Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies NASA Sci-Fi Idle

NASA Names Best & Worst Sci-Fi Movies of All Time 610

Posted by samzenpus
from the I-want-a-recount dept.
mvar writes "Working through the year-end best/worst movie lists can be a feat of Olympic proportions, but there's one list which is so damn cool you'll definitely want to give it a whirl. NASA and the Science and Entertainment Exchange have compiled a list of the 'least plausible science fiction movies ever made,' and they ranked the disastrous (in more ways than one) 2012 as the most 'absurd' sci-fi flick of all time."

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Names Best & Worst Sci-Fi Movies of All Time

Comments Filter:
  • I can't argue with it. It was an insanely awful movie, both for the absolutely retarded "ooh, look, Africa just rose a mile", but just as importantly because it was just a plan bad film.

  • by BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @12:15PM (#34754684) Homepage Journal
    If I recall correctly, 2012 was the disaster movie that caused hundreds (maybe thousands) of overly emotional retards to call NASA directly and ask whether the world was actually going to end. I think one caller even asked NASA if they should kill their child now, in order to save them the pain of having to deal with the 2012 apocalypse. I know if a particular movie turned my work phone into a spam pot for dipshits I would declare that movie the ultimate fuck up of all time as well.

    I think next we'll see NASA using it's orbital lasers to melt John Cusack's for his role in that film, at least, I can dream.
    • by E IS mC(Square) (721736) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @12:19PM (#34754736) Journal

      Two things -
      1. I don't even know how 2012 is considered a sci-fi at all.
      2. If NASA indeed decides to use lasers, they should just go ahead and melt all of John Cusack's roles till date.

      • they should just go ahead and melt all of John Cusack's roles till date.

        Just preserve:

        Grosse Point Blank
        Serendipity
        Runaway Jury

        While he's not outstanding in any of them, the movies wouldn't be the same without him.
      • by jefe7777 (411081) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @12:51PM (#34755152) Journal
        TWO DOLLARS. I want my two dollars!!!
      • Two things -
        1. I don't even know how 2012 is considered a sci-fi at all.
        2. If NASA indeed decides to use lasers, they should just go ahead and melt all of John Cusack's roles till date.

        Scientific accuracy is not a requirement of a science fiction story, only that the mechanics of the fantastic elements are attempted to be explained away via science instead of accepting that it is some mystical event (like the result of breaking a religious artifact or something). A lot science is very unsound when a SF writer puts in a throw-away sentence or paragraph to explain floating cities, faster-than-light travel, time travel, teleportation, etc. Those things might be possible and sometimes the

    • The trailer turned my off for seeing it.

      Way to much over the TOP.

      At lest the B movies are so bad they are good!

    • by Delusion_ (56114)

      I knew a woman in the late 90s whose future plans ended on December 31, 2000, because of Y2K (a little) and "Nostradamus" (mostly). This was a responsible woman with a small business as well as a government job with a very high security clearance (which was how I knew her), two children, a husband, and a good amount of money saved up, which she was spending quickly since there was no need to worry about financial security after 2000 anyway. You can't take it with you, after all.

      Unfortunately, my term of s

  • Well, now I know why we never returned to the moon

    • by ScentCone (795499) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @12:23PM (#34754790)
      now I know why we never returned to the moon

      No, it's because the NASA administrator says that the president has told him that NASA's top priority is to find ways to make Muslims feel better about themselves [telegraph.co.uk]. So, there's a lot of re-tooling going on, to make that happen.
      • No, it's because the NASA administrator says that the president has told him that NASA's top priority is to find ways to make Muslims feel better about themselves.

        Do they use historical revisionism, like "Neil Armstrong, a Muslim American, was the first man to walk on the moon!", or do they really stretch by saying things like "If it weren't for Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, we wouldn't have NASA today!"?

  • by Palestrina (715471) * on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @12:17PM (#34754702) Homepage
    They don't even list "Capricorn One". [wikipedia.org]
  • Even when I saw the name here, I was like: "wow, is that another 2001, like 2010? I should see that" Then I looked it up on IMDB. :(
  • Please, if the title of the submission includes the word 'names best & worst' in it, please provide the list of the best and worst.

    I got distracted and started checking out the live webcam from the ISS. [nasa.gov]
  • by BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @12:21PM (#34754772) Homepage Journal
    The list of worst sci-fi movies carries mostly expected candidates, but I found these two pieces from the article interesting:

    But not all sci-fi films were mocked by NASA experts, they did agree to praise 1982s Blade Runner, starring Harrison Ford. The movie which they said “convincingly portrayed a futuristic Los Angeles now only eight years away”

    And the most “realistic” sci-fi film according to NASA, goes to 1997s Gattaca, starring Ethan Hawke, Jude Law and Uma Thurman. The movie was about “a genetically inferior man assumes the identity of a superior one in order to pursue his lifelong dream of space travel.”

    It looks like the smart guys at NASA agree with many of us 'dotters that the future is going to be a bleak, dystopian police state where the richer get richer and the poor eat noodles off the street. Ah well, at least we get Harrison Ford and glowing umbrellas right?

    • by Minwee (522556)

      Ah well, at least we get Harrison Ford and glowing umbrellas right?

      It's more than that. Didn't you see the tiny origami unicorn on Charles Bolden's desk?

    • Screw Harrison Ford, I want the chicks dancing with snakes...
  • I liked 2012 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Andy Smith (55346) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @12:33PM (#34754898) Homepage

    What is the point of writing about 2012 being "absurd"? It was a special effects action movie intended to entertain people in a cinema for 2 hours. Mission accomplished, for me and millions of other people. The same team that made 2012 also made films about alien invasions and giant lizards, so they aren't exactly aiming for hard realism and non-absurdity.

    Someone at NASA isn't making an interesting or valid criticism, they are demonstrating their own lack of humour.

    • I dunno, Bill Pullman's speech in Independence Day inspired me in a pretty realistic way....."We will not go quietly into the night!..." Ah, it still sends shivers down my spine...
  • Here is the list. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @12:34PM (#34754914)

    Worst Sci-Fi Movies

    1. 2012 (2009)

    2. The Core (2003)

    3. Armageddon (1998)

    4. Volcano (1997)

    5. Chain Reaction (1996)

    6. The 6th Day (2000)

    7. What the #$*! Do We Know? (2004)

    Most Realistic Films

    1. Gattaca (1997)

    2. Contact (1997)

    3. Metropolis (1927)

    4. The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)

    5. Woman in the Moon (1929)

    6. The Thing from Another World (1951)

    7. Jurassic Park (1993)

    • by myc (105406) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @01:19PM (#34755474)

      I find it interesting that NASA showed no love for 2001: A Space Odyssey.

    • by fermion (181285) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @03:04PM (#34756736) Homepage Journal
      The best scifi, like the best literature, deals with relationships. The best scifi, look at Heinlein, Pohl, Robinson, Le Guinn, Norton, Asimov. All these focus on how emerging technologies will impact our relationship with each other and the world t large. For example, as technology allows us to communicate and trasport ourselves more quickly, what will this do for us. For drama the effects are often negative, but then it is not about the effects themselves. It is about have the courage to think about the impact of the technology. I am convinced that speculative fiction is not popular because most people do not like to thing about these immediate consequences, based in reality. Most like to posit a fanciful hypothesis with no basis in observation, write a book about it, and call it philosophy. Or simply gossip about the fictional neighbors are doing.
  • ...I have to ask: doesn't NASA have anything better to do with its time (and our money)? ..bruce..

    • by BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @12:52PM (#34755154) Homepage Journal
      The 'alien lifeform debacle' as you chose to propagandize it, was a very important and interesting discovery regarding the fundamental ingredients for life that is still being reviewed by major microbial scientists worldwide. Not recognizing the significance of that announcement just because it wasn't the discovery of alien life (something that NASA never advertised, but, rather, a speculation that the media over-hyped) does little more than betray your ignorance on that particular matter.
  • by sideslash (1865434) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @12:36PM (#34754934)
    Why would a government agency be rating movies, anyway? The only possible explanation is that they know something we don't about 2012, and it actually is going to be the end of the world. The top gubmint politicians and military brass are confident that they have their secret shelters and caves to flee to, but the masses are being psychologically conditioned to quietly walk right into their doom.

    The worst thing is, the few brave voices that speak out against this stuff tend to get a bullet in the head without warni
  • The major western governments were still functioning democracies in calendar year 1984, so technically the film would be implausible.

  • It does not happen.

  • Article slashdotted so I can't RTFA but I find it hard to believe that NASA really think Tron, Avatar, and Mars Attacks! are all more feasible scenarios than disastrous environmental effects from global warming.
    It seems NASA saying 2012 was most unrealistic was more than slightly motivated by proagandist politics.

  • If I were at NASA I'd have voted Capricorn One as the worst SciFi movie of all time. After all this film claims the moon landing was faked.

  • Most realistic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @01:21PM (#34755492)

    Idiocracy

  • by fiannaFailMan (702447) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @02:34PM (#34756380) Journal

    This has been written up in the Toronto Star [thestar.com], Wired UK [wired.co.uk], The Australian [theaustralian.com.au] and a few others [google.com].

    Interesting, and saddening, that overseas media has picked this up and US media doesn't seem to be terribly interested. From one of TFAs,

    But why has Nasa taken the day off from searching the galaxy to try its hand at movie criticism? Well, the agency argues that bad flicks can worry viewers. In fact, so many people wrote in to the agency, worried about potential 2012-related catastrophes, that Nasa had to publish a special website just days before the film's November 2009 release.

    The myth debunking page reads "Nothing bad will happen to the Earth in 2012. Our planet has been getting along just fine for more than 4 billion years, and credible scientists worldwide know of no threat associated with 2012."

    Scientific illiteracy is becoming a big problem in the US. Kudos to NASA for tackling it.

This place just isn't big enough for all of us. We've got to find a way off this planet.

Working...