Not just that. Equilibrium was Fahrenheit 451, set in the world of 1984, with combat effects from The Matrix. I watched it in the cinema and rue the fact I can never get those hours back.
Science Fiction and Science
- Thread starter Thargon
- Start date
Not just that. Equilibrium was Fahrenheit 451, set in the world of 1984, with combat effects from The Matrix. I watched it in the cinema and rue the fact I can never get those hours back.
Contact? Ye gads man! That film bored me to tears, and when there were no more tears I used sandpaper on my eyes so no more could I watch!
Outland with Sean Connery. Decent sci-fi.
Demolition Man! One of the few future movies where they have a museum containing future stuff. Also, three shells
I think it posed an interesting question between science and faith. The ending ruined it by revealing what had really happened (I still suspect that the ending was changed at the last minute), but while the question remained open, it was a memorable movie.
Jenner
I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
Seems like most people really like Contact or really hate it. Me, I liked it. Course I'm a sucker for Jodie Foster, so there's that. heh.
Interesting point about the ending. You may be right.
The Matrix Trilogy. What if they were right all along?
EDIT: here's a followup story, about some "bad science" ??
EDIT: here's a followup story, about some "bad science" ??
Last edited:
I quite like the film myself and even the ending. It's a good narration on faith and science coexisting and that even in science faith in general is important, even if not religious faith.
Not that i am a man of religion what-so-ever, but I still enjoyed the premise.
As for general viewing, I like SG1 & BSG, for slightly different reasons, but both look for scientific realism whilst still adding in enough non realism for our enjoyment.
But mostly, the reason I love these programs and films is because of the characters. I suspend belief because Patrick Stewart, Richard Dean Anderson, Edwad James Olmos capture my attention, make me believe they are commanders who have lived in these creations.
Some of the best games for me have also had memorable characters. Characters I have cared about and wanted to see progress and see them through to their goals.
Most FPS games are dull faceless affairs (I still enjoy them, but they are win based, stats - multiplayer at least).
But there are many others out there, too numerous to mention (but honourable mentions to BG2, Wing Commander, KOTOR, Mass Effect etc...) where I have genuinely wanted to play just to see these lives play out, either the good or the bad.
I love the concept of Sandbox, but I do hope Elite has some memorable characters as well, even if I don't see them that often.
Can science fiction ever get the science right?
Hmm, is this off-topic? Seems to be often debated here.
New film Gravity promises to rekindle the debate over how "hard" - or accurate - science fiction should be. Should film-makers adhere to basic scientific principles, or should audiences just feel the magic instead, asks Peter Ray Allison.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24518305
Hmm, is this off-topic? Seems to be often debated here.
New film Gravity promises to rekindle the debate over how "hard" - or accurate - science fiction should be. Should film-makers adhere to basic scientific principles, or should audiences just feel the magic instead, asks Peter Ray Allison.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24518305
It is strange how science fiction in particular seems to have certain advocates that seem more resistant to willingly suspend their disbelief than the herd.
Does this occur in other genres of fiction?
The word immersion comes up an awful lot round here, generally in the context of breaking it. Would be interesting for someone to analyse the personality types of those who are anxious about that compared to the more laissez faire.
Any psychologists out there??
Does this occur in other genres of fiction?
The word immersion comes up an awful lot round here, generally in the context of breaking it. Would be interesting for someone to analyse the personality types of those who are anxious about that compared to the more laissez faire.
Any psychologists out there??
You can get similar nitpickers at military and historical genres. Or pretty much in anything that deals with something people can have a geeky obsession with. However, most authors writing in these genres actually research their stuff and try to get things somewhat correct.
The more you know about a particular subject the more any factual errors will stand out to you. Sci-fi is a funny genre in that a lot of the people writing it assume their audience don't either know anything about physics and astronomy or that they don't care - and that this gives them the license to skim over the research part of writing. A lot of this is thanks to Hollywood, which has always had this certain attitude in dealing with sci-fi. You rarely get sci-fi movies or TV shows that aren't downright pulp. And yet there is no shortage of material that takes their historical or crime drama settings quite seriously.
The more you know about a particular subject the more any factual errors will stand out to you. Sci-fi is a funny genre in that a lot of the people writing it assume their audience don't either know anything about physics and astronomy or that they don't care - and that this gives them the license to skim over the research part of writing. A lot of this is thanks to Hollywood, which has always had this certain attitude in dealing with sci-fi. You rarely get sci-fi movies or TV shows that aren't downright pulp. And yet there is no shortage of material that takes their historical or crime drama settings quite seriously.
I'd have repped you for this post, but I cannot - so I'll just say that I agree with everything you said.
My wife and I write historical fiction and you would not believe the number of history books, period texts etc. that we have gone through and that fill up our library. Especially so, because we are interested in different periods.
Reading sub-standard historical fiction is painful to someone who has read a lot about history and knows the period (perhaps better than he knows his present time).
Totally agree, many authors ignore the fact that readers may actually know something about the period that the fiction is covering.
Bernard Cornwell springs to mind as a author who is meticulous in his research and credits the authors of the reserch material he uses.
He will explain if there is a discrepancy against his story and historical fact and will state that any mistakes are his.
I often enjoy those explanations in Cornwell's Sharpe books even more than I enjoy the story itself.
However, the ultimate master of historical fiction is Patrick O'Brian - mainly because of the excellent psychological depth of his characters.
The problem with sci-fi is that too many people confuse it with Star Wars, which is actually more fantasy than it is sci-fi. That is, they only know what Hollywood feeds them as sci-fi. Reading books like Robinson's Mars series is enjoyable precisely because he attempts to follow science as well as he can as he explains the history of the terraforming of Mars - all the while playing with the psychological and sociological impact of longevity treatments and the Martian independence war.
I sometimes think the whole science-fiction genre should just be renamed "future fantasy", because that's all it is really. Things like FTL spaceships and time travel are simply fantasy, no matter how much jargon you try to wrap around them.
Indeed, but there's a lot of sci-fi that avoids those concepts completely - such as the Mars trilogy I mentioned, but also Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space series (where travel between star systems actually takes several decades, but that has not stopped humanity from spreading - the space battles in those books are also very unique).
As such, I would not want to call the genre future fantasy - that would put Star Wars in the same bag with hard SF, and that would be a disservice to the whole genre.
I often enjoy those explanations in Cornwell's Sharpe books even more than I enjoy the story itself.
However, the ultimate master of historical fiction is Patrick O'Brian - mainly because of the excellent psychological depth of his characters.
The problem with sci-fi is that too many people confuse it with Star Wars, which is actually more fantasy than it is sci-fi. That is, they only know what Hollywood feeds them as sci-fi. Reading books like Robinson's Mars series is enjoyable precisely because he attempts to follow science as well as he can as he explains the history of the terraforming of Mars - all the while playing with the psychological and sociological impact of longevity treatments and the Martian independence war.
I read Master and Commander when I was younger. I remember it being one of those books you can't put down. I'll have to see if I've still got it.
But yes I agree again, the gulf between what the likes of hollywood want to depict as SF and what SF really is, would probably take decades to cross as well.
Jenner
I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
Alastair Reynolds is definitely an interesting author. I've read a couple of his book and they always draw me in. I really like how he created a believable galactic human society based around the laws of relativity. Travel takes a long time, after all, and that would have profound impact on the development of the human species as a whole.
I only read the first Mars trilogy book (Red Mars) but absolutely loved it. My wife read the next one and wasn't too thrilled, so I never picked it up. Big theme in Red Mars, as I recall, was how longevity and environment can change the nature of society.