[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Fw: Armageddon versus scientific accuracy

Hello Jim and List,

Right on Jim!  "Contact" did a nice job of capturing the tension between
religion, science, politics and the tension within the scientific community
(over 'who" gets credit for "what" as well as telling about those scientists
bold enough to challenge accepted ideas).

"Deep Impact" did no serious injustice to science.  It was more of a
"personal relations" flick than an "action" flick.  But, it was believable.

However, "Armageddon" has filled millions of minds with totally erroneous
information.  It will take generations of school teachers to set the record
straight.  Much of the science would have added to the suspense -- an
asteroid with little gravity is more treacherous than one with gravity like
Earth's (and so forth).  Chalk it all up to ignorance within Hollywood at a
time when some public opinion surveys say that almost 60% percent of the
public believe aliens have landed on Earth at one time or another.

Cheers,
Steve

-----------------------------------------------
Steven Excell
Seattle, Washington USA
E-Mail: excell@concentric.net
------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Hurley 
To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com

Date: Tuesday, July 07, 1998 7:37 PM
Subject: Armageddon versus scientific accuracy


>A bit off-topic, but I hope no one minds.
>
>Certainly one major reason to see movies is to be entertained.
>
>But I don't see why we have to put up with such poor science,
>engineering, and computer interactions in movies. It may give
>young kids a bad intuition for these fields.
>
>If there is a lawyer movie, there appears to be at least an attempt
>to get courtroom drama correct, if it's a doctor movie, there will
>be no end to technobabble and disease dagnosis.
>
>Perhaps to a doctor and a lawyer these are very inaccurate movies,
>but there is a least a pretense to be technical to some extent.
>
>But when it comes to areas like astronomy, or computers, forget it.
>
>Maybe it's because people perceive these as dull? 2001 was quite
>accurate, at least in the space scenes, and perhaps it was too boring
>seeing a large ship appear to be dead in space...
>
>Contact was a step in the right direction - it did skim over highly
>technical things (like the difficulty in decryption and detection
>of the signals within the signals), but it wasn't too far off-base
>in accuracy. It was also quite entertaining and had a lot of
>impact - in fact, to me, it was the human interaction and non-technical
>side of that movie that was dull.
>
>   - Jim Hurley
>
>----------
>List Archives are located at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/list_best.html
>For other help, FAQ's and subscription info and other resources,
>visit  http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing_list.html
>----------
>
>

----------
List Archives are located at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/list_best.html
For other help, FAQ's and subscription info and other resources,
visit  http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing_list.html
----------