:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

Actually, a Parsec is a measurement of distance, not time. A parsec is equal to 3.08567758 × 1016 meters or about 3.25 light years. When Han said this quote, he technically got it wrong.

Star Wars nerds will say that he was talking about his piloting skills, suggesting that the "Kessel run" is a kind of obstacle course with more than one path to take to get to the end. A good pilot, maybe, could do that path in a shorter distance.

However Han clearly says its a "Fast Ship", and brags about doing the Kessel run in less than 12 Parsecs. In that case, he is either an idiot, or George Lucas made a GLARING TECHNICAL ERROR that still keeps me up at night. Doesn't it keep you up at night?

Arrghh..

Mark, I think it's fair to assume that you belong to the very small minority of physics/space geeks that went to see that movie. It's a very mainstream movie, while you were yelling "FALSE", 99% of the moviegoers went "WOW".

I am certain, however, that there will be lots of technical errors to discuss at an upcoming Trekkie convention. :winkwink:

We know.


Arrghhh!


The Death Star was a globe, not a spinning wheel. It could be argued that its gravity was from its own mass. However if this was true it would have been detectable from much further way. It would have required an enormous amount of energy to get from point A to point B. During deceleration it would have had to have converted all of that momentum into light and heat also making it detachable. It's proximity to the planets it attacks would have destroyed those planets without the need of an energy weapon, and -


You sir, are awesome and correct.

I hear you, but sometimes I want a little more SCIENCE in my Science Fiction. Salads once in a while instead of big macs are a good thing.

Yes you are right.

Sorry I must have missed that. In movie-time it takes them only a few minutes but ok lets say its 19 minutes. To travel 22,236 miles in 19 minutes you would have to go 70,218 miles per hour. To do it in 3 minutes and using Boziffous corrected math the ship would have to go 444,720 miles per hour.



Right. They can fix his face and yet can't fix the main character's brain. Yes they addressed when another character said it at one point but it was an over-dub and sounded like a weak attempt to fix a glaring pot hole to me.

I agree. I loved Man of Steel and comic book movies and all kinds of other flicks especially TREK flicks. Elysium just sucked thats all.

d'oh, snap.

Thank you.


Nah... don't get me wrong I love sci-fi movies... maybe I'm just tired of the "action" flicks and want something that stimulates my noggin. I have been hoping that Europa Report would come to threaters near here but haven't see it yet.

One movie I am REALLY looking forward to is 2014's INTERSTELLAR. Written by Chris Nolan (Inception) and KIP THORNE (GASP!). Finally, some brain candy.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/8aec76213...co6_r2_250.gif

Almost as bad as Kubrick's work :2 cents:

I remember them saying it was a 16 minute flight

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

That was the point of the movie. Life sucked unless you were rich enough to live up there.

I've read about kids like you; I just figured it was an urban legend.

http://inkspillsinc.files.wordpress....t-woman111.jpg

Obviously more than 50' tall

They don't say it, but it would have to be. It is always in the same place in the sky. It has no rockets to to move it. Something that big in low earth orbit would be torn to pieces by debris ("space garbage") and by the drag of the earth, and require almost constant rocket thrusts to nudge it back into orbit. Something that big and heavy would have to either be in Geo Stationary orbit or, I guess it might be possible that it is at the Lagrangian point (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point) where almost no propulsion of any kind would be required to keep it where it needs to be.

The problem though is that the wheel could not spin fast enough to do this without squashing the people and buildings. It would also require much more energy to do this than it would to simply seal the wheel.

Doesn't matter. don't forget that they don't just need to keep the atmosphere in - they also have to maintain the atmospheric pressure. Without enough pressure, humans would pop out of their skin.

Nope! First you do see the sun in the movie while on Elysium and if they did use artificial light instead of the sun that would be yet another GLARING TECHNICAL ERROR. It would be hugely inefficient not to take advantage of the sun.

And in fact, one of the reasons why they have the med pods on Elysium is because there is so much radiation they people get alot of cancer. These handy-dandy med-pods fix them right up.

And to make my point, here is a picture from Elysium:

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/def...?itok=YVGyPtGZ

Notice the earth? The sun is to its right, yet the light on the leaves are coming from overhead.

They didn't always get it wrong though. This picture:

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/-RSDaRttpzk/maxresdefault.jpg

Is amazing. wow.

Ok they are evil, but they are also money-grubbers. Why didn't anything come up with the idea to install Med-pod stations on the ground and charge for their use? FUCK Elysium sucks.

I know, but didn't this just kill you? The way to make a giant spaceship computer give free meds to everyone is to just reboot it? Don't you just want to choke the idiot who OK'ed the writing team here?

Weak plot point. Ok I guess as it explains the WHY, but still...

Don't get me started on them thar robots.... I really couldn't tell if they were supposed to be robots or dudes in heavy armour.

This movie is sooooo insulting.

It's ok. I know you're happy being fed pablum.

Oops I was wrong. Elysium would NOT need a "roof" to keep the atmosphere in Sorry TrafficTitan, you were right about the atmosphere.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...cket-of-water/

That was a Canadian thing. :2 cents:

An unrealistic Sci-Fi movie.. how rude.

It's good to know that even in the hi-tech distant future of floating space stations and med pods that instantly cure leukemia and re-construct someone's head that's been blown to smithereens in a matter of seconds...they still fight with swords.

Matt Damon's character has all that exo-skeleton hardware attached to his body and he recovers from the backalley procedure in what...a few hours? No rejection or infection...and he's fully mobile and able to fight with it right away.

And in the future a dude in a burlap sack costume standing on Earth can shoot down spaceships with a shoulder-mounted RPG?!

I can turn my brain off and enjoy almost any sci-fi flick for what it's worth...but Elysium was mind-numbingly stupid with a shallow and transparent plot.

so where are we on this? seems like this list of errors has been debunked in this thread eh, but the movie still sucks?

Either we've all been subjected to one the most epic trollings ever, or Mark Prince is one of those guys that everyone wants to punch at the party.

Whether or not technical details are correct in a movie is number 500 in a list of what makes a movie good.

300 was my favorite movie until I counted the men in his squad. It was only 297! Blasphemy!

Oh come on now...

The whole point of the thread was to express my general dissatisfaction with the movie and how many movies (not just sci-fi) treat the audience like they are idiots.

Think about it : How many movies have you seen where the "Computer Nerd" is brought in and types "OVERRIDE SECURITY SYSTEM" to take it down? Or how many dial-tones have you heard on Cell Phones? Or just general nonsense on a computer screen? Some of today's movie makers seem to forget that the world is just a little more tech savvy than we were in the 50's.

Trolling? Sure, but at least some of the people in this thread got what I was trying to talk about.

peace.

thanks??

They short-changed us a few Spartans?!!

Bastards!!

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I just wish movies weren't so fucking LONG these days!

Where is the porn version ?

(never mind)

I watched Europa Report, it wasn't bad. I wouldn't worry yourself if you never watch it. It's a bit slow, and not that "stimulating" to be honest.

It was kind of like the first 30 minutes of a regular movie stretched out.

To me it looks like a "Smoke a Bowl" type of movie and I'll surely watch it ;)

Cool thanks for letting me know.


Some of the smartest sci-fi movies I've seen are:

- 2001
- 2010
- Brainscan
- Primer
- Forbidden Planet

I have high hopes for the upcoming "Gravity" too.

yeah and the technology in lord of the rings was SO unbelievable.. elves that live 1500-3000 years SUUURE tolkein... how am i supposed to enjoy your shit with that stuff in it?

amaright?


chewbacca was real

No worries! :thumbsup

I'd give it a 6/10 at a push. It was like Apollo 18, but more "realistic", and not the kind of movie you could watch more than once.

A sequel could work and be made better, it was "Europa 1" so maybe they're planning on another movie (with the Europa 2 mission perhaps). It just felt like it was lacking something.

I'll have to check Gravity out!

I feel your pain **********.

The "suspension of disbelief" guys miss the point - a good story is where you agree on the rules beforehand, allowing certain things to exist or happen, but then the rest of the story needs to hang together and make sense in context.

It's the same thing when movies or (more often) tv shows with lazy writing force their characters to do or say certain things to backstop certain other plot milestones they want to get to. But the character in character would never in a million years do or say such a thing.

My sense is, this is happening more and more, but maybe I'm just getting old.