the Exorcism of Emily Rose did not merely expound bad science, it openly attacked the very basic tenets of science.
In her closing summation, Laura Linney’s lawyer character blatantly argues that the medical explanations for Emily Rose’s ‘possession’ syndrome cannot be relied upon because “facts” are debatable, inconclusive, insubstantial guesses, and no one can be sure of anything, ever.
The movie is basically a big loud “fuck you” to the founding premise of the scientific method.
There was one. I saw it. Many of the same stupid plot points? Check. Cardboard characters? Check. Fascist, well, not undercurrents. More like a fascist Perfect Storm? Check, but the move appeared to play them for laughs. Yeah, that was “Starship Troopers,” alright, but I don’t think Heinlein would’ve put kids into combat with giant bugs while armed for a patrol of Fallujah.
Oh, I get it! You actually thought the book “Starship Troopers” was GOOD and worthy of more than a Space Opera movie treatment? Well, it did. An accurate treatment would’ve been about the same without the intentional laughs.
What I hated about ST was the military blunders - the handheld nukes were about the most believable military technology they carried.
Just a few high-caliber machine guns could have taken care of all the bugs that attacked their so-called “base”. Not to mention any artillery at all: if they had the logistics and strategic outlook that allowed them to make a base certainly they would have been able to plan for better fire support than the (apparently quite limited in supply) nuclear grenades?
I know cartoons are supposed to be off-limits in this thread, but I have just seen Barnyard and would like to point out that the main characters in this movie were a father-son set of cows. Not bulls, but freaking COWS! Complete with udders! Talk about thumbing your nose at science, you would be hard pressed to thumb it any harder than that.
Since Independence Day was mentioned, let us not forget the odious tendency of most evil empires (ID4, Star Wars) to dominate galaxies without ever developing failsafe technologies. That the Death Star and the big plates had a spot where you could basically just kick it and the whole miles-long construct falls to pieces is simply unreal.
how can you thumb your nose at science when all you have is a hoof?
Whenever people start picking a movie apart, usually for good reason, sombody has to trot out the old trope about willing suspension of disbelief. Yes, it is important. It’s what makes the best books, movies and plays what they are. But the strange misconception seems to be that the writers and directors somehow have a right to it. No, it’s something they have to earn. I should search through all the threads that include this phrase and make this point.
I heard a story once that Peter Benchley, the original author of Jaws, objected to Stephen Spielberg’s gimmick of having the airtank blow up when shot on the grounds that it just wouldn’t happen. Spielberg said something to the effect of, “Give me an hour-and-a-half with the audience, and they’ll believe it.” In fact, there’s good reason to take the author himself to task. As he has admitted, sharks don’t really behave the way Jaws does either. It’s still a hell of a movie, even as we are aware of these facts, because it earns willing suspension of disbelief. The drama is so compelling and the ending so satisfying that we can put aside the fact that they’re both total horseshit.
I’m a big fan of Serenity, but that movie has a fair bit to answer for on the bullshit scale. The space battles deal with g-forces as though they were going no faster than speed boats. The terrible secret of the Reavers, while compelling, gives rise to paradoxes. And there just happens to be an ion cloud there to stave off the big reveal? Why would it be there in the middle of a solar system? At least some of this the director and writer Joss Whedon has copped to with the explanation that it was all for the sake of the story. Well, I liked the story, but a very similar story could have been done without me being willing to forgive so much bullshit. Whedon earns willing suspension of disbelief with characters we can care about. Mind you, I don’t know if the same would hold for people who hadn’t watched the TV show Firefly.
Nobody is more picky about bullshit in science fiction movies than science fiction fans themselves. If they still love it despite the fact that there’s always some element of total bullshit, and they are themselves often painfully aware of this, then I think we have to abandon the notion that nitpicking is a wholly antagonistic activity. It’s part of the fun.
The problem becomes that sometimes it’s a deal-breaker. Here are some examples of what I consider deal-breakers:
In Stargate (the movie), they find nine co-ordinates that are supposed to show them the path between two star systems. This has been rigged to make the number come out to nine, and even that doesn’t make sense. They say that the first six define a cube, and the first solar system is at the center of it. Then the last point defines our own solar system. First of all, if you already have a co-ordinate system that can define the location of a point in space, why not just give the co-ordinates of the system in question instead of six other points? It only takes one point in space to define the location of the Sol system, but the alien system has to be defined by eight?
Alien Vs. Predator: At some point, a protagonist cleverly declares that the aliens are using a ‘metric’ measurement of time. He seems to mean ‘decimal.’ My revulsion was… I… can’t even speak of it.
Didn’t Winston Wolf know enough about cubic meters to know it is sceintifically (or mathematically) impossible to fit four adults into an Acura NSX?
In fact, I recall Benchley saying that he attended an early screening that included a group of professional divers, who presumably would know that an air tank struck by a bullet would not blow up like that, and when the shark exploded they all jumped to their feet and cheered with the rest of the audience.
It’s just a flippin’ movie. Yeesh. As in ‘entertainment’. As in ‘park your brain at the door and go for the ride’. As in sometimes it’s not a death row crime to lighten the hell up.
It’s only of tangent relevance to this thread, but there was a scene in Timeline that made me chuckle, as the history students are preparing to step into the time machine and one of them asks why they need to be accompanied by two ex-marines.
Idiot. You’re jumping into the Hundred Years War. The right question isn’t “why do we have marines?” but “why don’t we have more marines?”
Clearly they were born near the factory where the shoulder-fired nukes were made. 
Let me add that there are movies with no science, in which the universe follows physical rules unrelated to our universe (examples include the aforementioned *The Core, Armageddon, Volcano, *and the TV movie 10.5). There are also movies whose internal universe follows most of the same rules as our universe (*Deep Impact, Dante’s Peak, Contact). And a few examples of movies that seem to have been made in our universe (2001, Apollo 13 – of course the latter is pretty much a true story). You can probably guess that I’m a geologist from the examples I present…
My biggest issue is generally with the second group, which often get most of the science right but cut corners at key points. For vulcanologists, the keys to forecasting an eruption are outgassing of sulfides and sulfates, earthquake size and frequency (particularly of B-type, harmonic tremors), and ground tilt. In Dante’s Peak a major eruption is preceded by none of these indicators, and the protagonist manages to call the eruption in advance anyway, apparently based on a “feeling” (just like Bill Paxton predicts tornadoes in Twister).
And in Contact, I don’t begrudge Ellie for not checking on the amount of static on her recording devices. In her testimony at the end, she is honest in her answers, finally admitting to the committee that she can’t prove that she experienced what she claims. But when she walks out into public she’s greeted by cheering throngs, holding signs reading “We Believe You.” At this point she ceases to be a scientist and becomes a religious prophet, reporting to the world about an experience that is not reproducible (In the book, she agrees to not publicise her story unless she can provide evidence that it was real.
Well, to be fair, two marines equipped with 21st century technology (including bullet-proof vests in case the swords and/or arrows get too close), woiuld be able to wipe out a whole 14th-century army.
Bolding mine. You mistyped “Plate Armor” 
While a bullet-proof vest might provide a sort of padding under stronger armor, it was much weaker than virtually(?) all types of medieval armor against blunt trauma.
So, two marines equipped with assault rifles, plate armor (and those clear plastic riot shields,) and lots and lots of pistols, could defeat an entire 14th-century army, unless the archers got lucky.
Why do people keep saying this? No, they didn’t.
The point is not that they had compatible computers, but that the geeky guy had the chance to study their communication protocols and circumvent them - it’s explained in the movie. I mean, it’s a crappy film and worthy of much criticism, but not this one.
Although, as I recall, the scene which most clearly explains all of this was only an extended DVD scene.
I’m skeptical of this claim. I think it mainly depends how the army’s leaders responded psychologically. If they were smart enough to understand that they were facing men with very advanced technology, but not gods, and that the technology presumably had limitations; they would eventually defeat the marines via some combination of darkness, catapaults, fatigue, starvation, outflanking, etc. Two marines with rifles could probably hold a narrow pass in difficult-to-traverse territory against an invading 14-th century army for a long, long time, though.
All time travel movies have a huge piece of BS in them: Time travel. But some of them, like Terminator and Twelve Monkeys are among my favorites.
Nope, my rule is simpler. A movie has to be entertaining enough that you ignore its implausibilties. De Gaulle signing letters of transit? Kane dying alone in his room with nobody there to hear his final words? The Deathstar having a self-destruct button on its surface? The entire plot of Godfather Part II? No problem; these were all great movies and I’ll gladly overlook their flaws. It’s only bad movies where you notice the problems.
I’ve only ever seen the movie on terrestrial broadcast TV - maybe the TV edit included something the DVD didn’t?