NASA Picks Its Best and Worst Science-Fiction Movies

NASA Picks Its Best and Worst Science-Fiction Movies

motherboard.tv

At some kind of conference in which NASA “pleaded with Hollywood bigwigs for more rational plots” the space agency named its seven worst sci-fi films and seven best, in terms of scientific value. 2012 took home first place in the worst list for its non-stop diarrhea of bad science, like an initiating end-of-days domino having to do with the generally (in real life) non-interactive particle the neutrino heating up the Earth’s core. Or something. Oddly enough, I haven’t seen it.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www. news.com.au

Very enjoyable read depending on how plausible you like your movies I guess.

Very true overall though

Movies these days just don't cut it anymore, sci fi or otherwise.. i'm really getting sick of all the remakes too. When did creative writing and story telling die off?

All said though, i'd have to say Contact was probably my all time favourite for the way it invoked my imagination so well, and it's just a shame that you'll notice all the best ones were made at least 10-15 years ago

come on Holywood! pull your finger out :/


motherboard.tv
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by plexus


My best and worse picks.

Best:
1. Ghost in the Shell
2. Contact
3. Deep Impact
4. Gattaca
5. The Andromeda Strain (1971)
6. Jurassic Park
7. Blade Runner
8. Solaris (1972)
9. Westworld
10. Soylent Green

Worst:
1. 2012
2. Independence Day
3. Armageddon
4. The Happening
5. The Lawnmower Man
6. Maximum Overdrive
7. Tron
8. Moonraker
9. The Black Hole
10. Godzilla (All of them)

Bad science doesn't mean bad movie though. ;D

I wonder how much that cost. Or did they write it up on their own time?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

cool thread
I wonder if back in the day if Star Wars was considered realistic or just
outrageous fantasy? my guess is fantasy but alot of things in that movie have come to reality.
nice to know what our top scientists think could become real
cant wait on the time machines,that should be a disaster..

I was watching this program on bbc iplayer last night called Stargazing Live, I think you might have to be in the UK to watch it.

About half way through they did a little bit about debunking sci fi myths. Most of them were obvious:
-On star trek where the planet they land on miraculously has breathable air, always
-Independence day, where Jeff Goldblum's apple mac has the same software as the alien spaceship
-No FTL travel... according to our current understanding of physics

The other one was in reference to star wars, I hadn't really given it any thought, but it seems pretty obvious now that I look back. You can't see laser beams in space as there is no atmosphere, and no dust to scatter the light waves. So if you looked at a space battle from a side on view, you actually wouldn't see anything.

reply to post by Griffo


No sound in space or aerial maneuvers as if in an atmosphere in space.

2001 got the sound part right.

Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica have the proper maneuvering. They were still fighting too close. IRL, space battles would be beyond LOS.

Have yet to see invisible beams in space though in film or tv. Battlestar did use railguns and missiles if I recall though, which are far more plausible.

Clearly NASA is just afraid of Ming The Merciless.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Yeah, the presenter on that said he was a sort of adviser to sci fi films, so that they would try to stick to the actual laws of physics as much as possible. He said there was a shot where a spaceship was flying by really close, but with no sound, it just looked really cheap and tacky. So they added sound in because that's what the audience would expect

so basically if you want a fun night at the movies, don't go with a scientist who thinks they know everything


and any sci-fi list that doesn't include independance day is a waste of paper , good science or not it was a damn good movie.

I find it odd that movies like Close Encounters or ET didn't make either list. Too close to home perhaps?

Meh...of course 2012 comes last, they're covering everything about it...Not saying it was a good movie though (well, it sucked...)

hate to break it to ya but
Hollywood is not in the science business.
It's in the money making entertainment business.
The populace wants to be entertained
and some guy toiling in a lab day after day
is just not entertaining enough to make
a profit. people just don't want to know
HOW it works or even WHAT works.
They want the rush of adrenaline that
hollywood provides.

My favourite Sci- Fi movies are in no particular order, Blade Runner, 2001, Alien, Alien 3, The Abyss, Star Trek(09), The Thing, They Live, Silent Running, The Andromeda Strain, Gattaca, Serenity, Solaris, and of course Star Wars, but there are some fun, B-movie ones I love because they are purely entertaining, we can't be serious all the time, these include
Tremors, Critters, Slither, The Blob, and of course the magnificent Independence Day, it's great because it's a load of nonsense :-)

2012, Armageddon, Transformers 2 and Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus are contenders for the worst movies ever made :-)

reply to post by Crakeur


Only if Spielberg had completely followed Vallee's advice would Encounters have hit too close to home.

Even though he agreed with Vallee's version, Spielberg said the film wouldn't have sold tickets if it was that accurate though.

I still hope one day he makes Vallee's version, box office be darned.