Page 5 of 8

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:55 pm
by Graham Kennedy
Rochey wrote::lol:
I think that's the only thing that it's good for.
My favourite part is the way Earth's magnetic field diverts microwaves. :)

But my all time great idiocy in this movie is how the digger machine is built lying flat... and people walk around inside it... and then it spends the whole movie digging basically straight down, nose first... and people are still walking around inside it. One what would now be a wall.

And I'm ashamed to admit, that one is so basic that it took me ages to spot it!

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:56 pm
by Captain Seafort
GrahamKennedy wrote:I actually show the Core to my science classes so that we can go through how scientifically absurd it is.
Out of curiousity, how many cock-ups are there in that film? I switched that part of my brain off after the "the core's stopped spinning".

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:58 pm
by Captain Seafort
GrahamKennedy wrote:But my all time great idiocy in this movie is how the digger machine is built lying flat... and people walk around inside it... and then it spends the whole movie digging basically straight down, nose first... and people are still walking around inside it. One what would now be a wall.

And I'm ashamed to admit, that one is so basic that it took me ages to spot it!
I'd say that one's pretty minor. After all, this is a Star Trek site - virtually all sci-fi has artificial gravity of some form, so we become used to it.

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:02 pm
by Blackstar the Chakat
GrahamKennedy wrote: ChakatBlackstar, if I may ask you a personal question... how old are you?
19 years old as of about two days ago. I tend to let the artistic license many writers/directors/producers and whoever else not effect my opinion, since I know how difficult it can be to create a dramatic story and still keep it 100% accurate with real world.

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:03 pm
by Dakarne
Does the TARDIS have artificial gravity? Or is it using the actual gravity of another dimension in which the interior of the TARDIS happens to be.

Speaking of which, I'll nominate the Godawful Americanisation of Doctor Who and repeat quite loudly that the Doctor is not half-human.

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:05 pm
by Captain Seafort
ChakatBlackstar wrote:19 years old as of about two days ago.
Happy birthday. :)
I tend to let the artistic license many writers/directors/producers and whoever else not effect my opinion, since I know how difficult it can be to create a dramatic story and still keep it 100% accurate with real world.
There's a difference between artistic license and gross stupidity. "The Earth's doomed because the core's stopped spinning" falls emphatically into the latter category.

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:12 pm
by Graham Kennedy
Captain Seafort wrote:
GrahamKennedy wrote:I actually show the Core to my science classes so that we can go through how scientifically absurd it is.
Out of curiousity, how many cock-ups are there in that film? I switched that part of my brain off after the "the core's stopped spinning".
God, I couldn't even begin to count.

The really aggravating thing about the "core stopped spinning" thing is this.

The core never stops spinning. Think about it, where would all the kinetic energy go? However, the magnetic field DOES die out and reverse every now and again. This is because the whole core doesn't rotate together as one big ball; there are all sorts of currents going every which way, but with an OVERALL movement more in one direction than the other.

When the field dies, it's because the currents become more random, so the magnetic fields they create oppose one another and cancel out.

And if they'd gone with that, it would make the solution MUCH more realistic, because your bombs wouldn't have to kick-start something the size of Mars. They'd only have to give the currents a knock, get them swirling slightly more in the same direction. Still pretty impossible, but far more feasible. So here, being more scientifically accurate would help the movie.

But they didn't do it. And you know why they didn't do it?

It's because they think you are too stupid to understand that explanation.

And that's what really aggravates me about movies like Armageddon and The Core. It's not that the writers don't understand the science - scientific advisors are cheap by hollywood standards, and scientists would fall over themselves to do something like that.

No. It's that they believe that we the viewer are too stupid to notice the crap they spoon feed us. Or too apathetic to want good quality movies.

And annoyingly, they are mostly right in this belief.

It wasn't always like this, you know. Look at Jaws, the first summer blockbuster. It's a movie about a giant fish for Pete's sake. But it's intelligently plotted, intelligently written, has good, well drawn characters, great dialogue... because the people who made that movie cared about what they were doing, and knew that we did too.

And then, at some point, people stopped caring. I hear people say things like "it's a blockbuster movie, what do you expect?" Well I expect quality, and if everybody else did too, we'd all get it.

*sighs*

Well that turned into quite a rant! I'll stop now...

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:13 pm
by Graham Kennedy
ChakatBlackstar wrote:19 years old as of about two days ago.
Okay thanks, just curious.

Happy birthday for two days ago! :)

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:23 pm
by Blackstar the Chakat
Captain Seafort wrote:
ChakatBlackstar wrote:19 years old as of about two days ago.
Happy birthday. :)
Thank you
I tend to let the artistic license many writers/directors/producers and whoever else not effect my opinion, since I know how difficult it can be to create a dramatic story and still keep it 100% accurate with real world.
There's a difference between artistic license and gross stupidity. "The Earth's doomed because the core's stopped spinning" falls emphatically into the latter category.
Ya...even I have trouble seeing past that. It would take something powerful enough to stop a small planet to hit the core to have any chance of stopping it from spinning. And it wouldn't affect the magnetic field, except purhaps as a side effect of the weapon used. And 1 isn't a prime number.

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:31 pm
by mwhittington
GrahamKennedy wrote: Look at Jaws, the first summer blockbuster. It's a movie about a giant fish for Pete's sake. But it's intelligently plotted, intelligently written, has good, well drawn characters, great dialogue... because the people who made that movie cared about what they were doing, and knew that we did too.
Yeah, I think it all started with the Jaws sequels, I mean come on, Jaws: The Revenge? IT'S A STUPID FISH!!! It's not going to come after your family and friends seeking retrebution! There's another nominee for WORST MOVIE EVER. Talk about slaughtering a great classic summer film.

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:38 pm
by Blackstar the Chakat
Oh, I got it! I have so got it. The movie AI. It was so godawful boring, and such a lousy ending, I can't believe I watched it. I don't even know what the point of it was. Most movies have some sort of point. If the point is just entertainment, to get laughs, to get people crying, to make a point about something like cloneing or a war.

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:12 am
by Mikey
Happy belated birthday, Blackstar - and an excellent nomination.

I'd like to take a minute to point out a few things. Not the worst films ever, but bad ideas. First, remakes that never had to be, and were a huge let-down from the originals: Flight of the Phoenix (Randy Quaid replacing Jimmy Stewart?), Alfie (Jude Law replacing Michael Caine?!), The Italian Job (whoever the hell replacing Michael Caine?!) I mean, come on - was there ever even a hope of these re-makes even coming close to the original pictures?

Second, adaptations of books that lost the whole theme a/o point of the books. Again, not necessarily bad pictures, but just disappointments to people who appreciated the books: Jurassic Park and Starship Troopers, most notably, although Starship Troopers tried like hell. Most other early Michael Crichton adaptations fall into this category as well: Sphere, Congo, Eaters of the Dead (the film version was known as The Thirteenth Warrior.) I haven't, and won't, see Beowulf, but I presume it's in the same boat.

Thanks for the chance to rant a bit. I feel better now.[/i]

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:35 am
by RK_Striker_JK_5
Happy belated, Chakat. :)

Man, The Core sounds... dang, have they invented a word for how bad?

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:10 pm
by Sionnach Glic
Man, The Core sounds... dang, have they invented a word for how bad?
I'm pretty sure you can't express how bad that film is in a single word.

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:56 pm
by Graham Kennedy
Mikey wrote:although Starship Troopers tried like hell.
Good lord no. Verhoeven deliberately set out to mock and undermine the book as much as possible.

No powered armour I can forgive - they only had so much money after all. But turning Heinlein's Federation into a Naziesque Fascist state? *shudders*