'm willing to accept that mayhaps Lobo didn't need air.

g99
2002-Jul-12, 05:09 PM
On 2002-07-12 12:41, Matherly wrote:
One of the things I loved about the Superman cartoon was that thy made the Man of Steel wear a breathing apperatus (or was it a full suit? Dang, can't remember) when he went into space [i]sans[/s] ship.

Of course, Lobo didn't wear any protective gear, but I'm willing to accept that mayhaps Lobo didn't need air.



I remmeber the episode you are talking about. That cartoon was very good and he was wearing a fill space suit in the begining and after i think he was just wearing a mask over his nise (I think). But later on near the end of the cartoon series [ /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif ] He fights the other two last remaining kryptonians and he is at one point flung into space near a black hole (whick was somewhat good in its portrayal, for a cartoon) And you see him clutching his neck, suggesting he can't breath, and final;ly he gets into a space ship adn turns on the air, and you see him gasping for air. GOOD one Matherly!

jaydeehess
2002-Jul-13, 03:31 AM
I only have one thing to say - Armageddon.

I have to agree. It is almost as if they asked physicists and astronomers to list the most god awful mistakes that the screenwriters could make and then implemented all of them.

The story itself stands as a guide on what not to do if an asteroid is coming this way.

Donnie B.
2002-Jul-13, 02:13 PM
On 2002-07-12 23:31, jaydeehess wrote:
I only have one thing to say - Armageddon.

I have to agree. It is almost as if they asked physicists and astronomers to list the most god awful mistakes that the screenwriters could make and then implemented all of them.

The story itself stands as a guide on what not to do if an asteroid is coming this way.


Not to mention the fact that it's just a plain old Bad Movie... lousy script, acting, direction, editing... you name it.

wanglese
2002-Jul-14, 01:16 AM
On 2002-07-11 14:20, g99 wrote:
I have just seen THE absolute worst movie that had the characters goping into space!!! SUPERMAN 4!!! <SNIP>

Has anyone seen other REALLY BAD ASTORONMY in movies? Not just something like a wrong colour of a star, something really bad.



SUPERNOVA.

So this alien civilisation makes this machine, which will make strange matter, and the dudes who travel to this planet where they discover it, travel thousands of light years.
Except when they set it off, and destroy the universe, it's like going to take 50 years to reach earth.

g99
2002-Jul-14, 05:38 AM
On 2002-07-13 21:16, wanglese wrote:


On 2002-07-11 14:20, g99 wrote:
I have just seen THE absolute worst movie that had the characters goping into space!!! SUPERMAN 4!!! <SNIP>

Has anyone seen other REALLY BAD ASTORONMY in movies? Not just something like a wrong colour of a star, something really bad.



SUPERNOVA.

So this alien civilisation makes this machine, which will make strange matter, and the dudes who travel to this planet where they discover it, travel thousands of light years.
Except when they set it off, and destroy the universe, it's like going to take 50 years to reach earth.




Yah i saw that movie. It was really bad. I can understand that a supernovea near the earth will destroy the earth, but there is no sun close enougth to us to destroy us. The closests star to us is 5 ly away and that is supposed to be the same mass as our sun( i think, tell me if i am wrong). I tottaly agree with you on that one.


Another bad space movie...Think red planet!! with val kilmer. Just bad. Why the hell does a russian UNMANNED space capsule have an instrumewnt panel in english? And why would they send a military robot with them with the military programing still in it? Just a bad movie.... Also very wrong spcae wise and the whole planet wioth air thing. Just bad.

Here is a review of the movie on this site:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/redplanet2.html

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jul-15, 03:39 PM
Apparently, both versions of Nightfall (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=709&forum=2&start=12).



On 2002-07-14 01:38, g99 wrote:
"If you are on a train going the speed of light and you fall forward flat on your face, was your nose travelling faster than the speed of light?"


Of course not, if you believe Einstein. Ask a harder one.

g99
2002-Jul-15, 06:22 PM
On 2002-07-15 11:39, GrapesOfWrath wrote:

Apparently, both versions of Nightfall (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=709&forum=2&start=12).



On 2002-07-14 01:38, g99 wrote:
"If you are on a train going the speed of light and you fall forward flat on your face, was your nose travelling faster than the speed of light?"


Of course not, if you believe Einstein. Ask a harder one.



I'm rusty on my einstien, what does he say?

David Hall
2002-Jul-15, 06:32 PM
On 2002-07-15 11:39, GrapesOfWrath wrote:

Apparently, both versions of Nightfall (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=709&forum=2&start=12).


I hesitated to bring these up on this thread because, while they are atrocious movies, there isn't much astronomy in them. (It's true of the 2000 version at least, and from what I read of the 1988 version, I don't think it has much more.) They mostly concern themselves with butchering Asimov's wonderful social thought experiment, and just skip lightly over the astronomical aspects of his story.


Now Armageddon, that's a BA nightmare, no question about it. Since readig the BA's reviews, I've been meaning to ask, which is actually the worst: Armageddon (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/armpitageddon.html), Asteroid (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/asteroid.html), or Doomsday Rock (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/doomsday.html)? I haven't seen either of the other two TV movies, so I can't comment on them, but I can't imagine they could be worse than Armageddon. (Note, I don't include Deep Impact, as that was actually a good movie.) But I thought I'd throw the floor open for debate. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

pvtpylot
2002-Jul-15, 06:39 PM
On 2002-07-15 14:32, David Hall wrote:

Now Armageddon, that's a BA nightmare, no question about it. Since readig the BA's reviews, I've been meaning to ask, which is actually the worst: Armageddon (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/armpitageddon.html), Asteroid (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/asteroid.html), or Doomsday Rock (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/doomsday.html)? I haven't seen either of the other two TV movies, so I can't comment on them, but I can't imagine they could be worse than Armageddon. (Note, I don't include Deep Impact, as that was actually a good movie.) But I thought I'd throw the floor open for debate. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif


I vote for Armageddon mainly because it was hyped so much, making the disappointment even worse.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jul-15, 07:45 PM
On 2002-07-15 14:22, g99 wrote:
I'm rusty on my einstien, what does he say?


If you are traveling in a 1956 Chevy at half the speed of light, and turn on the headlights, the light from them will appear to leave you at the speed of light--but a stationary observer will say the light is also moving at the speed of light.

And the Chevy has a bigger nose than you do, I'd imagine.

Russ
2002-Jul-15, 11:48 PM
On 2002-07-15 14:32, David Hall wrote:
Now Armageddon, that's a BA nightmare, no question about it. Since readig the BA's reviews, I've been meaning to ask, which is actually the worst: Armageddon (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/armpitageddon.html), Asteroid (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/asteroid.html), or Doomsday Rock (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/doomsday.html)? I haven't seen either of the other two TV movies, so I can't comment on them, but I can't imagine they could be worse than Armageddon.

"Dooms Day Rock" gets my vote for the all time worst. I stumbled across it one night when I was in a hotel. Read the BA's review of DDR. His is a glowing, praise filled, rave review compared to what it deserved. The dialog was so lame, I was embarrised for the actors who had to say the lines. I could feel myself blushing and at my stage of life, that's no small thing. It was sad to see accomplished actors such as William Devane degraded so pitifully.

Armageddon was as good as "Citizen Kane" compared to "Dooms Day Rock". Please excuse me, I have to go brush my teeth and gargle after talking about DDR>

g99
2002-Jul-16, 03:15 AM
Astroid was the worst of those three. (I enjoyed the cool graphics of armageddon) I mean comeon. Almost all of the thing in there are dumbed down for the popular audience. I absolutly hate it when they dumb down stuff for the general audience. Just once do i want to see a movie that makes you say: "hey i want to know more about that subject, now i am going to look it up." Rather than making everyonme belive they are freaking experts after seeing that one movie.

P.S.


On 2002-07-15 15:45, GrapesOfWrath wrote:


On 2002-07-15 14:22, g99 wrote:
I'm rusty on my einstien, what does he say?


If you are traveling in a 1956 Chevy at half the speed of light, and turn on the headlights, the light from them will appear to leave you at the speed of light--but a stationary observer will say the light is also moving at the speed of light.

And the Chevy has a bigger nose than you do, I'd imagine.


Some might argue that my head is bigger than a chevy. But what are the effects for you (the dirver)if you are traveling at the speed of light in your car and you turn on the headlights? Also what does an observer see (if they could see the car and light)?

Wally
2002-Jul-16, 05:53 PM
On 2002-07-12 13:09, g99 wrote:


On 2002-07-12 12:41, Matherly wrote:
One of the things I loved about the Superman cartoon was that thy made the Man of Steel wear a breathing apperatus (or was it a full suit? Dang, can't remember) when he went into space [i]sans[/s] ship.

Of course, Lobo didn't wear any protective gear, but I'm willing to accept that mayhaps Lobo didn't need air.



I remmeber the episode you are talking about. That cartoon was very good and he was wearing a fill space suit in the begining and after i think he was just wearing a mask over his nise (I think). But later on near the end of the cartoon series [ /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif ] He fights the other two last remaining kryptonians and he is at one point flung into space near a black hole (whick was somewhat good in its portrayal, for a cartoon) And you see him clutching his neck, suggesting he can't breath, and final;ly he gets into a space ship adn turns on the air, and you see him gasping for air. GOOD one Matherly!



Now wait a minute. Supes powers are the result of our yellow Sun. How can he still have powers if he's out there somewheres near a black hole? Or, was the BH right here in our solar system or something?

g99
2002-Jul-16, 07:04 PM
It was not near our solar system because the bad guys were rulers of an alien world. I don't remember what colour the alien sun was, but it must of been yellow, or maybe he had a yellow sun fusion drive in his ship. Who knows, they are advanced aliens. If they can travel several thousand light years to probe a farmers but, why can;t they have yellow sun fusion rockets.

P.S. Coconuts are very dangerous and they do mugrate. Right now the great coconut migration is taking over antartica. They are the heartiest living life form. They are suffocating all life out of the antartic shore lines. This information is being suppressed for fear of a world wide panic and the making of a coconut extermination. That is the real reason why the massive ice sheets are being broken off antartica. It is the U.S. and world scientists trying to drown and kill off as many of the coconut invaders as possible. ever hear of the invasion of the bady snatchers? that was made after a real event involving coconuts and a samll reaserch station in antartica where the whole reaserch station was taken over by the parasitic coconuts. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif (i have a very active imagination)

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jul-16, 09:27 PM
On 2002-07-15 23:15, g99 wrote:
Some might argue that my head is bigger than a chevy. But what are the effects for you (the dirver)if you are traveling at the speed of light in your car and you turn on the headlights? Also what does an observer see (if they could see the car and light)?

I thought I sorta answered that, when I used the half-light speed. It's the same thing.

The only difference is, I feel uncomfortable talking about automobiles going the speed of light (because of a nasty accident in my youth), so I only used half. But with full speed, you'd see the light moving away at light speed--and so would the observer. The apparent contradiction is resolved because you and the observer have different reference times.

In fact, if you take it at face value, if you were to climb into such a car, you'd cross the universe in what appeared to you to be just an instant--even though, to the rest of us, well...we'd have lived and died billions of years before. So the results of the experiment are in dispute.

g99
2002-Jul-16, 09:36 PM
I wonder what the gas mileage of a light speed car would be? really, tought, see my new topic here on time dilation: http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=1789&forum=1&0

g99
2002-Jul-16, 09:48 PM
Just saw the outer limits on the Sci Fi channel. The episode was about a death person with a earing aid and a former nasa physicist turned hospital janitor. (How come there are always nasa physicists areound whenever a big thing happens? They are like roaches, they are always there in the background (not in a bad way). But in this episode, alines send a signal to this womans hearing aid and tells her how to build a laser. You learn later on that the aliens are in a giant ship powerd by a "solar sail" and they are heading directly into the sun!!! It gets worse from here. The physicist then tells the girl that they must build the laser (which turns out to be about the size of a modern day cannon (and no mention of how it is powered)) and the laser will shoot into space and push the solar sail out of harms way and into solar orbit.
This has got to be one on the dumbest plots in the history of the show. I mean the ship is poered by the sun's solar wind, yet it is in danger of running into it? how can a small earth based laser push the ship out of the way in a matter of seconds, but the solar wind not do a damn thing? arrrggg. Why can';t they look up the technology they are putting into a show before they wriote the script. I mean all they had to do was look at the damn NAME OF THE SHIP to figure out what the hell powers it! I would more of believed that it would run into earth than the damned sun.

Also the physicist said that "the ship must be 1000 km wide and we should se it" Well if it was that big why are they the only ones to see it? come on it is the same thing i have dubbed the "blinded astronomer effect". For some reason all of the astronomers in the world have never seen this thing untill right before it hits earth or untill an amature kid sees it. no matter how big it is (1000km wide or the size of texas asteroid) they never see it untill it is about to hit them. Screw the fact that almost every inch of the local sky is looked over yearly for new stars ans solar phenomena. I think they would of seen a texas sized asteroid or a giant solar sail heading right towards them!!!

europaslayer
2002-Jul-17, 01:53 AM
One neglects other inaccurate movies.

It seems to me that there was a mini-series, also on NBC like Asteroid, it was called invasion and aired at around the same time as Asteroid. It was stated in the promo for the series that the alien space craft travelled and I quote "over a million miles to get to earth."
I almost crapped myself when I saw this, I mean my god, that's only thgree and a half times the distance from the earth to the moon. It might sound like a big number to some hick from Alabama who knows as much about astronomy as most astrologers knows about science. It is none-the less stupid when one thinks of distances to other planets just within our solar system being tens to hundreds of millions of kilometers away from us just within the terrestrial solar system and in billions of kilometers outside the inner solar system.

I was very disapointed with Armagedon, Jerry Bruckheimer, who produced this drivel did Pearl Harbour which was reliably accurate and true to actual accounts of the war, so why in God's name would he do something like this to a movie about a killer asteroid?

It seem's Hollywood turn's it's head away from science whn they decide to produce a work of science fiction.

David Hall
2002-Jul-17, 02:39 AM
On 2002-07-16 21:53, europaslayer wrote:
It seem's Hollywood turn's it's head away from science whn they decide to produce a work of science fiction.


Absolutely. What really gets me is that so often they don't even try to get anything right. They don't bother to think about whether what they're filming has anything to do with real life or not. They just throw any old made-up garbage out there and hope that the public will eat it. It happens in all genres really, but it's especially bad in SF, probably because they just assume fans won't care anyway and will take anything at gee-wiz level. I just simply cannot understand this mentality at all.

There are, of course, exceptions. Like Kubrick did with 2001 and Ron Howard's Apollo 13. And do you know what? It's my observation that in cases like this when directors take the time and effort to get it right they not only produce something with better science, they generally end up making a better movie overall.

It seems the more seriously you take the production, the better the outcome. See Aodoi's review of Superman 4 (http://www.jabootu.com/s4.htm) to read about the same effect in superhero stories. When the subject is taken seriously, you get a good movie, when it isn't, you get crap. Unsuccessful crap for the most part.

Personally, I think most movies (and tv) put out these days are pure drivel. It takes a real effort to make a show that I'll consider worthwhile. It doesn't seem to happen often. (I will say though that Spiderman turned out very well. See the movie review above again to explain that.)

pvtpylot
2002-Jul-17, 03:02 AM
On 2002-07-16 22:39, David Hall wrote:
It's my observation that in cases like this when directors take the time and effort to get it right they not only produce something with better science, they generally end up making a better movie overall.

I think a lot of directors that are unfamiliar with the genre tend to underestimate their audience (or they overestimate their tolerance for silliness), and they can't seem to grasp the difference between fantasy and sci-fi.

jaydeehess
2002-Jul-18, 03:32 AM
quoteI was very disapointed with Armagedon, Jerry Bruckheimer, who produced this drivel did Pearl Harbour which was reliably accurate and true to actual accounts of the war,

Except that after watching "Pearl Harbour" I came away wondering how in the world the Japanese managed to do so much damage. After all there were two Americans in the air fighting back and Cuba Gooding on a ship firing away. It's all in the hype.

Sapperjock
2002-Jul-25, 08:48 PM
SciFi movies are not the only offenders re. getting it hopelessly wrong. I have often seen Tarzan running across the screen with lions, elephants (all African) then a flight of macaws (S.American) fly past. He must travel at warp speed to do this.

Silas
2002-Jul-25, 09:17 PM
On 2002-07-25 16:48, Sapperjock wrote:
SciFi movies are not the only offenders re. getting it hopelessly wrong. I have often seen Tarzan running across the screen with lions, elephants (all African) then a flight of macaws (S.American) fly past. He must travel at warp speed to do this.


Plus the laughing of Kookaburras; Africa is a larger place than we thought!

Another hilarious blunder: in the comic book Green Arrow, some six years ago or so, the hero was in southern Africa. The writer described the herds of Buffalo. And the artist obligingly drew a herd of -- North American Bison.

Oh, you should have seen their letters column in the next few issues!

Silas

FP
2002-Jul-29, 04:48 AM
One of my favorite bad movies is the theatrical release of Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea - early 60's. One of Irwin Allen's first ventures. The sky hs caught fire (something about the Van Allen Belts) and Admiral Nelson has to take the Seaview to a precise spot in the Pacific and fire a nuke at the sky to put it out. Of course the powers that be are convinced that Nelson is nuts and are trying to sink the sub. Stars Walter Pidgeon and !Peter Lorre!

I recommend it highly. My son and I watched it not long ago and rolled on the floor!

EdLincoln
2008-May-14, 07:27 PM
<snip>...
Some might argue that my head is bigger than a chevy. But what are the effects for you (the dirver)if you are traveling at the speed of light in your car and you turn on the headlights? Also what does an observer see (if they could see the car and light)?

Others can explain this in greater detail. The quick and dirty answer is, time. You see the light of the head lights going away from you at 299,792,458 miles in one second. The observer on the side of the road sees the light going at 299,792,458 m/s relative to him, and sees the light moving away from you at half the speed of light. The reason for the discrepancy is one of your seconds takes as long as 2 of his seconds. You both see the light traveling 299,792,458 miles relative to you in the time it takes to say "one Mississippi", because it takes you twice as long to say that.

Things get REALLY hard to understand when you bring in the idea that there is no preferred frame of reference.

P.S. Do NOT try this at home, kids. Traveling at a significant fraction of the sped of light is bad for your tires.

i only ponder
2008-May-14, 08:30 PM
Star Wars.
Walking around on an asteroid with just an oxygen tank:
http://www.scifiunited.com/Gallery_Images/1191719303/gallery_274_17700.jpg

EdLincoln
2008-May-14, 08:55 PM
Absolutely. What really gets me is that so often they don't even try to get anything right. They don't bother to think about whether what they're filming has anything to do with real life or not. They just throw any old made-up garbage out there and hope that the public will eat it. It happens in all genres really, but it's especially bad in SF, probably because they just assume fans won't care anyway and will take anything at gee-wiz level.... <snip>

I think there are three problems:
1.) In Hollywood nowadays, actual writing isn't a priority. How many scriptwriters can you name, who are not primarily famouse for being directors or novelists? The big names in Hollywood are mostly actors today. Hollywood spends millions on big name actors and special effects, and makes scriptwriting an afterthought.

2.) When Hollywood does try to make a serious movie, they don't make sci fi. They go for an "Oscar bait" period piece, or something based on a 19th century novel. I think this is because they don't take sci fi seriously.

3.) Perhaps related to this, when Hollywood does make a serious movie with a sci fi element, they treat it as a parable or a metaphor. It's like they're telling a fairy tail with a moral in it. I think they regard everything outside of the real human world as it is today as all fantasy. I think to many in Hollywood a solar sail probe going to Alpha Centauri, a warp drive, a giant ant and a unicorn are all equally plausible/implausible. Once they cross beyond the world as it is today they seem to see it all as gibberish, and the idea of discussing what is plausible/realistic as silly.

Because of this, sci fi is usually just used as an opportunity for studios to show off special effects. Thus we are treated to a lot of stunning visuals and not much else.

Van Rijn
2008-May-14, 11:25 PM
Just a note that this thread goes back to July 2002. g99 apparently hasn't been on since 2003 (premerge days).

Delvo
2008-May-15, 01:52 AM
The problem with the question about traveling at lightspeed and all of the answers to it so far is that traveling at lightspeed is impossible. The answers so far have all been about what happens when you travel at significant fractions of lightspeed, but that's not the same thing as traveling at lightspeed itself, so it's not what the question was about. For that matter, the effects they're talking about for an object moving at a significant fraction of lightspeed are the reasons why you can't get to lightspeed; you can keep speeding up forever and still not reach it because space and time stretch and squeeze in a way that conspires against you; you can always decrease the difference between your speed and light's to a fraction of what it was now, but never down to zero.

* * *

A solar sail can easily be on a collision course with the sun, if it's coming in from outside the solar system at a high speed, trying to use the sun as its brakes, and for some reason not getting enough braking power from it. But then, they should be able to veer enough to one side by tacking...

* * *

The worst astronomy I've seen myself was in a movie from the 1950s or 1960s (as most of the worst science fiction tends to be), but I don't remember the title. It featured another star and its planets suddenly, surprisingly crashing through our solar system, with various planets getting either destroyed/marred or relocated. Humans survive by hopping from Earth to a planet that came with the other star, which ends up orbiting the sun.

Delvo
2008-May-15, 01:53 AM
Just a note that this thread goes back to July 2002. g99 apparently hasn't been on since 2003 (premerge days).How do people ever even find and pick out such an old thread to revive?

mike alexander
2008-May-15, 05:11 PM
Delvo, I think you're referring to "When Worlds Collide".

KaiYeves
2008-May-16, 07:41 PM
I think they regard everything outside of the real human world as it is today as all fantasy. I think to many in Hollywood a solar sail probe going to Alpha Centauri, a warp drive, a giant ant and a unicorn are all equally plausible/implausible. Once they cross beyond the world as it is today they seem to see it all as gibberish, and the idea of discussing what is plausible/realistic as silly.
I am reminded of how 25% of the people who read my FF story on Marvel.com voted "What? Virgin Galactic is a real company?"

ToSeek
2008-May-16, 07:54 PM
Just a note that this thread goes back to July 2002. g99 apparently hasn't been on since 2003 (premerge days).

g99 is better known these days as Humphrey.

Halcyon Dayz
2008-May-21, 06:30 AM
His spelling has improved considerably over the last 6 years.

ToSeek
2008-May-21, 02:04 PM
His spelling has improved considerably over the last 6 years.

That's what getting married does for you.

Daffy
2008-May-21, 03:11 PM
This thread is cute and all, but the fact is most people hate science fiction movies that even try to get the science right. Can you say Star Trek TMP? People want sparkly lights, ray guns, and big boom booms.