|
|
|
futuristic space ships Sci-fi movies with plausible science
|
|
|
Star Wars was not only good but outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
futuristic space ships Sci-fi movies with plausible science
|
|
|
spaceships, hyperdrive on those spaceships, dogfights among spaceships, intergallactic travel, adventures on remote planets, ray guns, robots, and aliens. If that doesn't qualify as science fiction, nothing does. How many of those science fiction criteria are met by 2001, which we agree is science fiction? The question not whther it is fiction, but whether it is 'science' fiction. The Force is clearly a fantasy concept. SW, as much as I love it, is fantasy, not SF.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
futuristic space ships Sci-fi movies with plausible science
|
|
|
Further more the whole statement Sci-fi movies with Plausible science is in itself an oxymoron being as the term Sci-fi stands for science fiction the key word here being FICTION and as such fiction doesn't have to have any basis at all in reality. You're wrong. Fiction refers to plot and characters, not to any science or pseudoscience found in the movie. The science can be fictitious yet plausible, and plausible science is the issue (not fictional science ). In 2001, Discovery's centrifuge, used to generate artificial gravity, is fictional yet plausible: it is plausible science. However I do grant that for a sci-fi movie to be good that it has to be _base_d at least partly on good science or theories. Wrong again. Good science can enhance a science fiction movie, as it does in 2001. But good science fiction movies can be and have been made without good science. (True, you can rummage around and find good science in any movie, including non-science-fiction movies, if you count such things as the presence of gravity on a planet or killing people with swords and guns; but the science that defines science fiction consists largely of futuristic science rather than everyday physics.) Star Wars was not only good but outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
futuristic space ships Sci-fi movies with plausible science
|
|
|
No science fiction movie has been 100% plausible. 2001 came closest but has several implausible elements. IMO, Marooned (1969) came closest to being 100% plausible. All the science and technology they showed in the movie either existed or was going to be built in a few years. Only the particular scenario (a U.S. Apollo space capsule stranded in orbit because the retro-rockets don't work) hadn't happened yet. I would also nominate THRESHOLD (1980), as it has plausible science as well as being a superb film. (My all-time favorite science fiction film, actually.) - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - Star Wars was not only good but outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
futuristic space ships Sci-fi movies with plausible science
|
|
|
to be science FANTASY. There's no pretense that The Force has a scientific basis or that scientists discovered it or that scientists researched it or any such thing. It's just something you have to believe in, like gods or fairies or divine miracles. And that's more like fantasy. Here I strongly disagree, although you do have a valid point about the fantasy element where The Force is concerned. I myself pointed out in an earlier post, replying to one of yours, that The Force was _meta_physical, which makes it a form of supernaturalism, which in turn is the definitive characteristic of fantasy. But there is no sharp dividing line between science fiction and fantasy. Usually they are entirely separate, but occasionally they overlap. Star Wars is one of those cases where science fiction and fantasy overlap. The film is basically science fiction
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
futuristic space ships Sci-fi movies with plausible science
|
|
|
To sum up, the three best science fiction films behind 2001 all have bad science but are nevertheless excellent films. Good science fiction does not need good science. I couldn't disagree more. Good science fiction is absolutely dependent upon having good science. It may be a good _film_, but it's not good science fiction. I arrive at this from the aspect of genres and their rules. Each genre has certain rules which must be obeyed; any work must adhere to them otherwise it doesn't belong in the genre. For science fiction, one of those rules is the inclusion of plausible science. There must be some verisimilitude with regards to the science for it to be considered good science fiction. It must be, in some way, explicable on a scientific and natural level. Personally, I'm not a stickler for 100%-guaranteed-to-be-absolutely-accurate-now-and-forever science in science fiction. I defer to experts in their fields who come up with the theories. If physicists say that FTL and time travel are possible (which they do), then so be it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
Favoured: 0
Australian has a truly epic feat. Michael Williams miraculously crossed by swimming through the sea filled with sharks, saving himself and allowing teams to emergency rescue his companion, who spent 30 hours clinging to a piece of the boat overturned.
