PDA

View Full Version : Sci-Fi Science Blunders Hall of Infamy



ToSeek
2005-Dec-06, 03:51 PM
Sci-Fi Science Blunders Hall of Infamy (http://www.geocities.com/naran500/)


Ever notice that spaceships on SF TV shows behave more like fighter aircraft than spaceships, or characters don't know the difference between a solar system and a galaxy? Ever notice Star Trek: Voyager has no clue what deuterium is? These are examples of Science Blunders and Boners. This page is devoted to documenting this blunders and elucidating the real science behind the blunder.

I am alwyas collecting new Science Blunders and Boners, so if you saw something on a TV show or movie that just made you groan, please send it my way. They have to be real groaners; they can't be the kind of thing only Ph.D.'s and M.Sc's notice. If it's something your above-average high school science student could have told them, it's a blunder. If it's something even an average junior high science student could catch, it's a boner. I'll be the final arbiter on these things, but democracy will have some bearing on my decision.

mid
2005-Dec-06, 04:00 PM
AAAAAAARGH!!!!

I should have known what I was letting myself in for, but I went and clicked on Babylon 5 anyway. Sure enough, the Starfury Launch argument is back to haunt me once more.

Charly
2005-Dec-06, 08:27 PM
Dunno how to submit these..


My favourite TNG episode is the final one, where Q has Picard create the Anti time rift.

A brilliant idea and episode, up until the end where Picard says they can see the Rift get created if they go back to ground zero.

Only problem is, as Data painstakingly explained, they would never see the creation of such a rift, as it would only travel backwards throug time.

Shame... Braga almost nailed a spacial anomoly / time travel episode on the head. Keep trying... Oh, you have!

GDwarf
2005-Dec-06, 09:53 PM
Oooh, very nice, the author references the BA and commends him for correcting entries that have errors.

Sci-Fi has got to be a hard genre to write for, a good 50% of your viewers will either be actively trying to find holes or will just notice them when they appear. Fantasy is under no such restriction, heck, no other form of fiction is under such a restriction.

Edit: It seems that the pages aren't layed out all that well, you can click on one item only to have that item and several other ones appear on the page, it had me confused for a while.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-06, 09:55 PM
Oooh, very nice, the author references the BA and commends him for correcting entries that have errors.

Sci-Fi has got to be a hard genre to write for, a good 50% of your viewers will either be actively trying to find holes or will just notice them when they appear. Fantasy is under no such restriction, heck, no other form of fiction is under such a restriction.

You're kidding, right? 50% of your viewers?

You have no clue how many Star Wars and Star Trek apologists there are, do you?

Heh heh heh....

Also, on the other hand, the majority of people who watch Star Wars and Star Trek are not apologists; they just don't care about the physics.

Also, I question a lot of fantasy stories. Sometimes they just grow so... arbitrary. That's the best word I saw from an essay by someone on the issue.

weatherc
2005-Dec-06, 10:17 PM
Fantasy is under no such restriction, heck, no other form of fiction is under such a restriction.
I wouldn't say that; there are a lot of restrictions that writers face all the time. For example, if a writer is creating a court room drama and cites a law that doesn't exist or has the lawyers do something that would never be allowed in a court room, then anyone familiar with the legal system would realize it. The same applies to writing about sports; people familiar with a sport will see right away if something happens that doesn't follow the rules of the sport. There are many other examples that I could think of that would be similar.

That's why it really irks me that no one else seems to be bothered by glaring scientific errors in films. "It's just a movie," they say. Okay, what if I created a movie about a baseball player, and instead of a player being out instead of three strikes, it was four? Or, what if I made a movie that took place in the Empire State Building, and then said it was in Florida? What if I put a line in a movie about a Chevy Mustang? Those are glaring errors that almost anyone could spot and would be unwilling to dismiss as being part of "just a movie," because it would be stupid. And yet, if you point out to someone that a science fact in a movie is wrong, such as what a black hole is, or how fast the speed of sound is, or what a giant microwave emitter will do to you if you stand near it (I'm looking at you Batman Begins!), you're expected to say that it's "just a movie."

That drives me nuts. No, I won't make myself stupid to watch a movie. The writers can come up to my level if they want to entertain me, thank you very much.

The Supreme Canuck
2005-Dec-06, 10:31 PM
I agree entirely. I can understand if someone wants a movie like that. Whatever floats your boat. But just don't tell me that I shouldn't like an intellectually stimulating piece of entertainment. I like to have fun. I like to learn. I don't like having my fun taken from me because I've learned something.

GDwarf
2005-Dec-06, 10:49 PM
Fair enough, so sci-Fi isn't the only one like that, however, it is the only genre where the ideas that won't work are probably outside of the writer's knowledge or they aren't something that an editor/proofreader will pick up on and point out to the writer, as they just aren't common knowledge.

James_Digriz
2005-Dec-07, 02:35 AM
or what a giant microwave emitter will do to you if you stand near it (I'm looking at you Batman Begins!), you're expected to say that it's "just a movie."

That drives me nuts. No, I won't make myself stupid to watch a movie. The writers can come up to my level if they want to entertain me, thank you very much.

But you saw the movie? You mean you will still see movies like this but you will not go quietly into the parking lot?

weatherc
2005-Dec-07, 02:51 AM
But you saw the movie? You mean you will still see movies like this but you will not go quietly into the parking lot?
Actually, I rented it (I don't see many movies in the theater). If I had known about the microwave thing beforehand, I don't think I would have bothered watching it at all. It's that kind of stupidity that kept me from watching movies like The Day After Tomorrow and The Core. I don't think I'll bother with any sequels of Batman Begins, because who knows what kind of stupid machine they'll come up with for that.

Frantic Freddie
2005-Dec-07, 03:16 AM
I wouldn't say that; there are a lot of restrictions that writers face all the time. For example, if a writer is creating a court room drama and cites a law that doesn't exist or has the lawyers do something that would never be allowed in a court room, then anyone familiar with the legal system would realize it. The same applies to writing about sports; people familiar with a sport will see right away if something happens that doesn't follow the rules of the sport. There are many other examples that I could think of that would be similar.

That's why it really irks me that no one else seems to be bothered by glaring scientific errors in films. "It's just a movie," they say. Okay, what if I created a movie about a baseball player, and instead of a player being out instead of three strikes, it was four? Or, what if I made a movie that took place in the Empire State Building, and then said it was in Florida? What if I put a line in a movie about a Chevy Mustang? Those are glaring errors that almost anyone could spot and would be unwilling to dismiss as being part of "just a movie," because it would be stupid. And yet, if you point out to someone that a science fact in a movie is wrong, such as what a black hole is, or how fast the speed of sound is, or what a giant microwave emitter will do to you if you stand near it (I'm looking at you Batman Begins!), you're expected to say that it's "just a movie."

That drives me nuts. No, I won't make myself stupid to watch a movie. The writers can come up to my level if they want to entertain me, thank you very much.


Actually Harlan Ellison wrote about that very thing in "The Glass Teat",way back in the early 70s,he said that most writers didn't have a clue.He used the example of a western where a writer used the term "coffee & skittles" & it was used in a subsequent episode because it "sounded right",the producers thinking that "skittles" was some kinda pastry,instead of an old game.

I'm a gun owner & enthusiast,& the mistakes I see being made with guns in movies are enough for a whole book. :wall:

James_Digriz
2005-Dec-07, 03:25 AM
Actually, I rented it (I don't see many movies in the theater). If I had known about the microwave thing beforehand, I don't think I would have bothered watching it at all. It's that kind of stupidity that kept me from watching movies like The Day After Tomorrow and The Core. I don't think I'll bother with any sequels of Batman Begins, because who knows what kind of stupid machine they'll come up with for that.

Really? Each to his own then. It was a comic book movie. What did you expect?

I did see The Day After Tomorrow for the special effects but the bad Meteorology made me cringe through the whole movie. What's worse is that there are many people who should know better who think the stuff in that movie could actually happen. Now that's the sort of thing that burns me up.

Oh, yes. Great site. You can't stop with just one.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-07, 03:26 AM
Actually Harlan Ellison wrote about that very thing in "The Glass Teat",way back in the early 70s,he said that most writers didn't have a clue.He used the example of a western where a writer used the term "coffee & skittles" & it was used in a subsequent episode because it "sounded right",the producers thinking that "skittles" was some kinda pastry,instead of an old game.

I'm a gun owner & enthusiast,& the mistakes I see being made with guns in movies are enough for a whole book. :wall:

"Phonebooth" was funny for that. It tried to flaunt its supposed knowledge of firearms throguh the main bad guy, but it was so obvious they didn't have a clue about guns...

agingjb
2005-Dec-07, 11:39 PM
Has the representation of "asteroid belts" as dense clusters of rocks been included?

Gullible Jones
2005-Dec-08, 12:49 AM
And what about the warp drive using "dilithium" as a catalyst for the matter-antimatter reaction? Big problem... M/AM reactions proceed fine without any catalysis, thank you, and lithium is a metal, so danged if I know where you'll find dilithium... Or how the heck it would do anything in a matter-antimatter reaction, except maybe get reduced to elementary particles.

soylentgreen
2005-Dec-08, 04:02 AM
And what about the warp drive using "dilithium" as a catalyst for the matter-antimatter reaction? Big problem...

Forget about dilithium crystals...how did the crew on the Enterprise in THE MOTION PICTURE use the head in those uniforms? Obviously, only Lieutenant Ilia was the only one "suited" to go.(And that was after being re-outfitted by V-GER!) ;)

Z28Jerry
2005-Dec-08, 04:24 AM
I'm glad that they don't make my favorite form of entertainment reflect real-world physics and complicated science facts. As much as I find real life science stuff facinating, it makes for pretty boring entertainment. Now, put a blaster in someone's hands, fire up a lightsaber and toss in a flux-capacitor and you have something fun. I watch them to be entertained for a couple of hours. If I wanted to learn something I just come here;)

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-08, 05:58 AM
I dunno, I think that a movie or story could easily be scientifically "feasable" (though not necessarily 100% entirely accurate), or at least "believable", without losing it's fun factor.

It's something I try for; I try to make everything in my stories at least scientifically feasable (and what I can't explain, I just avoid explanations of).

Cl1mh4224rd
2005-Dec-08, 08:23 AM
Hmm... The "Ships Always Have the Same Orientation When They Meet" blunder... I distinctly recall at least one later Star Trek episode (can't remember which series) in which the approaching ship rolls to match the orientation of the other ship.

Also, there's one major constant to help determine orientation: the galactic plane. It would've been nice if they had more instances of differing orientation, but it doesn't really detract from the shows for me.

Re: The Day After Tomorrow. Ehh... it was nice eyecandy, and since I have a weakness for flashy, large-scale destruction it was enough to keep me watching. There are two things that make it a "bad" movie for me: a weak story, and that scene with the wolves. There's nothing about a movie that irritates me more than contrived and useless scenes, and that was one of them.

When it comes to movies, television, and books, I hold story and stimulation (how? who? why? and, admittedly, cool! whoa!) above scientific accuracy. For some people the science apparently is the story, but... meh. I can do without just fine in my entertainment. ;)

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-08, 07:47 PM
I just personally don't think that you need to get rid of science and realism entirely. You'd also have less ignorant people that still assume that you would fly back several feet if you were shot =P

Cl1mh4224rd
2005-Dec-08, 10:39 PM
I just personally don't think that you need to get rid of science and realism entirely.
No, of course not. Neither do I. It at the very least gives the mind something to anchor to, something that they can understand in the world laid out by the author.

I don't believe in an all-or-nothing approach to scientific accuracy in entertainment, especially in sci-fi or fantasy.

Now, if there's a movie set in this world and it's supposed to be based on real-world, events, potential or actual, then accuracy is going to be pretty big. You don't want to see people making impossible jumps in, say, Hotel Rowanda...

Also, consistency plays a big part for me.

Gillianren
2005-Dec-08, 11:36 PM
Er, it's "Rwanda," actually.

I dated a guy once who summed it up by allowing every movie one great impossibility. (Superman, for example, or the Force, or whatever.) It's when they start getting beyond that that you have problems. (This discussion came after we saw Face/Off.)

James_Digriz
2005-Dec-09, 01:31 AM
I dunno, I think that a movie or story could easily be scientifically "feasable" (though not necessarily 100% entirely accurate), or at least "believable", without losing it's fun factor.

Beep. Wrong.

2001 and 2010 vs Star Wars and Empire.

Gullible Jones
2005-Dec-09, 03:13 AM
2001 was pretty good. 2010 was awful.

But what's so bad about a realistic, scientifically accurate movie? If hard SF works in books, why not in films?

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-09, 03:58 AM
Beep. Wrong.

2001 and 2010 vs Star Wars and Empire.

So 2001 wasn't a good movie?

Are you sure the public agrees with you?

And if the public doesn't, how does that make my statement wrong?

By your argument, I proclaim you wrong, since I think 2001 beat out Star Wars. There we go. I win. ;)

The Shade
2005-Dec-09, 07:07 PM
I dated a guy once who summed it up by allowing every movie one great impossibility. (Superman, for example, or the Force, or whatever.) It's when they start getting beyond that that you have problems. (This discussion came after we saw Face/Off.)

Gaahhh!!! I had rented this movie based on the suggestions of co-workers. The next day, none of them could understand why I did not like it. Maybe the ridiculous plot, or the really way out there stunts, or the "won't this movie ever end" feeling did it for me.

Oh, and 2010 wasn't that bad a movie. It was just made by a director who didn't have as much Hollywood political power as Stanley Kubrick had.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-09, 07:11 PM
I would also like to add that 2001 and Star Wars had ENTIRELY different "styles". 2001 was more Philosophical, and Star War was more action-oriented.

You can still have an action-oriented movie that has accurate physics (Anyone seen "Man on Fire"? A pretty dang accurate movie, yet EXTREMELY well-done and EXCELLENT, IMO. My favorite movie yet).

Also, would LA Confidential (I think that's the movie of the movie) have been a worse movie if you didn't have people flying around from shotgun shells? I don't think that getting rid of the "flying victims" would suddenly make the movie a bad movie.

The thing is, sometimes making a movie retain its internal logic (Like setting up a different set of rules than our world, then breaking them), and giving it internal consistency, takes some work. Well, I say, GOOD! It means more effort to bring out a far better and consistent story, giving me more reason to respect it!

Dave Mitsky
2005-Dec-09, 07:37 PM
I dunno, I think that a movie or story could easily be scientifically "feasable" (though not necessarily 100% entirely accurate), or at least "believable", without losing it's fun factor.

It's something I try for; I try to make everything in my stories at least scientifically feasable (and what I can't explain, I just avoid explanations of).

I agree completely. However, neither the screen writers nor the audience really care much about such accuracy.

Dave Mitsky

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-09, 07:45 PM
I agree completely. However, neither the screen writers nor the audience really care much about such accuracy.

Dave Mitsky

Which is why my personal respect goes towards those that are accurate ;)

I don't care what the audience cares about, honestly. I just don't like the claim that "inaccurate" is automatically more fun than "accurate". It's just simply not true.

TheBlackCat
2005-Dec-10, 10:20 AM
Here is another good list: The Grand List of Overused Science Fiction Cliches (http://enphilistor.50megs.com/cliche.htm)
The list doesn't only cover science blunders (although there is a science section about 2/3 of the way down the page and a bunch of others scattered throughout the other sections), it also covers over-used plot points, racism or sexism, and also makes allowances for things that are impossible but allowable for the sake of dramatic effect. All in all a very good list.


A technological development progresses from half-baked theory to useful implementation in fifteen minutes instead of fifteen months.

After thirty years of crew members being tossed around like the balls in a bingo cage, the spacecraft still has no seatbelts.

Two races have never contacted each other, cannot speak each other's language, and cannot possibly have worked out compatible protocols for transmission of data; nonetheless, their computers enable them to communicate over their ships' viewscreens upon first contact.

The plans for a complicated device can be downloaded onto a 1.44 Meg floppy.

The page also has a few varients on Peter's Evil Overlord List, the best IMHO being The Evil Henchman's Guide (http://enphilistor.50megs.com/henchman.htm), including Legion of Doom Troops, the Evil Overlord's Trusted Liutenant, Evil Cuilt Members, the Evil Overlord's Wicked but Beutiful Daughter, and even the Evil Everlord's Accoutant.


The recommended method for checking to see if the Hero is still alive is to shoot him in the head.

When a religious artifact begins emitting light, CLOSE YOUR EYES. Thousands of cult members could be saved every year if they followed this simple safety tip.

Make up your mind now whether you want to marry the Hero or slowly cut him into little pieces. Do not attempt the latter until you have given up on the former.

It also has guides for Hero's and Starship Captains (http://enphilistor.50megs.com/hero.htm), Sidekicks (http://enphilistor.50megs.com/sidekick.htm), True Loves (http://enphilistor.50megs.com/truelove.htm), and Innocent Baystanders (http://enphilistor.50megs.com/innocent.htm). You may find the "starfleet captain" guide on the "hero" page to also be very amusing.


If I beam off of a vessel that is still hostile, I will arrange to leave behind as large an explosive device as I can obtain.

James_Digriz
2005-Dec-10, 05:41 PM
2001 was pretty good. 2010 was awful.

But what's so bad about a realistic, scientifically accurate movie? If hard SF works in books, why not in films?

I didn't say it was bad. We were talking about the fun factor. 2001 was an excellent realistic, scientifically accurate, boring movie. (compared to Star Wars.) I liked 2010. It had that guy from Jaws in it and a cute Russsian Cosmonaut. What was not to like?


So 2001 wasn't a good movie? Are you sure the public agrees with you?

Im sure:

The Top Grossing Movies of All Time
at the USA Box Office

Star Wars #2 at $460,935,655

2001. I can't even find it on the list:Link (http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross)

Don't take this the wrong way. I would much rather see 20 more 2001's and Star Wars' then the romantic comedy, buddy action flicks, and Brady Bunch clones. FX is still too expensive though.

Dave Mitsky
2005-Dec-10, 06:51 PM
Which is why my personal respect goes towards those that are accurate ;)

I don't care what the audience cares about, honestly. I just don't like the claim that "inaccurate" is automatically more fun than "accurate". It's just simply not true.

You're preaching to the choir, Lonewulf.

Dave Mitsky

Disinfo Agent
2005-Dec-10, 07:15 PM
I find films like The Day After Tomorrow and Independence Day, etc., pretty boring.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-10, 07:16 PM
I didn't say it was bad. We were talking about the fun factor. 2001 was an excellent realistic, scientifically accurate, boring movie. (compared to Star Wars.) I liked 2010. It had that guy from Jaws in it and a cute Russsian Cosmonaut. What was not to like?

But just because a movie is scientifically accurate and realistic, does not necessarily mean it has to be "boring". You could have one that's just as interesting and fast-paced as Star Wars.

Cl1mh4224rd
2005-Dec-10, 09:30 PM
After thirty years of crew members being tossed around like the balls in a bingo cage, the spacecraft still has no seatbelts.
There's a deleted scene on the Star Trek: Nemesis DVD that pokes fun at this same thing.

At the end of the movie the Enterprise is at spacedock being put back together. They had just installed a new captain's chair and one of the "contractors" wanted Picard to try it out, so he takes a seat. The contractor has Picard push a button and this seatbelt/harness straps him into the chair.

Picard looks at it and says, "It's about time."

Gullible Jones
2005-Dec-11, 01:24 AM
ROFL! That is great!

SkepticJ
2005-Dec-11, 05:08 AM
There's a deleted scene on the Star Trek: Nemesis DVD that pokes fun at this same thing.

At the end of the movie the Enterprise is at spacedock being put back together. They had just installed a new captain's chair and one of the "contractors" wanted Picard to try it out, so he takes a seat. The contractor has Picard push a button and this seatbelt/harness straps him into the chair.

Picard looks at it and says, "It's about time."

I loved that scene, too bad it didn't make it into the movie proper; would have helped end the series of movies in a lighter way.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Dec-11, 05:49 AM
I loved that scene, too bad it didn't make it into the movie proper; would have helped end the series of movies in a lighter way.
END?

Never ...

They're Currently In Talks, To Make Another!!!

:evil:

PhantomWolf
2005-Dec-11, 07:23 AM
The spaceflight in Star Wars was never supposed to be accurate though. Lucas wanted them to be like the old footage of the Battle of Britan so it's a case of not being accurate because they weren't supposed to be rather then because they screwed up. Similarly, part of Ep 3 where the two ships pass each other and fire broadside is clearly taken from the old bucanneer style pirate movies.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-11, 08:52 PM
The spaceflight in Star Wars was never supposed to be accurate though. Lucas wanted them to be like the old footage of the Battle of Britan so it's a case of not being accurate because they weren't supposed to be rather then because they screwed up. Similarly, part of Ep 3 where the two ships pass each other and fire broadside is clearly taken from the old bucanneer style pirate movies.

I don't ever remember saying that they tried for accuracy and failed. I'm just saying that you can have a scientifically accurate movie and still have the action/adventure "feel". That's all I'm saying.

GDwarf
2005-Dec-11, 11:13 PM
I don't ever remember saying that they tried for accuracy and failed. I'm just saying that you can have a scientifically accurate movie and still have the action/adventure "feel". That's all I'm saying.
I agree, but at the same time, if all directors followed that we wouldn't have the trench run on the Deathstar, no epic lightsabre duels, no spaceships (planets too far apart), no aliens etc.

I'm not disagreeing with you that good science and good movies are not mutually exclusive, but at the same time, without bad science we wouldn't have Star Wars, Any of the Star Trek series/movies, Babylon 5, Dr. Who, THHGTTG, or countless other great movies/TV shows/books.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-11, 11:27 PM
Yeah, I can agree with that.

The thing I most prize, however, comes with INTERNAL consistency. Set up a group of laws that you will follow during your movie (this includes logical consistency and plot consistency), and then follow them and stick with them.

TheBlackCat
2005-Dec-12, 12:08 AM
I think you also have to be differentiate bad science for the sake of the plot (which is acceptable in most case), bad science due to a lack of money (which really cannot be avoided), bad science for the sake of visual or dramatic effect (which may or may not be acceptable depending on the situation and personal opinion), and gratuitous bad science that serves no purpose and may even detract from the movie (which really should not happen). The Death Star being able to blow up a planet is bad science, but is central to the plot. X-wings and Tie Fiighters flying like aircraft is needed for visual effect. Having Jedi jump without slowing down as they reach the peak of the jump is just pointless, and many people can sense that something is not quite right with the jumping even if they do not know what it is. The first two are probably acceptable (depending on your perspective), the last one is not.

Cl1mh4224rd
2005-Dec-12, 01:18 AM
Having Jedi jump without slowing down as they reach the peak of the jump is just pointless, and many people can sense that something is not quite right with the jumping even if they do not know what it is. The first two are probably acceptable (depending on your perspective), the last one is not.
I don't know... I mean, they're Jedi for crying out loud. They're powers are, literally, supernatural. They can shoot lightning bolts from their fingers, shove people without even touching them, run really fast, jump incredible distances, and communicate from beyond the grave.

If people can accept those traits without cringing, I'm not exactly sure why not slowing down at the peak of their jump would suddenly become an issue.

TheBlackCat
2005-Dec-12, 05:30 AM
I don't know... I mean, they're Jedi for crying out loud. They're powers are, literally, supernatural. They can shoot lightning bolts from their fingers, shove people without even touching them, run really fast, jump incredible distances, and communicate from beyond the grave.

If people can accept those traits without cringing, I'm not exactly sure why not slowing down at the peak of their jump would suddenly become an issue.
Because it serves no purpose. It doesn't help the plot, add dramatic effect, or increase the visual impact in any way. Ignoring that bit of science does not help the movie in any way, it probably even hurts it. Jedi powers are important to the plot, this is not. It is simply gratuitous.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-12, 06:05 AM
For the record, the Death Star didn't really need to be able to destroy the planet. I mean, wiping off all life from it is a perfectly possible and acceptable alternative.

Maksutov
2005-Dec-14, 01:27 PM
For the record, the Death Star didn't really need to be able to destroy the planet. I mean, wiping off all life from it is a perfectly possible and acceptable alternative.Yeah, if George had had the time, he probably would have designed it as the "Neutron Star" (http://www.answers.com/topic/neutron-bomb)!

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Dec-14, 03:11 PM
Yeah, if George had had the time, he probably would have designed it as the "Neutron Star" (http://www.answers.com/topic/neutron-bomb)!
Yeah ...

Clear Out, The Major Lifeforms ...

And, Move RIIGHT In!

:shhh:

PhantomWolf
2005-Dec-19, 02:12 AM
Having Jedi jump without slowing down as they reach the peak of the jump is just pointless, and many people can sense that something is not quite right with the jumping even if they do not know what it is. The first two are probably acceptable (depending on your perspective), the last one is not.
Well, not that I want to be called a SW-Apologist, but....

Surely it depends on how they use the force to effect the jump.

If you go by the idea that they tap into the force and give themselves a massive boost to start the jump and then follow through a standard ballistic path, then I'd agree with you... However....

If instead their tapping of the force is an ongoing thing and thus the Jedi propels themselves with the force through out the entire movement, their path is no longer ballistic and so is not governed by gravity, but by the propulsion they have gained in the force. This means that even at the top of the jump they are still being propelled along by the force and so won't slow down like they would under a purely ballistic leap.

Now while you can't take it as gospel for the movies, in the games, jumping with the force requires that the character uses the force through the entire jump to get maximum distance, removing the force jump before landing makes you land shorter than if you keep it applied. As I say, it's not possible to say that this must be the same for what Lucas was thinking for the movies because obviously they are different media and done by different peple for different reasons, but it is smething to think on.

Hokie
2005-Dec-19, 05:11 PM
And what about the warp drive using "dilithium" as a catalyst for the matter-antimatter reaction? Big problem... M/AM reactions proceed fine without any catalysis, thank you, and lithium is a metal, so danged if I know where you'll find dilithium... Or how the heck it would do anything in a matter-antimatter reaction, except maybe get reduced to elementary particles.

Dilithium is not used to cause the M/AM reaction it is to control it.

Kesh
2005-Dec-19, 06:11 PM
END?

Never ...

They're Currently In Talks, To Make Another!!!

:evil:

Talks, yes, but they've got no direction yet. Most of the TNG cast has no interest in another film, and I think Shatner is the only 'classic' actor with any interest. An Enterprise film ain't gonna happen... neither is Voyager, nor DS9.

I think they need a new, fresh series before they can make a worthwhile film.


Dilithium is not used to cause the M/AM reaction it is to control it.

... which still makes no sense, as the material wouldn't have that property. Suffice to say it's a fun "hand waving" that lets ST get by with their plots.

Jason Thompson
2005-Dec-20, 01:20 PM
Seatbelts on starships would be useful, certainly. Mind you, judging by what happened when the Enterprise D saucer crashed in Generations they would not have been much help on the bridge. Just watch as all the chairs slide forward as the ship comes to a halt!

And you have to feel sorry for Worf, don't you? After six years of standing at the tactical console they finally give him a chair, then crash the ship!

And why is it that the two occasions Troi has taken the helm have seen the Enterprise get the hell smashed out of her? The saucer crashed, and then the Enterprise E was rammed into the Scimitar. OK, she did that on Picard's orders, but still... ;)

Jakenorrish
2005-Dec-20, 01:20 PM
It would be nice to see a film about space without the usual SF cliches. Whether the science is to be accurate or not, I'm not interested in another Star Wars clone, another comet/ asteroid disaster or seeing any more green skinned aliens! How about the Space equivalent of The Wizard of Oz, or Cassablanca?! ;)

Dave Mitsky
2005-Dec-20, 03:22 PM
Talks, yes, but they've got no direction yet. Most of the TNG cast has no interest in another film, and I think Shatner is the only 'classic' actor with any interest. An Enterprise film ain't gonna happen... neither is Voyager, nor DS9.

I think they need a new, fresh series before they can make a worthwhile film.



... which still makes no sense, as the material wouldn't have that property. Suffice to say it's a fun "hand waving" that lets ST get by with their plots.

Ah, but where would Star Trek, or most science fiction series for that matter, be without a little handwaving?

http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/index.php/Dilithium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilithium

Dave Mitsky

Moose
2005-Dec-20, 03:45 PM
And you have to feel sorry for Worf, don't you? After six years of standing at the tactical console they finally give him a chair, then crash the ship!

Chairs are for the weak.


And why is it that the two occasions Troi has taken the helm have seen the Enterprise get the hell smashed out of her? The saucer crashed, and then the Enterprise E was rammed into the Scimitar. OK, she did that on Picard's orders, but still... ;)

Just imagine her insurance premiums.

From a little-known deleted scene in Nemesis:



Riker: Yeah. Next time, Dianna, a little easier when releasing the clutch.
Troi: [Betazed "colorful metaphor"]