Nasa Names Most Realistic and Unrealistic Sci-Fi Films of All Time

Nasa Names Most Realistic and Unrealistic Sci-Fi Films of All Time

blog.moviefone.com

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)

(visit the link for the full news article)

Let's see . . .

1. - A totalitarian eugenic dystopia.
2. - NASA in secret inter-dimensional contact with aliens
3. - An elite ruling class lives in a veritable paradise while the workers toil in a hellish nightmare below.
4. - Alien contact
5. - I'm not specifically familiar with
6. - More aliens
7. - Genetically re-engineering dinosaurs.

These are labeled by NASA (an official government agency as the most realistic sci-fi movies of all time.

Thoughts? Concerns? Observations?

blog.moviefone.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt


HA!.. Classic NASA. Poke-n-jab the general public..
Scan of original (magazine?) article.

Wait wait wait wait!! There is something very wrong with this list...spaceballs...where the f#$k is spaceballs..that is by far the most accurate space movie of allllll time. They are using the swartz to blind us from the truth...

Originally posted by RobertAntonWeishaupt
Thoughts? Concerns? Observations?

Of course they left out....

The Matrix

2001 a space Odyssey

and

Blade Runner for Obvious reasons

i agree with #1. They are requiring more and more things for you to pass to get a job. When it's cheap to genetically test an individual, they'll analyze your blood to see if your in the right field according to your ability. That day is coming.

So...
On the podium we have 1 subject about aliens, and 2 about "elite ruling the world" with a twist, because the elite is not quite 'the same' as the general population... (great divisions... eugenics... cast system...?)

And that's what NASA thinks is "Realistic"?

Good to know....


Peace

And then the top ten least realistic films..?

Pretty much anything to do with natural disasters.!

Agenda much.?

"What the Bleep do we Know" was ranked as number seven of most unrealistic sci-fi flicks?

Pity.

It should have raked number one-through-seven.

Guess they didn't want to hog the whole list.

MM

reply to post by Mr Mask


It shouldn't have even been acknowledged.

If they acknowledge that as a film then I should be able to submit Machinama from Youtube as films.

I can't believe Space Camp isn't on the list!



"Max and Jinx friends 4-ev-er"!

(Just realized that was Jaquin Pheonix in that role.)

#5 Woman in the Moon

Ok this one intrigues me, what part of the plot to NASA, makes this film close to the truth?

He is mugged on the way home from his meeting with Mannfeldt by henchmen of the evil businessmen, commanded by an American named Turner. They steal the research which Professor Mannfeldt had entrusted to him and also burgle Helius's home, taking other valuable material. They then present him with an ultimatum: they know he is planning a voyage to the moon; either he includes them in the project or they will sabotage it and destroy his rocket. Reluctantly, Helius agrees to their terms.

Or

After the rocket blasts off, they discover that Gustav, a young boy who has befriended Helius, is aboard as a stowaway

Or

Once they get to the far side of the moon, Mannfeldt and Turner prove Mannnfeldt's theory that there is gold on the moon.

Last but not least and very unlikely

After the ship takes off for home, Helius discovers that Friede has decided to stay with him on the moon and they embrace passionately.

So where's E.T. in the most realistic list!? Very dissapointing. I would love to meet a little cute beerdrinking alien, but little chance huh.

reply to post by TuXXXeR


Though i think Armageddon was really played out behind the scenes. I think a comet has nearly hit the earth in our lifes but we where never told. But you never will be also. I doubt nasa was the ones involved in stopping it.

Always forget about the love story aspect of movies, they put these into all movies.

Armageddon was the only natural disaster movie that was even close to a real event that i have seen.

Also china syndrome must of been pretty close to reality as there has been events.

On there list i understand a few, have not seen all of them.

reply to post by Mr Mask


Yep i cannot stand what the bleep do we know type of things.

Do you know positive thinking brings about things like holocaust and the gaza concentration camp.

Its not a way for humans to live.

reply to post by andy1033


Someone on the op's link had this to say about Armageddon.

by Dave - January 4th 2011
It is not the premise of the movie, but rather the science shown.
Armageddon had a low G room on Earth. It had sound in space. It had armored space shuttles with no room for fuel tanks taking on fuel!
In Volcano, the lava didn't act like lava. They were able to make a lake of lava using K-rails which do not form liquid tight joints and should have leaked like a sieve. That does not even mention the heat the guys would have been exposed to or the fact that the lava would have run out between the buildings and set the buildings on fire.
I could go on and on if I wanted to do so. The science used in the movies listed is horribly wrong.

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt


just gone skip event horizone!?!?!?!?

The Science & Entertainment Exchange arm of NASA this list is being attributed to is claiming they had absolutely nothing to do with the list...
blog.scienceandentertainmentexchange.o... rg/2011/01/note-to-our-web-visitors-london-sunday.html

I'm thinking somebody took a bit of editorial license...

That aside, I think the spirit of this article was purely on the science used in the various films and not on the overall plausibility of the main plotlines. For instance, an asteroid coming straight at Earth (Armageddon) is highly plausible, landing on said asteroid, drilling into it, and then fracturing it with an atomic bomb to save Earth is not.... Furthermore, the movie had such wonderfull inaccuracies as sound waves traveling in the vaccuum of space and a zero gravity field generator. Conversely, Jurrassic Park's science was based in the abillity to clone a dead animal based off DNA samples & a petri dish. Science is doing this right now, the only difference is they haven't yet turned the science towards extinct animals... yet.

reply to post by Whateva69


Like i said i think nasa where not involved and its was higher techs used to stop the comet. I never said the science in the movie was right, it was just a story that i think did happen in our lifes but we where never told.

But of course we will never be told.

I think mankind went to the moon also but they also used higher techs. So also nasa keeps secrets like that.

One of my all-time favorites . . . Starman. (Jeff Bridges)

One I'll probably not see on their list . . . Capricorn One.