Do any of you other science geeks ever nit-pick sci-fi movies?

Question

Like in "Star Gate" which I generally liked, they send the probe through the gate and they somehow know where it is on the other side of the "known universe" instantaneously. Doesn't that violate special relativity?
And what about "Armageddon" They land on an asteroid with no atmosphere, and somehow there is a fire burning on the surface?? WTF?
One time on Star Trek I heard Geordie say "Minus 300 degrees celcius" in regard to the surface temp of a planet or moon... well isn't that BELOW absolute zero?? Who proof-reads this stuff?... just wondering.

Answer 1

I do nitpick scifi movies. I find it amusing.

No, the Stargate doesn't violate relativity, because it's a wormhole (wormholes are, in fact, predicted by general relativity). You should watch the television series; it's good stuff.

Yeah, armageddon was definitely full of crap. I hated that movie - partly because it sucked, and partly because i just couldn't believe it.

Star trek enjoyed making stuff up. And presumeably, no one on the writing staff realized that there is no "minus 300 celsius". I can forgive them for that sort of thing, though - it was a generally good show.

Answer 2

Sorry, not a science geek but,I Robot? The computer would have never let them get where they had.Star Wars episode with Anikan and Obe One fighting a few feet over molten lava? I have no doubt that many of these movies insult the intelligence of most people. I liked the beginning of Swordfish and than it fell flat like it ran over budget after the first 20 minutes. I prefer the Matrix movies anything since was just a rerun. So many movies have gone to animation and seem more like cartoons so they may as well be. I know I'm out of my league here but what the hell. How about a Movie Documentary that rips apart these movies by real scientists?> FYI SCIFI ? Or Movie Busters? I have a question about the Star Trek equipment that can beam someone down broken down into particles but can't beam them up and repair them when they're injured or dead? Beam me up Scotty but ten years younger? I mean if they can do this a computer can do almost anything like the replicator. I would like twins tonight? Yeah, good question keep chewing on it. By the way, I wonder how many ET's are shaking their heads and laughing at us?

Answer 3

It depends somewhat on the premise of the movie. For things like "Stargate" I just figure it conforms to Clarke's Law (any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic) and let it go.

If the movie attempts the trappings of reality, though, it makes the discrepancies seem wrong. "Armageddon" certainly fell in that category for me. There was so much scientifically wrong with that movie, starting with the idea that some anonymous Texas-sized asteroid could be 18 days away from Earth and no one would notice; and in general their physics was somewhat less realistic than Loony Tunes. (Stupid plot points, gratuitous explosions, and hokey characterizations didn't help much either, come to think of it.)

I used to get bothered by some of the Star Trek shows, too. I can put up with warp drives, matter transmitters, instantaneous communications, and artificial gravity; that's just more Clarke's Law stuff. But when Next Generation and Voyager started doing shows that centered on the technology, it seemed to me that their technology was not well though out or logically consistent. For example, the ship's biological computing nodes or whatever are infected by alien cheese ("get this cheese log to sickbay immediately!") and they heat the entire ship to near-lethal temperatures to kill the infection. You'd think something as delicate and critical as that might have its own environmental controls. Or, they have talking computers and sentient androids, but no robotics.

Answer 4

Armageddon was such a joke. I heard that the movie producers actually asked a NASA technician, or somebody like that, to watch a screening of the movie to find any scientifically inaccurate parts. He sits down with his notebook and pen, and after 5 minutes tossed the notebook over his shoulder and laughs his geek *** off. Still, I liked this stupid movie. And yeah, -300 C is -30 degrees Centigrade below absolute zero. As far as violating special relativity goes, well, that doesn't entirely rule out the concept of non-locality. Quite an interesting concept, actually, a product of quantum weirdness.

Answer 5

I nit pic sci-fi like I nit pic everything else. Goofs are goofs. I find it fun and mind exercising.

Han Solo talks about "making the Kessel run in less than 12 parcecs"
Good one!!

Answer 6

What about when Han Solo talks about "making the Kessel run in less than 12 parcecs" Isn't that a unit of distance? Isn't it like saying "I made the 12-mile run in 12 miles?"

Answer 7

This is why they call it science FICTION. By the way, I'm a scientist, but I usually hate sci-fi movies/shows/channel.

Answer 8

I tend to nit-pick all movies (and TV shows). I try not to, 'cause it kind of ruins it, but...oh well...

Answer 9

There are less glaring errors than there once were.