|
|
Post by gtvc on Nov 13, 2011 17:33:14 GMT -4
Hi I would like to know if you guys have a favorite science fiction ship or movie because is closer to reality, for example I know Armageddon is very ridiculous but is fun I think is more realitic the ship from Deep Impact. What do you think of movies like Space cowboys, red planet, mission to mars etc.
Do you have a favorite?
|
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 13, 2011 23:34:00 GMT -4
2001 was very realistic and movie stands out to me as having great designs for future space ships.
I haven't seen most of the other movies you mentioned.
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 14, 2011 0:43:57 GMT -4
They're mostly garbage. I have a cousin who was in Armageddon, and even he thinks it's garbage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 14, 2011 1:50:10 GMT -4
Most space movies are pretty terrible and sensationalistic. Also, the science in them has, invariably, massive fail. NASA hasn't really bothered getting themselves involved in the cultural mindset of the American public, and their budget reflects this.
I like "Alien" (the first one) because it's about truck drivers in space. Just work-a-day folks. I love the idea that someday ordinary people will have crappy jobs IN SPACE.
I also liked the 1981 movie "Outland," because it's just your ordinary "trash western," in space. Someday, no matter how advanced we think we'll be, there will still be cops on the beat keeping the peace on mining colonies orbiting Jupiter.
I was looking for "moon movies" on google several years ago to watch with my kids. Instead I found Bart Sibrel. Then I found this group.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Nov 14, 2011 5:23:15 GMT -4
I also enjoyed Outland. I loved the detail that was put into making the living spaces feel utilitarian and functional, dirty and used. This was a place people worked and spent their time, like an oil rig, it was not a place people lived.
Of course, it's very much of its time, and it made some classic space movie blunders, like explosive decompression being literally explosive. Some have criticized it's lack of ray guns, but that just adds to the gritty feel for me.
But all in all, cliches and all, for a movie that was not trying to be deep and philosophical like 2001, it got a lot of things right.
|
|
|
|
Post by gtvc on Nov 14, 2011 12:08:47 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 14, 2011 12:27:53 GMT -4
Most space movies are pretty terrible and sensationalistic. Also, the science in them has, invariably, massive fail. There is no particular literary reason that space movies have to follow the laws of physics. Yet when the errors are numerous and glaring, it bothers me so much that I cant enjoy the movie. The Deep Impact shuttle flew like a WW2 fighter airplane, a visual that was beyond ridiculous. On the other hand they made accommodations for the low gravity by putting little jets on the suits to keep them from flying off. While this nod to reality was only partially convincing, it was at least there. Although one must suspect that it was only there to enhance the drama of driving the rover over the crevasse. I guess the main problem is that seeing space ships acting lake space ships would be jarring to an audience who have never experienced a similar kind of visual in real life. For movies, its all about keeping the audience focused on the film so they can enjoy the story. Realism is an unnecessary distraction for many elements of the movies, which are after all a highly artificial medium. |
|
|
|
Post by gtvc on Nov 15, 2011 8:06:39 GMT -4
Well I remember in 2001 the ships act very realistic but after many viewings gets boring, the ship from Deep Impact looked realistic like something which could exist in real life and be constructed in orbit.  The guy who designed the ships from Alien, Aliens, 2001 and Space 1999 is Brian Johnson and this ships looks very real. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Johnson_(special_effects)The space shuttle was popular in some scifi movies of the eighties and a Tv show called the Cape was made in 1996 but only lasted one season.  |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 15, 2011 9:57:16 GMT -4
I think the Starfuries in Babylon 5 were among some of the more realistic Hollywood spacecraft. They had thrusters and actually had to rotate and thrust in a new direction to change trajectory. It was far more accurate than the "jet fighter" depiction we often see. |
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 15, 2011 11:08:56 GMT -4
Well I remember in 2001 the ships act very realistic but after many viewings gets boring That is precisely the problem, action movies are sustained by action, not calculated maneuvers. While I understand that, it has the opposite effect on me than it does on most people because the fighter style flying pulls me out of the story. If it is a good enough movie that to leads me to emotionally invested in the story I'll get over it and enjoy the film. But mediocre space operas with unrealistic flight effects will draw me away and I can never fully return. |
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 15, 2011 11:51:22 GMT -4
I think the original Battlestar Galactica was the worst for fighter-jets-in-space flight dynamics.
|
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 15, 2011 13:35:11 GMT -4
I think the original Battlestar Galactica was the worst for fighter-jets-in-space flight dynamics. Oh my yes. Even bac when I was watching re-runs in the early nineties (sorry, not quite old enough to have caught the original broadcasts) it bugged me that the fighters slowed down, instantly, to "normal" speed as soon as they let up on the "turbo" button.  |
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Nov 16, 2011 0:04:11 GMT -4
I think the original Battlestar Galactica was the worst for fighter-jets-in-space flight dynamics. Especially since they perpetually re-cycled the same 5 or 6 stock viper and raider shots. |
|
|
|
Post by chew on Nov 16, 2011 13:49:12 GMT -4
"Ensign, one-quarter impulse."
Aren't the impulse engines like a rocket? You keep accelerating as long as they are firing? Yet they treat it like a speed.
|
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 16, 2011 16:39:28 GMT -4
It is a speed; "full impulse" is lightspeed, or as close as you can get in normal space, not a thrust rating.
And no, I have no idea how they manage to get multi-gigaton equipment to 167 million mph in two to three seconds, but I understand it to require "subspace" or, in common parlance, magic.
|
|
