[QUOTE=The New and Improved Superman] 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.
[/QUOTE]
Of course it says fuck you. What else would you expect from a Christian outreach film?
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.
[/QUOTE]
I’m extremely sceptical of this claim! Sheer weight of numbers would overwhelm them in no time. Plus, archers firing high looping arrows of flame, and low knee high shots simultaneously would soon incapacitate the most hardy 2 marines…!
No, I am not making that up. Apparently, travelling interstellar space is so cheap and easy that you can more than make up for the expense by aborbing power from a few electrical plants on Earth. Interesting. But not particularly scientific.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you have to give them a pass on cheap and easy insterstellar flight. Half the science fiction industry would fall to the ground without that.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I think you’ve got it wrong. It’s not that a movie can’t have a plot that hinges on an implausibilty, it’s that they have to pick a story and stick to it. For example, if the letters of transit in Casablanca had been signed by DeGaulle, it would have ruined the movie, because a letter signed by DeGaulle would not get you through a German or VF checkpoint. The fact that there was no such thing as a “Letter of Transit” doesn’t really matter, as long as they function consistently through the movie.
[QUOTE=saoirse]
A movie, or a book, has to make sense in the context of its own rules. We assume all the rules of our world apply, and that the creators will give some sort of justification when they don’t. It’s only annoying when a movie violates its own logic.
[/QUOTE]
This is my view as well. I odn’t mind so muchif a movie is creative with the laws of physics, as long as they are consistent within their own fictitious universe.
I can hear explosions in space in your Monsters from the Galaxy movie? Fine. Suspension of disbelief and all that. But then don’t go putting a major plot point around the fact that sound doesn’t travel in a vaccuum, or whatever, later on.
[QUOTE=jlrepka]
If we’re talking about getting the science wrong in Spiderman 2, how could Doc Oc’s fusion reactor get out of control? The original fuel source is deuterium, but nothing is added to the system once it gets started except chunks of iron pulled in by the magnetic fields generated by the mini-sun. But iron won’t fuse under any P/T conditions…
[/QUOTE]
Not to detract from your point (and sorry for finding a nit in your pick), but iron will fuse under some conditions. That’s where all the heavier elements come from, after all. What you’re thinking of is that iron fusion is past the break-even point–it requires more energy than it releases. So fusing the iron would quickly cool off the reactor!
[QUOTE=Walter Windchill]
In Independence Day, they upload a computer virus from an Apple laptop to the alien mothership. Apparently the aliens use Apples, too.
[/QUOTE]
Duh. The aliens that use PCs are still on their homeworld trying to get their nav computers to reboot.
[QUOTE=Sapo]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I remarked upon this to my wife just this weekend. “Boy, you’d think after that first Death Star got blown up, they’d figure out that the new one should have lots of little reactors scattered all around, instead of one giant one right in the center, just like the old one.”
But here’s the thing: Brent Spiner’s character says, sometime during the scene where he reveals the downed Roswell ship to the others, that they hadn’t had any luck toying with the thing for the past several decades because “we couldn’t replicate their power.”
So, it’s not just about communication protocols: the aliens don’t even use electricity. Now, how do you get an Apple to sync with that?
[QUOTE=Pleonast]
Not to detract from your point (and sorry for finding a nit in your pick), but iron will fuse under some conditions. That’s where all the heavier elements come from, after all. What you’re thinking of is that iron fusion is past the break-even point–it requires more energy than it releases. So fusing the iron would quickly cool off the reactor!
[/QUOTE]
According to Martin Gardner’s One, Two, Three… Infinity, it’s silver that can’t be made to undergo fusion or fission (Gardner doesn’t explain why, though, and I’m looking for an online cite that does). Iron (specifically iron-56) is the most stable element so forcing it to undergo fusion requires massively more energy than the reaction produces and you’re right - feeding iron to a fusion reaction is like feeding sand to a fire. Dunking it in the river is actually a lot riskier.
[QUOTE=Agnostic Pagan]
I love that movie. It’s the best surrealist comedy of the decade. Every possible cliche of cheap drama and bad science that throws in even cheaper jokes to add humor to a project that in no way possible could be taken seriously to begin with.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve not seen the movie, but a few years ago I was on a D&D messageboard with the screenwriter for the movie. He was an awesome guy, ran some brilliant games from the sound of things, and in talking about the movie, he assured us that it was purely a labor of geeklove, in no way meant to be taken seriously. I think what he was going for in the movie was delighted laughter and “Yeah! BadASS!” at the sheer over-the-top absurdity of everything.
I dunno what the director did with it, but the writer sure didn’t think it was an Important Drama.
[QUOTE=Pleonast]
Not to detract from your point (and sorry for finding a nit in your pick), but iron will fuse under some conditions. That’s where all the heavier elements come from, after all. What you’re thinking of is that iron fusion is past the break-even point–it requires more energy than it releases. So fusing the iron would quickly cool off the reactor!
[/QUOTE]
You’re right of course, depending on how you want to define “fusion.” My understanding (admittedly limited, as a soft-rock geologist rather than a high energy physicist) is that heavier elements are not necessarily created by fusing iron nuclei with deuterium or other light nuclei, but by stuffing iron and other similar mass nuclei with high-energy neutrons. This is indeed a costly reaction, and my overall points remain: that (1) a small scale fusion reactor not only would not be able to create the required conditions but would be pointless, as it would be an energy consumer; and (2) a small scale fusion reactor could not go non-linear the way a fission reactor (potentially) can, as to grow it requires more and more hydrogen, which is available in only limited quantities in the atmosphere – but ironically would be available at much greater concentrations if you dumped the reactor in a large body of water…
[QUOTE=Giles]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Assuming it wasn’t an English army, as being shot with 1000+ arrows each would be something more than fatal.
Even with good plate armor, a few thousand longbowmen’s arrows would find a chink and you’d be down.
Even a Knight’s charge would work, although the first few ranks of knights would die.
[QUOTE=SCSimmons]
Duh. The aliens that use PCs are still on their homeworld trying to get their nav computers to reboot.
[/QUOTE]
I hear that, in the final installment of the current “Get A Mac” commercial campaign, Justin Long’s character turns into a tentacled, telepathic alien and EATS John Hodgman.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Assuming it wasn’t an English army, as being shot with 1000+ arrows each would be something more than fatal.
Even with good plate armor, a few thousand longbowmen’s arrows would find a chink and you’d be down.
Even a Knight’s charge would work, although the first few ranks of knights would die.
[/QUOTE]
This is assuming the army’s morale keeps up: having a couple hundred of your own troops die, to just two or three soldiers, before even getting into arrow or charge range would not tend to increase your sense of cohesion and optimism.
[QUOTE=xizor]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Well, if we’re going to open that door . . . in this episode of Drawn Together, a chicken is so terrified at facing Ling-Ling in the cockfighting pit that it lays an egg. Hey, guys, it’s a cockfight!
[QUOTE=Seven]
Of course it says fuck you. What else would you expect from a Christian outreach film?
[/QUOTE]
Well the ads I saw made it look like a standard-issue horror film, with lots of eerie atmosphere and scary stuff. Then I went to see it and got a long spiel about how ‘facts’ are untrustworthy, and we should be fearful of things that may or may not be out there, blah, blah, blah. It seemed like a bait & switch to me.
Not that I was expecting a lot of cold hard science fact from a horror film, even one ‘inspired’ by real events, but the flick purports to be a ‘fair & balanced’ look at religious / scientific dichotomy, and slants everything way into the religious camp. In fact, I had no idea this was a ‘christian outreach’ film. Was it actually produced by christian film companies (a la ‘the End of Days’)?
