NASA Names Most Absurd Sci-Fi Film

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
You know a movie is bad when NASA has to create a special website dedicated to debunking the events portrayed onscreen.

He said in California: "The agency is getting so many questions from people terrified that the world is going to end in 2012 that we have had to put up a special website to challenge the myths. We have never had to do this before."
Click to expand...
 
On the contrary, they named Gattaca one of the more realistic. While as someone in the field of bioinformatics, I wouldn't necessarily agree, it is a good film regardless.
 
I've never seen 2012 and after reading that article, I'll pass on watching it in the future. Just like I passed on seeing Avatar and still haven't watched it today
 
Bah, the sun isn't gonna bake the earth. A star that went supernova a thousand years ago is.
 
Kaitian said:
I've never seen 2012 and after reading that article, I'll pass on watching it in the future. Just like I passed on seeing Avatar and still haven't watched it today
Click to expand...

2012 is dumb, makes no sense, and is possibly Emmerich's worst film since Godzilla still its a fun ride if you can manage not to think about any of it for even a moment. I think Avatar has more science based in reality than 2012.
 
If you haven't watched 2012 you should, it is well worth the hallarity. You just gotta take the film for what it is and realize there isn't a shred of realism in it or even an attempt at it. It is one of those rare gems that are so bad you just laugh hysterically the entire time instead of wishing it would hurry up and end. It gets even better on blu-ray and a nice TV where you can see the major flaws in the atrociously bad CG. :D
 
There hasn't been science in sci-fi for a long long time, but the name quasi-futuristic-fantasy-crap just never took off for some reason.
 
Steve said:
...this one?

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012.html
Click to expand...

I like that as a nice summary of the various theories and how they're not true. The next time I talk to someone who is determined that the world is going to end, I can try that. It won't work, of course, because they will respond with "but how do you prove it couldn't anyways." And since the honest answer to that is always "well, I can't, because I don't have a time machine," I should just give up anyways :)
 
I just read that 2012 NASA site and I came across this "A magnetic reversal is very unlikely to happen in the next few millennia, anyway."

Curious, I thought this happened, on average, every 400,000 years (which NASA states in that same answer) but, if I am not mistaken, we are long overdue since the last time this happened was 800,000 years ago. Previous studies, I have read, said that there are very clear signs that the earths magnetic field is becoming more unstable.
 
Draax said:
I just read that 2012 NASA site and I came across this "A magnetic reversal is very unlikely to happen in the next few millennia, anyway."

Curious, I thought this happened, on average, every 400,000 years (which NASA states in that same answer) but, if I am not mistaken, we are long overdue since the last time this happened was 800,000 years ago. Previous studies, I have read, said that there are very clear signs that the earths magnetic field is becoming more unstable.
Click to expand...

We have no sure way to know when the Mayan calendar started, so 2012 could have already past or still be hundreds of years in the future.

We still have no clue to what causes a polarity shift of the Earth's magnetic field, we just know it happens so the timing of such an event is just a guess.
 
caniba said:
We have no sure way to know when the Mayan calendar started, so 2012 could have already past or still be hundreds of years in the future.

We still have no clue to what causes a polarity shift of the Earth's magnetic field, we just know it happens so the timing of such an event is just a guess.
Click to expand...

I could care less about 2012, however it is possible to determine when magntic reversals have occured in the past, and the average reversal interval is 300,000 - 400,000 years.
 
schmads said:
I like that as a nice summary of the various theories and how they're not true. The next time I talk to someone who is determined that the world is going to end, I can try that. It won't work, of course, because they will respond with "but how do you prove it couldn't anyways." And since the honest answer to that is always "well, I can't, because I don't have a time machine," I should just give up anyways :)
Click to expand...

The best thing to do is ask if they want to bet on it. If they're right, $100 isn't going to matter anyway. If you're right, they just got a second chance in life, so what's $100?
 
the whole 2012 thing is just some idiot who thinks the end of the calendar means something, it will be the 14th time the calendar ended.. kind of like how ours ends every December 31st.

As to magnetic reversals, saying we're overdue is kind silly when talking about geological records. Wikipedia has a couple nice pictures on the polarity of said field and if you look at them (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Geomagnetic_polarity_late_Cenozoic.svg) you'll see that the 'average" is far from where it flips in reality, sometimes it takes longer than others, case in point (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c0/Geomagnetic_polarity_0-169_Ma.svg) during one time in the Mesozoic era the magnetic field was flipped one way for some 30 odd million years. Such is the problem with taking averages, when there is an unknown mechanism for what makes it work.
 
They mean that the world isn't going to end next year? Who's hiding the time machine?
 
Core was already listed as that IMDB link. Bad science, but a great movie.

I thought the movie that PO'd NASA most was "day after tomorrow"? I read something about the director or producer wanting NASA to help with the science. They told him what he wanted to have happen was impossible, so he did it without them. I'd rank that movie right up there with 2012.

2012 was another Core. Bad science, but a fun watch. I much prefer core over 2012 however.
 
Anyone who actually believes in that 2012 crap just needs to off themselves right now. PLEASE!
 
4745454b said:
I thought the movie that PO'd NASA most was "day after tomorrow"? I read something about the director or producer wanting NASA to help with the science. They told him what he wanted to have happen was impossible, so he did it without them. I'd rank that movie right up there with 2012.
Click to expand...

The same exact people are responsible for both films, just 2012 is more recent, and has a specific year tied to it...
 
4745454b said:
Core was already listed as that IMDB link. Bad science, but a great movie.

I thought the movie that PO'd NASA most was "day after tomorrow"? I read something about the director or producer wanting NASA to help with the science. They told him what he wanted to have happen was impossible, so he did it without them. I'd rank that movie right up there with 2012.

2012 was another Core. Bad science, but a fun watch. I much prefer core over 2012 however.
Click to expand...

Funny that Day After Tomorrow is another Emmerich film.
 
The agency is getting so many questions from people terrified that the world is going to end in 2012 that we have had to put up a special website to challenge the myths that the average person is intelligent. We have never had to do this before."
Click to expand...

Here you go Mythbusters.
 
lol, like a comedian once said (carlin?), when you think about how stupid the average person is and then realize that half the people are below average, that is a scary thing.
 
I think Contact is one of the most realistic sci-fi movies. Especially the part where the government believe they are entitled to the info. For the most part I think what plays out in the story is very close to what would actually happen.
 
Wait .. so I can't outrun asteroids in a beat up Winnebago? This, literally, just shattered all of my preparations for 2012.

That movie was horrible. Horrible. I had to say it twice.
 
oh, if your street is falling you should turn your car and drive through a collapsing building. there should be plenty of time and no pesky thing, like walls, to interfere with your progress. Really the escape scenes were all like this and there were too many of them.
 
Yeah, quite frankly, I find it funny that they didn't mention, The Day After Tomorrow, as one of the worst... But then again, that wouldn't fall into place with their global warming agenda.
 
jiminator said:
lol, like a comedian once said (carlin?), when you think about how stupid the average person is and then realize that half the people are below average, that is a scary thing.
Click to expand...

"Think about how stupid the average person is, then realize, half of them are even stupider then that!" -George Carlin
 
Monolith2013 said:
Yeah, quite frankly, I find it funny that they didn't mention, The Day After Tomorrow, as one of the worst... But then again, that wouldn't fall into place with their global warming agenda.
Click to expand...

all the Mexicans in the theater erupted into loud applause at the bit where Americans were border jumping into Mexico and the reporter said Mexico won't let them in unless the US forgives all loans. I walked out. Would've walked out earlier but I wouldn't have got a refund, so I tried to stick it out. It was kind of fascinating if you looked at it in a detached way, like a study on propaganda. (which basically that's all it was).
 
nasa should've just kept their mouths shut if they wanted to not lend any credibility to this crap. now it'll be the conspiracy theorists saying to the naive masses hur dur look it must be true if the gubbermint has gone into damage control!

as far as 2012 goes i think its possible that solar flares could cause widespread damage. but end of the world. we got at least 5 years before that happens.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top