NASA Names Best & Worst Sci-Fi Movies of All Time 610
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."
Can't Argue (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh. My little sister liked that movie.
Re: (Score:2)
I was most impressed with the fact that they outran pyroclastic flow from volcanoes (multiple times) in planes (maybe), RVs (no), and on foot (WTF?).
Newton's 4th Law (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently you're unaware of Newton's 4th Law. "Any natural disaster travels at the speed of the transportation you happen to be in at the time." Of course later Einstein showed that relativistic effects could add or subtract 10 or 20 miles per hour, but only in faster vehicles which weren't available in newton's time.
Re: (Score:3)
It's Because of the Phone Calls (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:It's Because of the Phone Calls (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's Because of the Phone Calls (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
I purposely use the word Fantastic. At one point, there was no distinction between Science Fiction and Fantasy. They were labeled under the same category, and thus a story where a hero used a rocket ship to visit Mars was treated the same as some hero entering an enchanted forest to slay a dragon.
It took a while for them to make a distinction, with sci fi fans arguing that there is a difference. And the major distinction was attempting to use science to explain the mechanism of a "fantastic" plot device.
The trailer truned my off for seeing it (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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
Too busy watching movies (Score:2)
Well, now I know why we never returned to the moon
Re:Too busy watching movies (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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!"?
Re:Too busy watching movies (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, no, I don't feel bad because I'm quoting the guy. He said it, not me. I suppose I do feel bad that the head of such an important agency, and perhaps even the president he takes orders from, think so little of Muslims that they think it's OK to condescendingly say - out loud - that anything NASA can or should do would make them "feel better about themselves." That's the most smarmy, patronizing bunch of BS I can possibly imagine.
Incidentally, this was widely reported, and Obama's main press spokesman was asked about it. He did a ham-handed job of badly spinning it, and said he didn't know why the NASA director said that, blah blah blah. So, either the director said things accurately - which makes Obaman's idea of the top priority for that agency to be a complete disaster - or the director was completely BS-ing, which means he should never have had that job in the first place. Neither is a good scenario.
Re: (Score:3)
The conspiracy continues... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Capricorn one is more thriller than sci-fi.
And aside from a couple of classics, the list focuses on well known fairly recent films. Most people under 30 haven't seen Capricorn One.
Re:The conspiracy continues... (Score:4, Funny)
I totally forgot about 2012 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had nothing against Arthur C. Clarke, until I read 3001. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
the sequels to 2001 and 2010 are 2061 and 3001. Neither was adapted into film.
Worst blogspam article of all time goes to... (Score:2)
I got distracted and started checking out the live webcam from the ISS. [nasa.gov]
Interesting Favorites Chosen (Score:4, 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?
Re: (Score:2)
It's more than that. Didn't you see the tiny origami unicorn on Charles Bolden's desk?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
and "noodles" with "the poor"
I liked 2012 (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because many people take the whole 2012 thing seriously.
The funny part about the 2012 thing, is if the folks whom made the "prediction" turn out to be correct, it'll be the first time they ever got anything right, yet also be the last time. Their 15 minutes of fame, sorta.
Now somebody like Nostradamus, he had the good sense to be so vague that he can't be proven wrong.
Here is the list. (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re:Here is the list. (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it interesting that NASA showed no love for 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Re:Here is the list. (Score:4, Insightful)
Between this and the 'alien lifeform' debacle... (Score:2)
...I have to ask: doesn't NASA have anything better to do with its time (and our money)? ..bruce..
Re:Between this and the 'alien lifeform' debacle.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Obvious cover-up (Score:3, Funny)
The worst thing is, the few brave voices that speak out against this stuff tend to get a bullet in the head without warni
Orwell's 1984 (Score:2)
The major western governments were still functioning democracies in calendar year 1984, so technically the film would be implausible.
It's only absurd if..... (Score:2)
It does not happen.
I for one welcome our new MCP overlord. (Score:2)
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.
capricorn one (Score:2)
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)
Idiocracy
Bypass slashdotted article (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:How does this happen? (Score:5, Informative)
Not since Congress won't approve anything good and keeps forcing them to work on bullshit they already cancelled until the money runs out, since apparently that makes good economic sense or something. Besides, NASA probably has one of the highest concentrations of nerds anywhere in the world. They probably know a thing or two about SciFi (as opposed to SyFy).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How does this happen? (Score:4, Insightful)
Lately I've begun splitting what people call sci-fi into three different subgroups.
Yes, I'm a bit bitter, Hollywood is butchering sci-fi with every new movie and if I ever open my mouth about it to friends and acquaintances they immediately start namedropping movies from the third category as examples of how there are plenty of good sci-fi movies being made...
Re: (Score:3)
The term "space opera" is already around for that purpose. When George Lucas is giving an interview with a degree of candor, he'll usually use that term to describe Star Wars. Naturally, Lucas doesn't give many interviews with a sense of candor anymore, but I seem to remember him using it in the interview with Leonard Maltin that was in the VHS versions in the '90s.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought it was well understood in SF fandom that "Sci Fi" was movie-style action-oriented futuristic fantasy (and some pronounce this "skiffy"), while "SF" was actual science-based fiction, which is extremely unlikely to appear in any visual medium.
Psst? They kinda ARE qualified in science (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate to break it to you, but (A) they didn't judge best or worst, but most absurd as science goes, and (B) they do have people qualified in several branches of science and technology. In fact, I'd expect that if anyone is qualified to judge woowoo doomsday scenarios based on stellar alignments and mysterious radiations from the galaxy, it would be NASA. That's, you know, the kinda thing they _are_ supposed to do: know what's happening up there.
Of course, don't tell that to the homeschooled idiots who'd rather wait for a "rapture" that kept being sold as any day now for 2000 years straight and never happened, than fix the real problems on Earth in the meantime. And who'll even take a non-existent Mayan prophecy as support for their Bible delusions. Or to the gang who just wants to believe any non-scientific idiocy, presumably because it makes them feel less bad about sleeping through Physics class high-school.
Re:Psst? They kinda ARE qualified in science (Score:4, Insightful)
We home school our kids, we believe in the Bible, and yet we view the whole "2012" thing as absurd, that the rapture is equally absurd, and that science does explain a LOT, but that there's also a lot it doesn't explain. We also don't think that the earth was created in 6 24 hour days and is only 6000 years old. That's ridiculous. We also don't think that dinosaur fossils were put here to test our faith. So in other words, we think for ourselves.
Now, there are those who are *exactly* as you describe, and of those we feel the same way you do. But, its not fair to use such a blanket statement. So let me correct it for you: "don't tell that to the *fundamentalist* homeschooled idiots...."
Re: (Score:3)
Sir —
we believe in the Bible
I'm curious about the meaning of this statement, because it is so ambiguous. What does it mean to you to "believe in the Bible"? Do you believe in (and I don't mean to oversimplify by putting it in a list) the Bible being one or more of the following:
1. a literally true set of statements? (I take it it's not this, because you reject eg rapture)
2. divine statements (whether those statements are true or not, or in Hebrew or otherwise)?
3. helpful guidelines for human life?
4. a significant history th
Re:Psst? They kinda ARE qualified in science (Score:4, Interesting)
Our preacher touched on this just this last Sunday. He said, "I trust science. I believe the Bible." He also said at a time earlier, "Faith can heal, but take your kids to the doctor when they get sick and give them their medicine." Or as a sign I read in front of a church one day, "Trust in God, but lock your car."
Don't act as if there is a disconnect between science and religion. Only the most ignorant theologians and scientists will tell you that there is. Some of the greatest scientific minds in history have belonged to one religion or another.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't act as if there is a disconnect between science and religion. Only the most ignorant theologians and scientists will tell you that there is. Some of the greatest scientific minds in history have belonged to one religion or another.
I'm sorry but I don't even know where to begin. Are you saying that religion, some of which state that the world is only thousands of years old, has no disconnect? And that is only one of many many examples.
I get that some people like yourself can have some sort of doublethink going on where you don't view the conflict but trying to justify it to those of who do not have such a world view is a little silly.
I'm not saying you can't have your 'faith' and the doublethink that then goes along with with trying
Re: (Score:3)
To an external observer, who is not privy to what goes on in your thoughts, how are you at all different from someone who does not believe in God?
Basically, if it looks like an atheist, talks lik
Re:Psst? They kinda ARE qualified in science (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd be happy to answer your questions:
1. a literally true set of statements? (I take it it's not this, because you reject eg rapture)
Is the Bible 100% literal? No. If it were, then I'd be a fundamentalist young earth creationist. It does have its literal spots, and it does have its symbolic spots (Revelation)
2. divine statements (whether those statements are true or not, or in Hebrew or otherwise)?
Yes, I do. Divine statements such as "This is My Son, the beloved, whom I approve" are 100% literal and correct.
3. helpful guidelines for human life?
Most definitely. Culture, times, technology have changed drastically. People on the other hand have not, and that's what the Bible focuses on.
4. a significant history that gives itself meaning?
Is it a significant history that gives us meaning in life? Yes. But that meaning has more to do with the future than the past. The Bible does explain why the past is important, opening up information on why the world is in the mess it is, but gives hope for future times when all of this will be fixed, back to the way it was supposed to be when God created human kind.
5. access to a social and culture community of people who also "believe in the Bible"?
Sure! But for me that is only a very small part of believing in the Bible.
To clarify a bit more: I've studied the Bible all my life. The religious group I belong to is not stuck on 1600 year old beliefs that are obviously flawed. We do not believe in pre-christian rituals and beliefs that have been integrated into Christendom. We DO believe that there is a sentient being who created us, who has a heavenly realm where he and his other creatures are organized, and that we are a small part of a very large machine. We also don't believe in a God who would create us just to torture us forever if things don't go the way he wants. Who would want to worship that? Not me.
I'll refrain from saying more because I want to answer your questions, not get preachy. Feel free to pm me via /. if you're further curious.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps (s)he believes that the Bible provides a good moral framework and appreciates that, while at the same time understanding that its literature and as such uses metaphors in an attempt to make points accessible to as wide a number of people as possible. If the GP is here, then likely they're smart enough not to take literature literally, but just accept it for what it is.
Re:Psst? They kinda ARE qualified in science (Score:4, Insightful)
That's good, but I'd argue that someone who view the Bible as a good moral framework but takes it as literature is not religious. I personally view a lot of the teachings of Buddhism as a very good moral framework - but I live under no delusion that the spiritual aspects of the religion are true. Therefore I am not Buddhist, nor do I "believe" in Buddhism.
I'd also argue that going to a religious text just to pickout a basic moral framework is kinda pointless - there are easier and more basic ways to do that. That's like buying a computer because you need a 6" length of copper wire. Sure it's in there, but there are far more efficient ways to get it.
Re: (Score:3)
Now what are we to make of that post?
No rational person would believe that insulting someone else's beliefs is a good way to win them over to their way of thinking. That leaves only two possibilities:
1: You're an unpleasant little troll.
2: You're irrational and illogical. Delusional, even.
First identify which one it is, then work on changing it and you'll find debates a lot more productive.
HAL
Re:Psst? They kinda ARE qualified in science (Score:5, Informative)
Wish it was so, actually. I've been hearing about a lot of doomsday dates between 2001 and 2012. Granted, not as high profile, but there is no shortage of idiots in the market for it, and of either other idiots or con artists filling the supply for that demand.
In fact, even a very summary googling shows that there hasn't been a single year between 2002 and present that didn't have such end-of-world prophecies. For 2002, for example, there have been at least FIVE fairly public prophecies that it's the end of the world as we know it. At least one of them, Paul Smirnov's, actually got the date updated twice when it failed to happen when prophesized. And then updated again for 2003. (Some people just don't take the hint to shut up and pretend they didn't make the claim.) 2003 saw another 4 fairly high profile prophecies. And another 4 for 2004. And so on.
And that's just counting those who made the news, not every deranged guy out there.
So, yeah, I _wish_ that people were at least sane enough to only fall for such bullshit every 11 years, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Re:Psst? They kinda ARE qualified in science (Score:4, Insightful)
My god you people are disgusting.
Wishing people dead because they've been raised to believe something foolish? Most laymen in the world have serious misconceptions about science (I'm 99.9% certain that includes you), yet just because you understand what amounts to a hill of beans more than one particularly ignorant group of people you hope they all commit mass suicide?
You are a rotten excuse for a human being, you seriously disgust me. I'd rather have 10 people who believe the earth is the center of the universe yet are capable of treating each other with decency and consideration* than a million well-informed, smug, self-centered assholes.
In other words, go fuck yourself, you smug, self-important bastard.
*I'm not trying to imply earth-centrists are capable of treating each other with decency and consideration, I'm simply pointing out what personal characteristics actually matter in real life.
It's even worse than that (Score:5, Informative)
It's even worse than that, really. It's not just "who cares about Mayans". It's that, really, they're trusting a calendar from back when the Mayans were as primitive as to not even figure out the length of a year (the Long Count uses 360 day years; seriously) and a culture who even at its apex only managed to count the days in the cycles of Venus (you know, the most bloody visible thing up there after the Sun and Moon) to tell them about galactic events. And they turn the end of a Mayan century into some kind of prophecy, although the Mayans never made such a prophecy. It's so fucking stupid, it's depressing.
To repeat a previous post (hey, it's Slashdot, you're used to dupes), for those who happen to still not know what that mayan thing is actually about:
Let's start from the start. The Mayans didn't count in base 10, but in base 20, presumably because they could count on their toes too. (No, really, look at their digits.) Thank goodness they didn't come up with a male-only maths, eh?
So they started with a year based on 260 day years, the so called Tzolkin calendar. If now you went "wait, that can't be right, it would skip through the actual year like crazy", congrats, you'd be smarter than the Mayans.
Then came the Long Count calendar, which was 360 days long, or 18 months of 20 days each. (Told you they were big on 20.) This is actually the calendar used in the 2012 (non)prophecy.
Yes, that's right. Those poor idiots are actually trusting a civilization to tell them about galactic alignments... who isn't even advanced enough to figure out the length of the year. Nor had the smarts to reset it to some equinoxe or such each year, like the lunisolar calendars used around here by even the most primitive ancient cultures. Yeah, that's the guy to trust with galactic calculations, right? ;)
To make it more stupid, even the Mayans eventually got a better calendar than that, the Haab calendar. Which finally padded the year to 365 days long, putting them finally on par with what the Egyptians had had, oh, only a couple of millennia before them. But anyway, a doomsday calculation based on the Long Count is already based on a calendar which is obsolete and crap even by Mayan standards.
So, anyway, a Long Count year was 18 months of 20 days each.
From there it went kinda like for us with decades, centuries and milenia, except in base 20.
So for us a decade is 10 years, for them a katun is 20 years.
For us a century is 10x10 years, for them a baktun is 20x20 years.
For us a millennium is 10x10x10 years, for them a piktun is 20x20x20 years.
All that happens in 2012 or 2013 is the end of a baktun. Yes, it's not even millennialism. The piktun (base-20 millenium) won't end for another couple thousand years or so.
That scare isn't even like Y2K, it's more like being scared of the rollover from 699 AD to 700 AD. I mean, WTF, it's not even running out of digits or anything.
And again that's _all_ there is to it, because there is no actual Mayan prophecy for that date.
But I guess that won't stop the doomsday idiots from waiting for their Rapture on that day. What else is new?
Re:It's even worse than that (Score:4, Interesting)
And for those of you wondering, it gets even MORE ridiculous than that.
One of the main Propogators of Mayanism believes he is the "heir of the legacy of Pacal Votan and the instrument of his prophecy, Telektonon".
Basically he believes he is a decendant of an Ancient Mayan King, despite not being Mayan himself, and that he is spiritually channelling this doomsday warning to the rest of the world.
When asked for any phyiscal evidence he'll point to this one stele/stela (which is basically a big rock full of mayan inscriptions) - this particular inscription which is terribly worn that basically says "Something will happen" on that date, the end of the Baktun. It's pretty much impossible to tell what exactly that something is, as the deterioration has taken its toll.
To really understand it though, it helps to know how the Ancient Mayan culture kind of worked. It's not uncommon for us to glorify figures of the past, like say Lincoln, and it's not odd to find us defining mini eras, like a Golden age. What seperates us from the Mayans is that because the Mayans were so spiritual and ritualistic in their lifestyle (though what ancient society wasn't?) - is that the Mayans liked to project into the future these greats date. Like fundamental Christians who believe in the Rapture and the Earth being engulfed in fires and flames while Jesus saves all the good people. Most fundies haven't gone as far as to say a certain date but in Mayan culture it wasn't uncommon. For example, if they thought at the end of a Katun that such and such God would return, a King might make an inscription about how great he is, just like that God who's coming in a few hundred years.
Now that you understand the basis of the prophecies, it all starts to seem a bit silly, right? Given that almost every king in Ancient Maya did this practice of "Prophecy" - and that none of them have come true for the past thousand years, it really throws a shadow of doubt over this 2012 end of the world thing. Here's the real kicker though - The Mayans have many prophecies predicting their society lasting long past 2012, I am pretty sure I saw one inscription dated as far ahead as like 12010 or something, (possibly a typo?). And given how most of their way of life was wiped out when the Westerners came, destroying all but a handful of books and a couple dozen cities - its an oddity on how they didn't see that one coming and weren't better prepared for it.
I mean, there are still people who are of Mayan descendant and they keep their traditions alive, passing it down through generations, trying to live seperate of society, and even they get really annoyed by all this sensationalism about this end of the world prophecy. It's ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3)
The only home schooled idiots I know are the one's that own several acres of land, run their own businesses, execute complex options spreads, and have converted some of their fleet to vegetable waste oil, or natural gas.
One idiot home schooler that I know and I'm very close friends with, is homeschooling his son. His son is a grade 1 highland pipes piper, has already clep'd out of half his first year of college courses. And he's only 16.
Re:Psst? They kinda ARE qualified in science (Score:4, Informative)
I think the GP was talking about home schooled idiots, but it seems you're talking about home schooled intelligent and well-adjusted people. Two totally different things.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, and everyone I know in the ghetto has at least a PhD. Plus they all run their own businesses, quite successfully. There are no poor people anywhere - it's a myth.
They're not at work 24h a day (Score:3)
I would more like assume that they're not serfs, and don't work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There'll be enough time for them to do their job _and_ watch a movie now and then. Sometimes even together with a few co-workers and start comparing notes.
Re: (Score:3)
Hell, my wife's department has occasionally hosted "Bad Science Movie Nights", where PhDs and grad students get together to make fun of movies like 2012. It's one of the weird constants I've seen in academia - they all seem to love those movies, probably because it's even more fun when the movie itself isn't really in on the joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't they have something more important to be working on?
Not in the last 40 years.
Re: (Score:3)
They do not judge artistical quality or entertainment value. They judge credibility, feasibility and scientific accuracy of the "science" portrait.
And given that they are mostly doing science in space, I'd say they're qualified to judge the quality of how science in space is described.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know you're being sarcastic, but it is money well spent. NASA faces huge uphill battles from people wondering why they aren't doing as much as they could be, and why we're not building colonies on the moon. SciFi movies are the primary tool to impression people as to what is technologically available to us. Bad movies give the public unfair expectations of what could happen, who controls it, and how it can be fixed. These people then write their congress people and complain that NASA isn't doing enough. C
Re:Money well spent. (Score:5, Informative)
Think if a majority of the people in this country were convinced by "2012" that the world would really end at that year. Their priorities for government spending would be dramatically different.
This part of your comment reminded me of this article [slashdot.org]; NASA actually had to post a rather lengthy FAQ [nasa.gov] about 2012 because of the sheer volume of grief that movie was causing them.
Personally, I agree that NASA should take the proactive approach on this one. It shouldn't be part of their job to educate the public like this but it has proven necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much the movie as the conspiracy theory to which the movie draws some vague inspiration.
The NASA take is informative, but for something more informative, with Gary Coleman no less, start here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN5sNXxe498 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I agree that NASA should take the proactive approach on this one. It shouldn't be part of their job to educate the public like this but it has proven necessary.
It's only necessary because of the complete dumbing down of the science curriculum in schools. That's what happens when you let a bunch of religious nutbars dictate what kind of science is taught to children.
It's time to ignore the religious crackpots and start teaching real science without fear of backlash.
Re:Money well spent. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, we can blame some of that on standards and requirements laid out by the legislatures. "Add this to your 5th grade health class." "Add this to your 7th grade math class." Teachers are spending a lot of time pushing crap that a politician thought was important, not what's actually important. I wouldn't be surprised to find that 10% of classroom time is wasted on political agendas instead of learning. But it's not the entire problem.
A big part of the problem is refusal to accept discipline as an appropriate path. (Note that discipline does NOT mean corporal punishment.) If little Johnny Trouble is disrupting class again, the rest of them just sit there and read 'Dick and Jane' for the 17th time while the teacher spends an hour trotting him down to the behavioral psychologist's office. Little Johnny is talked at without effect, then put back in the classroom where he then disrupts it for the 18th time. Little Johnny needs to be efficiently removed from the classroom setting without the parent's approval, and without concern for his "feelings", as every other approach rewards his bad behavior. And yes, his teacher should be able to tell the other kids that little Johnny was kicked out because he was being naughty. Stigmatize the offense. It works.
I'm not blaming little Johnny here. I'm blaming the system for deciding that accommodating little Johnny's every whim is a viable approach to education. If little Johnny has to end up in "special school" for a month to work out his issues, that gives 24 other kids the chance to excel. If Mommy or Daddy feel that little Johnny is being stigmatized by being placed in special school, Mommy or Daddy can hire a specialist to work with little Johnny to figure out his problems and get him cooperating so he can return to the classroom. The schools don't have to abandon him, but they also don't have to keep him slowing down the mainstream.
School boards have to step up and recognize they must represent the 95% of kids who aren't little Johnny. They also have to stop acting as the supreme court of schoolhouse behavior, and stand up to the whiny parents who think their kid shouldn't have been singled out. "Sorry, ma'am, that's a decision between the teacher and the principal, not us. They were there, we were not. Their decision is final. Your alternative to special school is to move out of our district, and take little Johnny with you. Now if you would please sit down and shut up, we won't send your new district a full transcript of little Johnny's discipline issues. Have a nice day."
Another big part of the problem is refusal to accept failure as a possible outcome for a child. Instead of moving the class along and leaving little Johnny behind, the entire class is held back to little Johnny's level of non-progress. If little Johnny can't keep up, alter little Johnny's schedule, not the whole class. There can be a standard pace, and it can be set to the pace of the average student. It doesn't have to be hyperaccelerated, but without the anchor of slow students, it will certainly speed up.
"No child left behind" takes the Garrison Keeler joke of "Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average" and tries to apply it legislatively, which is absurd. 5% of the children will always be the bottom 5% of the children. So far all it's accomplished is that we've proven that we can't squeeze 5% up into the bell curve without squeezing down the middle 90% to hide them.
Re:Money well spent. (Score:5, Informative)
It's not only NASA vs. SciFi Movies. That problem can be seen in a lot of genres. The more and more movies and shows try to claim they are "authentic" and are seen as such, the more people start to wonder why what they see in their shows isn't done in real life.
A friend of mine is in forensics. You might be able to imagine what he thinks of shows like CSI. To quote: "If they killed the prez, we wouldn't get the money needed to do half the tests they do routinely there on a hunch". Not to mention that the tests (those that ARE actually working as they do in RL, by far not everything they do has anything to do with reality, deus ex machinas are a staple of the later CSI episodes) sometimes require machinery so expensive that you couldn't get your hands on it if you blew your annual budget on just renting it. Not to mention that petty things like constitution or human rights seem to be non existent in the world of CSI.
But people see it as genuine and start to demand that forensics can flawlessly identify every culprit. That's not the case. By far not. Having a piece of hair or a cigarette butt doesn't mean you also have a suspect to match it against.
It's very well spent money if such claims are debunked so people do not have irrational expectations based on movies and shows. What people have to learn is that their main focus is entertainment. Not education.
Re: (Score:3)
I know! I'm feeling soooo deceived by the movie's I've seen lately. I mean, I was at the hospital the other day, and the nurse was not wearing a form-fitting white uniform with a plunging neckline. She didn't come on to me or tell me how naughty she'd been. She didn't even have enormous breasts! B-cup, tops! All she did was poke me with needles and bring me terrible food!
Re:Money well spent. (Score:5, Insightful)
That cuts both ways though. I've read about the police's and prosecutors' frusteration at the "CSI effect" and I'm fine with it, despite the fact that the details depicted on the show are sometimes dodgy or exaggerated. And beleive me, I know the frusteration. I know enough science to sit there and kibitz when the show gets things wrong. And, working in computers, I've had to explain that, "No, computers can't/dont actually do that." my share of times.
But juries demanding to actually see hard physical evidence of a crime, instead of just taking the word of some random guy who said: "he done it." is a GOOD thing... a VERY good thing! Peoples' freedom and sometimes their lives are at stake in a criminal trial. And if the government is going to take away either; we should damn well be a whole lot more sure about that than we are now. "Innocent until PROVEN guilty." and "Better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent should suffer a trial." and all that.
And boo effing hoo for the cop who's PO'd that his version of events is not golden anymore, or for the DA who's seen his conviction ratio drop. It's almost routine now for DNA evidence, for example, to exonerate people who've spent years in prison, falsely convicted after some crooked cop lied in court to frame him and the DA went along with the sham just to get his numbers up. How many innocent people have lost years of their lives because of this? Have we executed anyone because on this? Even person, even one year, is intolerable. (And does anything ever happen to the cop and DA who set someone up for the crime they didn't commit? Nope.)
So yeah... I'm all in favor of anything that conditions juries to expect to see real evidence... even if that expectation is unrealistically high... as opposed to taking the word of a human who may be lying. It's absolutely better than the alternative.
And as a purely practical matter; your friend, frustrated though he may be, still comes out as a winner and should be happy. Said "CSI effect" is also generating more demand for forensic evidence in order to convict. Higher demand means a higher budget and more cool toys for him to play with... and better job security as well.
Looks, to me, like a win-win across the board.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe it's dumbassed attitudes from people who reply without understanding the opinion of who they're replying to?
Parent has NOT said you're not allowed to criticize. Parent was saying he agrees with what NASA is doing and he stated why.
Re:Money well spent. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:GATTACA is the most realistic (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, SF shouldn't have a moral message. It should just be shoot-'em-up.
Obviously Gattaca was done on a relatively small budget, but it told a pretty compelling story that isn't exactly a mile away from what we'll likely be facing in fifty years.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I mean there's having a moral message, and then there's having the antagonist turn in one of the worst performances of his life, all of the secondary bad guys being the most cringe-inducing, mustache-twirling heavies this side of Snidely Whiplash. And then there's the completely lifeless romantic subplot, and the utterly non- ending where the leads settle their conflict with a swimming contest and the brother just commits suicide. Oh, and I'm sure that once they discover the guy on the mission faked
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, science in space is not really as exciting as people think it is. Weightlessness is certainly nice, but I'm sure it gets old after a while. And then, well, what's left is doing your job and trying to figure out how to shit in a vacuum cleaner. And I'm pretty sure that sucks.
Re:GATTACA is the most realistic (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignore the plot of Gattaca, the morality lecture on genetic engineering and ask yourself this: In the future are human beings going to start tampering with the human genome? If the answer at any point in the future is yes, then the science in Gattaca is likely realistic. I actually agree with their assessment, the future portrayed in Gattaca where genetic information is used to discriminate and people begin to improve the human genome is VERY realistic. It will start with where they said it would start in the movie, the first tampering will be to remove disease, then it will be a slippery slope to make people smarter, stronger and more gifted. As the techniques improve testing will become so quick and routine that a microchip that can read out your entire individual genome in seconds is possible. Once improvements are made those that are "improved" begin to discriminate against those that aren't. From the first time I saw Gattaca I realized they accurately predicted the future of genetic engineering.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Oh so wrong. Clever but wrong.
P.S. You want Columbia instead of Discovery.
Re: (Score:2)
Hush! Not 'til the next start!
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the list. I'm a bit surprised that 2001 didn't make the most realistic list. I mean, sure, the idea of an above-human-level AI and aliens might be a bit on the less realistic side, but no more so than The Day The Earth Stood Still.
Re: (Score:3)
Where is Duncan Jones' Moon on the best of list for science?
It's presumably not there (can't RTFA as slashdotted... if this is Nasa's list, why is the article linked somebody random's blog?). I would guess there were a few reasons:
1. Not that many people have seen it, it being an independent film, so the educational value of including it on the list is low.
2. Producing identical clones who believe they are the original source person (complete with memories and personality) is probably not viable.
3. With an AI as advanced as the one shown, it seems unlikely that an
Also... gravity. (Score:3)
Inside the station they walk at normal pace and what appears to be Earth gravity.
Outside everyone moves in slow motion.
Also, no delay in telecommunication.