can u name a movie with bad science???

Question

Can you name a movie with bad science for me please
like explosion sounds in space in starwars when there is no medium in space for sound to travel

Answer 1

Star wars, although it is good
Almost any space movie for that matter, as keeping the rockets on would make the ship accelerate instead of mantaining speed (notable exception: 2001: a space oddisey)
The core. An insult to my brain (and I attended highschool at that time)
The war of the worlds (aliens who travel thousands of light years and observe their target permanently just cannot be THAT dumb to drink tap water and not bring any medics)
Independence day (computer sciences are not universally compatible)
Weird science
Transformers (noises in space, magnetic fields shutting down just 1 robot among 13, a giant cube shrinking, the robots can add or remove their parts just by scanning on a vehicle, and my paint job with flames was gay)
And a lot more

Answer 2

Almost every good fiction movie has to twist the basis of its story. The purpose is to carry us to a world where things are different ("In a world where..."). So, they have to make things different.

A good science-fiction movie will normally break one rule of science and then try to keep the rest OK. Movies are normally not good as keeping to only one break of the rules. Written science-fiction was (e.g., Asimov, Clarke).

However, there is another rule-break that is now universally accepted in action sciene-fiction movies and shows: space travel is normally done faster-than-light because they do not want a story that goes on for 37 years while the hero jumps on a rocket and tries to make it to another star system to rescue the princess. By the time he gets there, the princess may have changed too much.

What is bad is when a movie pretends to be scientific and they butchers up the science because it makes for a more exciting story

For example: Armageddon, the 1998 Bruce Willis version, of which Ebert said "The movie is an assault on the eyes, the ears, the brain, common sense and the human desire to be entertained."

The 1997 movie of the same name (but different topic) with its spontaneous human combustion might not be much better from a scientific point of view.

I find it also very bad when the same thing is done to history (e.g., Americans winning battles or wars in which they never really participated).

Answer 3

What is much harder is naming a sci-fi movie that *didn't* have bad science in it. 2001: A Space Odyssey probably came closer to being scientifically correct as any others I have ever seen.

Like movies involving sports. I don't think I have ever seen a "sports" movie that was a completely legitimate representation of the sport. Maybe Brian's Song and Vision Quest. But movies like Million Dollar Baby, Rocky, Chariots of Fire, and Mighty Ducks make me sick.

Gee, did I get a little off topic, or what???

Captseadonkey, I'm curious about what set you off in Apollo 13.

Answer 4

Thrillers: Abduction The Roomate Any of those new tween "thrillers" have been they spend 20 minutes on the script, thoroughly pushing aside suitable tale, character developement ect. and as quickly with the aid of fact the aim industry see's somebody use a weapon of a few form they think of it is the finest new element considering the fact that sliced bread. BQ: David Fincher: Se7en, combat club, the lady with the Dragon Tattoo, Panic Room, the sport, Zodiac (spectacular director) BQ2: Soma- The Smashing Pumpkins Debaser - Pixies bounce into the Fog - The Wombats Dumb - Nirvana BQ3: Lake Mungo, stunning horror movie, very creepy. I watched it some week and a 0.5 in the past and regrettably i've got no longer considered any video clips considering the fact that thenbecause of school beginning lower back. i even have not gotten used to going lower back yet and am finding very complicated. :)

Answer 5

All the Star Wars movies ... Weird Science ... The Day After Tomorrow.

CaptSeaDonkey, what didn't you like about Apollo 13? I was reading Usenet newsgroups at the time, and all the knowledgeable people were impressed by how much they got right.

Answer 6

Mission to Mars. Damn that movie stinks! The portrayal of a manned mission to Mars was kind of scientifically correct as NASA was very much involved (still sound in space) but everything about the martians is just so incredibly stupid it makes me want to vomit...

Answer 7

Depending on how old you are or do you remember the tv show lost in space? It had alot of bad science in it, it was a show that aired back in the 1960s....... lost in space,

Answer 8

In a few decades we'll all have a good laugh at the science in movies by Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking. There was no Big Bang!

"Signs" (Mel Gibson's crop circles) was a barrel of laughs. For example, searching for wood to board up the inside of the windows when there were shutters on the outside. And nailing a board across the inside of a door which opened to the outside. And aliens who can build an interplanetary vehicle but can't get past those stupid boards.

Answer 9

Weird Science - they scan images of models' body parts and then use electricity or something to convert the images into one perfect woman and bring here to life....funny movie btw!

Answer 10

Back to the future. a very good and entertaining movie. But lets face it - turning a car into a time machine?