Scientifically inaccurate but still a great movie

[vraiblonde]

I'm watching "The Day After Tomorrow", which apparently some brainless progbots took seriously. So here are the Top Ten most scientifically inaccurate movies:

10 of the Most Scientifically Inaccurate Movies Ever

Although these movies are entertaining, the science is incredibly inaccurate. Here are the most scientifically inaccurate movies.

www.rd.com

I'm kind of disappointed about this:

That core premise of the movie relies on the myth that humans only use 10 percent of their brain. In reality, people use virtually every part of the brain, and most of the brain is active all the time, Barry Gordon, a neurologist, told Scientific American.

Well hell. Then this is all I get.

 

[my-thyme]

I really like that movie.

The list is interesting. I've seen most of those movies, and never for an instant thought any of them were possible. Scary, entertaining, but fiction, every one.

 

[Grumpy]

Lucy is one of my favorite movies, a bit outlandish but I enjoyed the hell out of it.

 

[GURPS]

I'm watching "The Day After Tomorrow", which apparently some brainless progbots took seriously.

Of course they did ....... Climate change

and the bit about Americans having to flee to Mexico

PURE Progressive Delight

 

[glhs837]

Batman, but not "The Core"? I'm sorry this person isn't serious about this list.

 

[SamSpade]

I watched "Armageddon" years ago with one of my buddies - and even while he isn't the most scientifically exacting type of movie viewer - we both COULD NOT STOP LAUGHING at the scientific absurdities. Even the BASIC idea that it's easier to train a bunch of yahoos to be astronauts than to teach astronauts how to blow up an asteroid.

I agree with all of the others, although some of them are splitting hairs - like "The Matrix", whose basic premise ALONE is far-fetched, so picking on the fact that using humans as BATTERIES is equally absurd, since we don't create any decent amount of energy - it would be a huge waste of resources to maintain millions of humans as power sources.

And Crystal Skull - my parents died in an accident which had their car rolling about half a dozen times when they were driving about 70mph. At those kinds of speeds, your body is like what happens to a bag of ice when you drop it on the pavement to break up the cubes - do it enough times, and your body is a mess of broken bones surrounded by a gooey sack of flesh and blood. No way does he survive that.

The Day After Tomorrow was just - too weird. The idea that ANY part of the Earth could have regions where people flash freeze is pretty ridiculous - let alone the mechanics it would take for whole regions of the Earth to EVER get that cold.

 

[Kinnakeet]

I watched "Armageddon" years ago with one of my buddies - and even while he isn't the most scientifically exacting type of movie viewer - we both COULD NOT STOP LAUGHING at the scientific absurdities. Even the BASIC idea that it's easier to train a bunch of yahoos to be astronauts than to teach astronauts how to blow up an asteroid.

I agree with all of the others, although some of them are splitting hairs - like "The Matrix", whose basic premise ALONE is far-fetched, so picking on the fact that using humans as BATTERIES is equally absurd, since we don't create any decent amount of energy - it would be a huge waste of resources to maintain millions of humans as power sources.

And Crystal Skull - my parents died in an accident which had their car rolling about half a dozen times when they were driving about 70mph. At those kinds of speeds, your body is like what happens to a bag of ice when you drop it on the pavement to break up the cubes - do it enough times, and your body is a mess of broken bones surrounded by a gooey sack of flesh and blood. No way does he survive that.

The Day After Tomorrow was just - too weird. The idea that ANY part of the Earth could have regions where people flash freeze is pretty ridiculous - let alone the mechanics it would take for whole regions of the Earth to EVER get that cold.

Thats why I dont watch those type of movies and pretty much any movie made now...I like the previews of the new Vampire movie and Wolfman movie but I will wait for them to be on TV because I refuse to pay those theatre prices

 

[vraiblonde]

See, and for a sci fi or disaster movie I can suspend reality and just be entertained. Day After Tomorrow was meant to be progbot propaganda, so says the director, but it's too farfetched to take seriously so it's easy to ignore the preaching and just enjoy.

Armaggedon is also silly but still a decent movie if you >>> over the tearful goodbye between Willis and Arwen.

 

[Kyle]

Armaggedon is also silly but still a decent movie if you >>> over the tearful goodbye between Willis and Arwen.

Arwen?

 

[jrt_ms1995]

Arwen?

Liv Tyler, a poor choice for Arwen Undómiel in the Lord of the Rings movies (in my opinion; just didn't match my mental image although she played it well.)

 

[Sneakers]

And I feel that if everything is scientifically accurate, it's too much like real life. I want to be entertained, so fantasy and unrealistic plot lines and science anomalies attract me.

 

[Kyle]

Liv Tyler, a poor choice for Arwen Undómiel in the Lord of the Rings movies (in my opinion; just didn't match my mental image although she played it well.)

I never saw that except for some clips here and there

 

[Czar]

The Three Stooges in Orbit. Even sans Curly, it remains a riving, must see!

 

[vraiblonde]

Liv Tyler, a poor choice for Arwen Undómiel in the Lord of the Rings movies (in my opinion; just didn't match my mental image although she played it well.)

*gasp* How dare you!

 

[vraiblonde]

And I feel that if everything is scientifically accurate, it's too much like real life. I want to be entertained, so fantasy and unrealistic plot lines and science anomalies attract me.

And I still agree

 

[NOTSMC]

Liv Tyler, a poor choice for Arwen Undómiel in the Lord of the Rings movies (in my opinion; just didn't match my mental image although she played it well.)

Who matched your mental image? Liv Taylor was picture perfect in that role.

 

[Clem72]

I'm watching "The Day After Tomorrow", which apparently some brainless progbots took seriously. So here are the Top Ten most scientifically inaccurate movies:

10 of the Most Scientifically Inaccurate Movies Ever

Although these movies are entertaining, the science is incredibly inaccurate. Here are the most scientifically inaccurate movies.

www.rd.com

I'm kind of disappointed about this:



Well hell. Then this is all I get.

They picked Armageddon over The Core? At least it's technically possible to send people to an asteroid, it's not possible to send them to the center of the earth.

What about Inner Space (Martin Short), weird Science? Any movie where they time travel to the past? Interstellar should have been #1 because it has crappy weather science, crappy agricultural science, crappy astronautics, crappy time travel, and crappy theological science.

 

[NOTSMC]

Liv Tyler, a poor choice for Arwen Undómiel in the Lord of the Rings movies (in my opinion; just didn't match my mental image although she played it well.)

Wow - almost cast Uma Thurman. She was pregnant at the time.

 

[Clem72]

Wow - almost cast Uma Thurman. She was pregnant at the time.

Why? With both Hugo and Uma were they trying to set a new precedent that elves have long pointy noses instead of ears?

 

[NOTSMC]

Why? With both Hugo and Uma were they trying to set a new precedent that elves have long pointy noses instead of ears?

Does Uma have a pointy nose? I never noticed.

I read somewhere long ago that people were getting ear jobs to have ears like the elves in those movies. Cost something like 3K.