|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free
| Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40543] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 09:48 |
|
Boring story, no plot, bad acting, poor directing, special effects that were
on pair with Stargate SG1 the television series. The only reason I can
imagine anyone has anything good to say about this movie is that they're
only comparing it to the last two in the series.
This movie had nothing going for it, most movies that bad at least are
unintentionally funny. This movie was nothing but a cure for insomnia. And
please stop calling this crap sci-fi, there wasn't a hint of science in the
movie and it's likely that George Lucas doesn't know anything about science.
Sci-fi minus science equals fantasy; get a clue people.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40545 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 11:20 |
|
On Mon, 23 May 2005 03:48:34 -0400, "Freedom Fries"
<RedumblicansShouldBe [at] gaschambers.com> wrote:
>Boring story, no plot, bad acting, poor directing,
[SNIP]
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but a majority of people must
like the latest Star Wars installment or it wouldn't have set the
record for opening day, 3 days record and 4 days record. Over $150
million dollars in just 4 days is very good.
--
When you hear the toilet flush, and hear the words "uh oh", it's already
too late. - by anonymous Mother in Austin, TX
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40556 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 15:46 |
|
"Freedom Fries" <RedumblicansShouldBe [at] gaschambers.com> wrote in message
news:42918a18_2 [at] x-privat.org...
> please stop calling this crap sci-fi, there wasn't a hint of science in
the
> movie and it's likely that George Lucas doesn't know anything about
science.
DUH! - Science FICTION is . . . umm . . . FICTION!
--
Chuck
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40557 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 16:33 |
|
> "Freedom Fries" <RedumblicansShouldBe [at] gaschambers.com> wrote in message
> news:42918a18_2 [at] x-privat.org...
>> please stop calling this crap sci-fi, there wasn't a hint of science in
> the
Just curious, what do you define as Sci-Fi? Not a hint of science? What
difference does that make? If you want science, watch the Discovery Channel.
Listening to other negative reviews begs another question, since when have
movie reviewers become closet political commentators? The world does not
revolve around US politics, spending more time seeking hidden metaphors,
looking for some inner meaning that would allow them to squeeze political
commentary. I enjoyed watching Star Wars, the movie was great, I listen to
their reviews, I ask the question what version of the movie did they watch?
All I was looking for was 2 hours and a bit, of entertainment. To get my
mind off the problems of the world. When I am interested in current affairs
I`ll watch CNN/Newsworld/Newsnet etc.. Not like some who seem to confuse
fictional stories as historical documentaries.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40558 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 16:41 |
|
Anonymous P*ssy Freedom Fries (AKA 'U Are With Us Or Against Us' &
others) wrote:
> Boring story, no plot, bad acting, poor directing, special effects
that were
> on pair with Stargate SG1 the television series. The only reason I
can
> imagine anyone has anything good to say about this movie is that
they're
> only comparing it to the last two in the series.
>
> This movie had nothing going for it, most movies that bad at least
are
> unintentionally funny. This movie was nothing but a cure for
insomnia. And
> please stop calling this crap sci-fi, there wasn't a hint of science
in the
> movie and it's likely that George Lucas doesn't know anything about
science.
> Sci-fi minus science equals fantasy; get a clue people.
You should have ENJOYED it. It's supposedly anti-Bush\Republican.
What MORE could you ask for?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
--"I am a fellow liberal like you fuck-head.. I have clearence to be a
jack off"
Paul Levesque's Roid riddled limp dick, April 29,2005.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40559 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 16:58 |
|
"Chuck" <yadayada [at] blah.blah> writes:
> "Freedom Fries" <RedumblicansShouldBe [at] gaschambers.com> wrote in message
> news:42918a18_2 [at] x-privat.org...
> > please stop calling this crap sci-fi, there wasn't a hint of science in
> the
> > movie and it's likely that George Lucas doesn't know anything about
> science.
>
> DUH! - Science FICTION is . . . umm . . . FICTION!
But it *also* says SCIENCE in the name. As such, is it to much to ask that
they get the basic science right?
For instance, I've heard that Lucas studied tapes of WWII dogfights to
get some idea of how the various fighters in SW should behave. It could
be true - they certainly do seem to fly around like airplanes.
Except they aren't airplanes - they're space ships. They operate under a
completely different set of physical laws than airplanes, and should
display completely different set of behaviors. Behaviors that are easily
predictable to anyone who's taken a high school physics course.
B5 did that work - and has *much* cooler fight scenes because of it.
Who else will show you a ship swinging around to fire back along it's
flight path?
People who *read* science fiction have certain standards for the science
in the stories. Yes, we're willing to relax those standards for the sake
of the story. But most of the stuff one sees on TV or the movies under the
science fiction label gets it wrong for no good reason, and would be
unpublishable in printed form.
This stuff should be called Science Fantasy.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm [at] mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40560 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 16:58 |
|
<barber_anooooo [at] ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:gRlke.35068$Ph4.665489 [at] ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>
>
> > "Freedom Fries" <RedumblicansShouldBe [at] gaschambers.com> wrote in message
> > news:42918a18_2 [at] x-privat.org...
> >> please stop calling this crap sci-fi, there wasn't a hint of science in
> > the
>
>
> Just curious, what do you define as Sci-Fi? Not a hint of science? What
> difference does that make? If you want science, watch the Discovery
Channel.
Freedom has a point. Science Fiction without a science background IS indeed
"Science Fantasy". People have seemed to have mixed the two up somewhere in
the 1970's - 1980's. "Scienfiction" was originally based on the premise to
extrapolating science knowledge to a (fictional) futuristic advanced state.
If the "science" is not plausible - you cannot extrapolate backwards from
the fiction to see the base principles of the science per /today's/
knowledge - then it is NOT "Science Fiction". "Science Fantasy" does
exists, and has some great stories, but somehow the two have gotten
intertwined into one. That does not demean it in it's own existence...but
one must be accurate in its description.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40562 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 17:14 |
|
In article <Bcmke.19466$Y36.19104 [at] trndny05>,
"Snake" <fluidNOstatesSPAM_REMOVECAPSTOREPLY [at] mindspring.com> wrote:
> <barber_anooooo [at] ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:gRlke.35068$Ph4.665489 [at] ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> >
> >
> > > "Freedom Fries" <RedumblicansShouldBe [at] gaschambers.com> wrote in message
> > > news:42918a18_2 [at] x-privat.org...
> > >> please stop calling this crap sci-fi, there wasn't a hint of science in
> > > the
> >
> >
> > Just curious, what do you define as Sci-Fi? Not a hint of science? What
> > difference does that make? If you want science, watch the Discovery
> Channel.
>
> Freedom has a point. Science Fiction without a science background IS indeed
> "Science Fantasy". People have seemed to have mixed the two up somewhere in
> the 1970's - 1980's. "Scienfiction" was originally based on the premise to
> extrapolating science knowledge to a (fictional) futuristic advanced state.
> If the "science" is not plausible - you cannot extrapolate backwards from
> the fiction to see the base principles of the science per /today's/
> knowledge - then it is NOT "Science Fiction". "Science Fantasy" does
> exists, and has some great stories, but somehow the two have gotten
> intertwined into one. That does not demean it in it's own existence...but
> one must be accurate in its description.
You're close, but not right. Science fiction doesn't have to have
plausible science. "The Time Machine" isn't plausible science (as far as
we know anyway). That is just very modern take on the idea of science
fiction. Early sci-fi was about the fiction with unknown science
affecting every day life. They were imaginative. Today's sci-fi is where
all the "plausibility" stuff comes in. What most sci-fi writers do today
is look at trends in real science and amplify them; it's guesswork based
on what is.
Science fantasy, which you didn't define, is a melding on sci-fi with
fantasy. It is an amalgamation of sci-fi with the supernatural. Given
all the stuff with the Force and all that I suppose Star Wars would fit
in this category even though its narrower classification is space opera.
--
Stefan: Leader of the Cult of Meh
http://www.livejournal.com/users/lord_hatred/
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40565 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 17:40 |
|
<barber_anooooo [at] ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:gRlke.35068$Ph4.665489 [at] ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Listening to other negative reviews begs another question, since when have
> movie reviewers become closet political commentators? The world does not
> revolve around US politics
No, but Hollywood does.
--
Eric Nichols
Psalm 138:8
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40567 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 18:12 |
|
> > Listening to other negative reviews begs another question, since
when have
> > movie reviewers become closet political commentators? The world
does not
> > revolve around US politics
I get a kick out of people comparing Star Wars to the Iraq war and the
Bush
administration. Lukas wrote Star Wars in the era of Vietnam. When
he
wrote Star Wars noboy heard of Saddam Hussein, George Bush was getting
arrested
for drunk driving, and Richard Nixon was maintaining he was not a
crook.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40569 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 19:33 |
|
On Mon, 23 May 2005 06:46:21 -0700, "Chuck" <yadayada [at] blah.blah>
wrote:
>"Freedom Fries" <RedumblicansShouldBe [at] gaschambers.com> wrote in message
>news:42918a18_2 [at] x-privat.org...
>> please stop calling this crap sci-fi, there wasn't a hint of science in
>the
>> movie and it's likely that George Lucas doesn't know anything about
>science.
>
>DUH! - Science FICTION is . . . umm . . . FICTION!
So all forms of fiction are science fiction?
Rob
ploovTeHSPaeMBLoKuR [at] charter.net
--
Owner of 2501 Netstalker Points awarded by Corwin of Amber, mainly
because Atma's just too damn attractive to get away from.
Gave 7499 Netstalker Points to Cypher because there's no such thing as
a good day on AGFF without JT bashing!
Owner of David Watson, rec.arts.anime.misc
"He looks like he'd get cut out of a Final Fantasy game for being 'too
gay.' That is like getting booed off the stage at Amateur Night at
the Apollo for being 'too black.'"
--Dr. David Thorpe, Something Awful Fashion SWAT "Ganguro Madness"
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40570 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 19:34 |
|
"Snake" <fluidNOstatesSPAM_REMOVECAPSTOREPLY [at] mindspring.com> wrote in
message news:Bcmke.19466$Y36.19104 [at] trndny05...
> <barber_anooooo [at] ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:gRlke.35068$Ph4.665489 [at] ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>>
>>
>> > "Freedom Fries" <RedumblicansShouldBe [at] gaschambers.com> wrote in message
>> > news:42918a18_2 [at] x-privat.org...
>> >> please stop calling this crap sci-fi, there wasn't a hint of science
>> >> in
>> > the
>>
>>
>> Just curious, what do you define as Sci-Fi? Not a hint of science? What
>> difference does that make? If you want science, watch the Discovery
> Channel.
>
> Freedom has a point. Science Fiction without a science background IS
> indeed
> "Science Fantasy". People have seemed to have mixed the two up somewhere
> in
> the 1970's - 1980's.
I have never read/heard Flash Gordon/Buck Rogers or 1940s or 50's Sci-fi
type movies as being called "Science Fantasy" just Science Fiction".
"Scienfiction" was originally based on the premise to
> extrapolating science knowledge to a (fictional) futuristic advanced
> state.
> If the "science" is not plausible - you cannot extrapolate backwards from
> the fiction to see the base principles of the science per /today's/
> knowledge - then it is NOT "Science Fiction". "Science Fantasy" does
> exists, and has some great stories, but somehow the two have gotten
> intertwined into one. That does not demean it in it's own existence...but
> one must be accurate in its description.
"But one must be accurate in its description"? For whose benefit? Will the
ticket prices be any different? Are people demanding their money back...
"Hey, someone told me Star Wars was Science Fiction.. it its,, really
Science Fantasy, boy did I waste my money, I had hoped it would help me pass
my physics exam"
>
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40571 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 19:47 |
|
On Mon, 23 May 2005 15:14:44 GMT, Lord Hatred
<lordhatred [at] spammelatergmail.com> wrote:
> You're close, but not right. Science fiction doesn't have to have
>plausible science. "The Time Machine" isn't plausible science (as far as
It has to be plausible at the time, which The Time Machine was. Of
course, Wells didn't really try to explain how his time machine worked
to my recollection; he just used it as a device to explore a possible
future for our world. That would make it more of a "soft" science
fiction.
Rob
ploovTeHSPaeMBLoKuR [at] charter.net
--
Owner of 2501 Netstalker Points awarded by Corwin of Amber, mainly
because Atma's just too damn attractive to get away from.
Gave 7499 Netstalker Points to Cypher because there's no such thing as
a good day on AGFF without JT bashing!
Owner of David Watson, rec.arts.anime.misc
"He looks like he'd get cut out of a Final Fantasy game for being 'too
gay.' That is like getting booed off the stage at Amateur Night at
the Apollo for being 'too black.'"
--Dr. David Thorpe, Something Awful Fashion SWAT "Ganguro Madness"
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40572 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 19:49 |
|
<barber_anooooo [at] ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:nuoke.35179$Ph4.669994 [at] ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> "But one must be accurate in its description"? For whose benefit? Will
the
> ticket prices be any different? Are people demanding their money back...
> "Hey, someone told me Star Wars was Science Fiction.. it its,, really
> Science Fantasy, boy did I waste my money, I had hoped it would help me
pass
> my physics exam"
Calling a French fry an onion ring does not effect the taste, but it's just
a matter of technicalities :D
I guess it's just another one of those hair-splitting questions for sci-fi
fans, not "movie" fans. I mean, here we are on this NG, among hundreds of
other places, trying to figure out of the warp drive is feasible and can
transporters really Heisenberg compensate. Why? Because we do indeed
demand some science in our sci-fi. The majority of the population just
couldn't care less, they simply are not sophisticated enough to tell sci-fi
from sci-fantasy to put it flat bluntly. Hit them on the side of the head
with a 2x4, with an attached laser pointer, and they're in the middle of a
Star Wars battle. And wondering where the "laser splinters" came from.
Hey, Trek isn't hard core sci-fi, but it is pretty much the only mass-media
science fiction show that actually consulted theoretical physicist to see
what might be possible. So we joke between each other, blabber, prod and
filibuster ( :P ) ourselves, here, to try to get the science to work. I'll
agree with Lord Hatred, Star Wars is great space opera and I enjoy it
(usually, when it isn't boring like TPM) as such.
Eh, I guess it's all in fun. :)
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40573 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 19:54 |
|
Mike Meyer wrote:
> "Chuck" <yadayada [at] blah.blah> writes:
>
> > "Freedom Fries" <RedumblicansShouldBe [at] gaschambers.com> wrote in
message
> > news:42918a18_2 [at] x-privat.org...
> > > please stop calling this crap sci-fi, there wasn't a hint of
science in
> > the
> > > movie and it's likely that George Lucas doesn't know anything
about
> > science.
> >
> > DUH! - Science FICTION is . . . umm . . . FICTION!
>
> But it *also* says SCIENCE in the name. As such, is it to much to ask
that
> they get the basic science right?
>
> For instance, I've heard that Lucas studied tapes of WWII dogfights
to
> get some idea of how the various fighters in SW should behave. It
could
> be true - they certainly do seem to fly around like airplanes.
>
> Except they aren't airplanes - they're space ships. They operate
under a
> completely different set of physical laws than airplanes, and should
> display completely different set of behaviors. Behaviors that are
easily
> predictable to anyone who's taken a high school physics course.
>
> B5 did that work - and has *much* cooler fight scenes because of it.
> Who else will show you a ship swinging around to fire back along it's
> flight path?
>
> People who *read* science fiction have certain standards for the
science
> in the stories. Yes, we're willing to relax those standards for the
sake
> of the story. But most of the stuff one sees on TV or the movies
under the
> science fiction label gets it wrong for no good reason, and would be
> unpublishable in printed form.
>
> This stuff should be called Science Fantasy.
I hate to have to be the one to break it to you, Slim, but Lucas
himself has sad Star Wars is fantasy, not SF.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40574 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 19:54 |
|
Mike Meyer wrote:
> "Chuck" <yadayada [at] blah.blah> writes:
>
> > "Freedom Fries" <RedumblicansShouldBe [at] gaschambers.com> wrote in
message
> > news:42918a18_2 [at] x-privat.org...
> > > please stop calling this crap sci-fi, there wasn't a hint of
science in
> > the
> > > movie and it's likely that George Lucas doesn't know anything
about
> > science.
> >
> > DUH! - Science FICTION is . . . umm . . . FICTION!
>
> But it *also* says SCIENCE in the name. As such, is it to much to ask
that
> they get the basic science right?
>
> For instance, I've heard that Lucas studied tapes of WWII dogfights
to
> get some idea of how the various fighters in SW should behave. It
could
> be true - they certainly do seem to fly around like airplanes.
>
> Except they aren't airplanes - they're space ships. They operate
under a
> completely different set of physical laws than airplanes, and should
> display completely different set of behaviors. Behaviors that are
easily
> predictable to anyone who's taken a high school physics course.
>
> B5 did that work - and has *much* cooler fight scenes because of it.
> Who else will show you a ship swinging around to fire back along it's
> flight path?
>
> People who *read* science fiction have certain standards for the
science
> in the stories. Yes, we're willing to relax those standards for the
sake
> of the story. But most of the stuff one sees on TV or the movies
under the
> science fiction label gets it wrong for no good reason, and would be
> unpublishable in printed form.
>
> This stuff should be called Science Fantasy.
I hate to have to be the one to break it to you, Slim, but Lucas
himself has said Star Wars is fantasy, not SF.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40575 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 19:57 |
|
On Mon, 23 May 2005 17:34:11 GMT, <barber_anooooo [at] ns.sympatico.ca>
wrote:
> I have never read/heard Flash Gordon/Buck Rogers or 1940s or 50's Sci-fi
>type movies as being called "Science Fantasy" just Science Fiction".
They're not science fantasy because they don't contain elements that
most people would consider magical. They aren't science fiction
either, though.
> "Scienfiction" was originally based on the premise to
>> extrapolating science knowledge to a (fictional) futuristic advanced
>> state.
>> If the "science" is not plausible - you cannot extrapolate backwards from
>> the fiction to see the base principles of the science per /today's/
>> knowledge - then it is NOT "Science Fiction". "Science Fantasy" does
>> exists, and has some great stories, but somehow the two have gotten
>> intertwined into one. That does not demean it in it's own existence...but
>> one must be accurate in its description.
>
>"But one must be accurate in its description"? For whose benefit? Will the
For the benefit of the people who are talking about it. The first
thing any group of people who are discussing something has to do is
agree on definitions.
Rob
ploovTeHSPaeMBLoKuR [at] charter.net
--
Owner of 2501 Netstalker Points awarded by Corwin of Amber, mainly
because Atma's just too damn attractive to get away from.
Gave 7499 Netstalker Points to Cypher because there's no such thing as
a good day on AGFF without JT bashing!
Owner of David Watson, rec.arts.anime.misc
"He looks like he'd get cut out of a Final Fantasy game for being 'too
gay.' That is like getting booed off the stage at Amateur Night at
the Apollo for being 'too black.'"
--Dr. David Thorpe, Something Awful Fashion SWAT "Ganguro Madness"
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40577 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 20:13 |
|
"Mondo" <oxiborick [at] lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1116870877.393402.57760 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mike Meyer wrote:
>> "Chuck" <yadayada [at] blah.blah> writes:
>>
>> > "Freedom Fries" <RedumblicansShouldBe [at] gaschambers.com> wrote in
> message
>> > news:42918a18_2 [at] x-privat.org...
>> > > please stop calling this crap sci-fi, there wasn't a hint of
> science in
>> > the
>> > > movie and it's likely that George Lucas doesn't know anything
> about
>> > science.
>> >
>> > DUH! - Science FICTION is . . . umm . . . FICTION!
>>
>> But it *also* says SCIENCE in the name. As such, is it to much to ask
> that
>> they get the basic science right?
>>
>> For instance, I've heard that Lucas studied tapes of WWII dogfights
> to
>> get some idea of how the various fighters in SW should behave. It
> could
>> be true - they certainly do seem to fly around like airplanes.
>>
>> Except they aren't airplanes - they're space ships. They operate
> under a
>> completely different set of physical laws than airplanes, and should
>> display completely different set of behaviors. Behaviors that are
> easily
>> predictable to anyone who's taken a high school physics course.
>>
>> B5 did that work - and has *much* cooler fight scenes because of it.
>> Who else will show you a ship swinging around to fire back along it's
>> flight path?
>>
>> People who *read* science fiction have certain standards for the
> science
>> in the stories. Yes, we're willing to relax those standards for the
> sake
>> of the story. But most of the stuff one sees on TV or the movies
> under the
>> science fiction label gets it wrong for no good reason, and would be
>> unpublishable in printed form.
>>
>> This stuff should be called Science Fantasy.
>
> I hate to have to be the one to break it to you, Slim, but Lucas
> himself has sad Star Wars is fantasy, not SF.
Whether it is called science fiction or science fantasy, the orginator of
this thread is grasping at straw, if he thinks using the wrong description,
will convince others not to like the movie. I think there are likely other
reasons he did not like the movie. arguing over what it is called will not
sway anyone to his point of view.
>
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40578 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 20:29 |
|
"Snake" <fluidNOstatesSPAM_REMOVECAPSTOREPLY [at] mindspring.com> wrote in
message news:4Joke.7374$BF5.6549 [at] trndny06...
> <barber_anooooo [at] ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:nuoke.35179$Ph4.669994 [at] ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>> "But one must be accurate in its description"? For whose benefit? Will
> the
>> ticket prices be any different? Are people demanding their money back...
>> "Hey, someone told me Star Wars was Science Fiction.. it its,, really
>> Science Fantasy, boy did I waste my money, I had hoped it would help me
> pass
>> my physics exam"
>
> Calling a French fry an onion ring does not effect the taste, but it's
> just
> a matter of technicalities :D
>
> I guess it's just another one of those hair-splitting questions for sci-fi
> fans, not "movie" fans. I mean, here we are on this NG, among hundreds of
> other places, trying to figure out of the warp drive is feasible and can
> transporters really Heisenberg compensate. Why? Because we do indeed
> demand some science in our sci-fi. The majority of the population just
> couldn't care less, they simply are not sophisticated enough to tell
> sci-fi
> from sci-fantasy to put it flat bluntly. Hit them on the side of the head
> with a 2x4, with an attached laser pointer, and they're in the middle of a
> Star Wars battle. And wondering where the "laser splinters" came from.
For me each "Science Fiction" world or show operates under it's own
reality. SG1, Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica etc. Trek fans tend
to harbour the delusion that thier science is closer to reality then any
other show's science. Especially under B&B, Trek science can be adjusted
episode to episode, if it gets in the way of their storyline, it can be
changed. Cell phones, PDAs etc.. credit TOS, but recent Trek science is as
muddled as it gets
>
> Hey, Trek isn't hard core sci-fi, but it is pretty much the only
> mass-media
> science fiction show that actually consulted theoretical physicist to see
> what might be possible. So we joke between each other, blabber, prod and
> filibuster ( :P ) ourselves, here, to try to get the science to work.
> I'll
> agree with Lord Hatred, Star Wars is great space opera and I enjoy it
> (usually, when it isn't boring like TPM) as such.
>
> Eh, I guess it's all in fun. :)
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40579 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 20:35 |
|
Rob Browning wrote:
>> You're close, but not right. Science fiction doesn't have to have
>>plausible science. "The Time Machine" isn't plausible science (as far as
>
> It has to be plausible at the time, which The Time Machine was.
No.
--
Rockboy
Everybody's all right
Everything is automatic
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40580 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 20:35 |
|
"Snake" <fluidNOstatesSPAM_REMOVECAPSTOREPLY [at] mindspring.com> wrote in
message news:Bcmke.19466$Y36.19104 [at] trndny05...
> <barber_anooooo [at] ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:gRlke.35068$Ph4.665489 [at] ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> >
> >
> > > "Freedom Fries" <RedumblicansShouldBe [at] gaschambers.com> wrote in
message
> > > news:42918a18_2 [at] x-privat.org...
> > >> please stop calling this crap sci-fi, there wasn't a hint of
science in
> > > the
> >
> >
> > Just curious, what do you define as Sci-Fi? Not a hint of
science? What
> > difference does that make? If you want science, watch the
Discovery
> Channel.
>
> Freedom has a point. Science Fiction without a science background
IS indeed
> "Science Fantasy". People have seemed to have mixed the two up
somewhere in
> the 1970's - 1980's. "Scienfiction" was originally based on the
premise to
> extrapolating science knowledge to a (fictional) futuristic advanced
state.
> If the "science" is not plausible - you cannot extrapolate backwards
from
> the fiction to see the base principles of the science per /today's/
> knowledge - then it is NOT "Science Fiction". "Science Fantasy"
does
> exists, and has some great stories, but somehow the two have gotten
> intertwined into one. That does not demean it in it's own
existence...but
> one must be accurate in its description.
Star Wars isn't even *science fantasy*. It's good old fashioned
Fantasy against a space background.
--
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
jette [at] blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40581 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 21:11 |
|
Mondo wrote:
> Mike Meyer wrote:
>> "Chuck" <yadayada [at] blah.blah> writes:
>>
>>> "Freedom Fries" <RedumblicansShouldBe [at] gaschambers.com> wrote in
>>> message news:42918a18_2 [at] x-privat.org...
>>>> please stop calling this crap sci-fi, there wasn't a hint of
>>>> science in the movie and it's likely that George Lucas doesn't
>>>> know anything
> about
>>> science.
>>>
>>> DUH! - Science FICTION is . . . umm . . . FICTION!
>>
>> But it *also* says SCIENCE in the name. As such, is it to much to
>> ask that they get the basic science right?
>>
>> For instance, I've heard that Lucas studied tapes of WWII dogfights
>> to get some idea of how the various fighters in SW should behave. It
>> could be true - they certainly do seem to fly around like airplanes.
>>
>> Except they aren't airplanes - they're space ships. They operate
>> under a completely different set of physical laws than airplanes,
>> and should display completely different set of behaviors. Behaviors
>> that are easily predictable to anyone who's taken a high school
>> physics course.
>>
>> B5 did that work - and has *much* cooler fight scenes because of it.
>> Who else will show you a ship swinging around to fire back along it's
>> flight path?
>>
>> People who *read* science fiction have certain standards for the
>> science in the stories. Yes, we're willing to relax those standards
>> for the sake of the story. But most of the stuff one sees on TV or
>> the movies under the science fiction label gets it wrong for no good
>> reason, and would be unpublishable in printed form.
>>
>> This stuff should be called Science Fantasy.
>
> I hate to have to be the one to break it to you, Slim, but Lucas
> himself has said Star Wars is fantasy, not SF.
I hate to have to be the one to break it to you, Gid, but you just posted
that above message twice.
Ryan
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40582 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 21:17 |
|
Rockboy wrote:
> Rob Browning wrote:
>
>>> You're close, but not right. Science fiction doesn't have to have
>>> plausible science. "The Time Machine" isn't plausible science (as
>>> far as
>>
>> It has to be plausible at the time, which The Time Machine was.
>
> No.
Yes.
Ryan
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40584 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 21:49 |
|
"Eric Nichols" <sugarbearnichols [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SPmke.405$4N2.33 [at] newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> <barber_anooooo [at] ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:gRlke.35068$Ph4.665489 [at] ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>
> > Listening to other negative reviews begs another question, since when
have
> > movie reviewers become closet political commentators? The world does not
> > revolve around US politics
>
> No, but Hollywood does.
Yep full of right wing crap like Independence Day.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40585 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 21:50 |
|
"Freedom Fries" <gasredumblicans [at] gaschamber.com> wrote
> Yep full of right wing crap like Independence Day.
Wait, you're trolling now, right?
Krusty,
gets confused sometimes...
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40593 ] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 03:27 |
|
DarkSheer wrote:
> Rockboy wrote:
>
>>Rob Browning wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> You're close, but not right. Science fiction doesn't have to have
>>>>plausible science. "The Time Machine" isn't plausible science (as
>>>>far as
>>>
>>>It has to be plausible at the time, which The Time Machine was.
>>
>>No.
>
>
> Yes.
>
> Ryan
When in 1895 was a Time Machine plausible? Using what scientific
principles?
--
Rockboy
Everybody's all right
Everything is automatic
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40595 ] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 03:49 |
|
On 2005-05-23 22:27:54 -0300, Rockboy <rockboy [at] rockboy.net> said:
> When in 1895 was a Time Machine plausible? Using what scientific principles?
It wasn't. H.G. Wells himself has said that his tactic, when writing
convincing science fiction at that time, was to employ rhetoric and and
skillfully executed narrative deception to convince the audience of a
concept's plausibility.
Time travel itself wasn't plausible, Wells was just a good writer.
- Avenger
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40597 ] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 03:53 |
|
Freedom Fries wrote:
> "Eric Nichols" <sugarbearnichols [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:SPmke.405$4N2.33 [at] newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > <barber_anooooo [at] ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:gRlke.35068$Ph4.665489 [at] ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> >
> > > Listening to other negative reviews begs another question, since when
> have
> > > movie reviewers become closet political commentators? The world does not
> > > revolve around US politics
> >
> > No, but Hollywood does.
>
> Yep full of right wing crap like Independence Day.
The same guys who did Independence Day did a movie called The Day After Tomorrow
which was a left wing environmentalist screed.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40599 ] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 04:10 |
|
On 2005-05-23 14:47:09 -0300, Rob Browning <pluvius3 [at] hotmail.com> said:
> It has to be plausible at the time, which The Time Machine was. Of
> course, Wells didn't really try to explain how his time machine worked
> to my recollection; he just used it as a device to explore a possible
> future for our world. That would make it more of a "soft" science
> fiction.
Yeah; see my post later in this thread. Wells wrote before science
fiction was a genre anyway, so all of that stuff is going to seem like
"soft" science fiction, or fantasy, or speculative fiction, or science
fantasy, or whatever. Actually, the term Wells used for his early
fiction was "scientific romance", which just confirms that the science
was merely an avenue for the romance--in this case, the exploration of
the future and his social class allegory.
- Avenger
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40600 ] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 04:52 |
|
Hello Freedom Fries,
All stories are about the same thing. The special effects might be
different but the stories are always the same. Good vs. Evil or bad guy good
guy, or negative vs. positive or in other words they are all Contrast movies
showing one contrast over another. The spin that is placed in theme is an
attempt to sell the audience on the idea that they are not all dealing with
the same theme. But alas, they all deal with the same theme, contrast is
that theme.
Star Wars deals with Mythology and pseudo Science. Star Trek deals with
theoretical Science and pseudo science.
George Lucas does not need to use real or pseudo science in order to explain
the story he is trying to convey. His entire story (all 6 parts) is supposed
to be Myth and therefore doesn't have to follow any conventional methods of
story telling if he doesn't want it to. If George Lucas puts out a movie
that you don't like, that is fine with him I'm sure, because you still spent
the money to go see it and unless you got a refund, or got in for free,
George Lucas has the money you put down to see it. In various interview
conducted over the last few decades, several different interviewers have
asked George Lucas if he endorsed the Expanded Universe and its content. His
answer was supposed to have been that his movies constitute the Star Wars
Universe and his story and the EURO constitutes the Fandom Universe and
whatever stories they churn out. He is supposed to have said that the EU is
where he got most of the capital to finance the three prequels. He is
supposed to have said that nothing that happens in the EU has any direct
bearing upon the story as shown in his movies. He is also supposed to have
said that while he might borrow ideas from the EU, he sees no reason why he
can't alter them to fit what he wants them for and supposedly pointing out
that he owes nothing to the EU, and that without his movies there would have
been no EU for Star Wars.
The information about what Lucas is supposed to have said is taken from
several interviews over the past few decades. And of he changes his mind,
that is his right as the Creator of Star Wars. Initially he had stated that
it would take 12 movies to tell the story, then he dropped that down to 9
movies and now it is down to 6. If he initially thought it would take more,
then that is why he said it would, but now it appears that he has settled
down to just 6 movies to tell the Skywalker story of the fall of the father
and his redemption by his son.
Vader did bring balance to the Force. He leveled the playing field by
reducing the numbers down to two each. Of all the stories I have read from
the Expanded Universe the most ludicrous ones involve Anakin Skywalker Solo
and his powers in the Force. What a load! If Luke's Father was born of the
Force, how can Anakin Skywalker Solo be more powerful when he was the
product of two humans one of which was supposed to be Force sensitive? And
even if both parents were Force users, that still doesn't explain how a
person not born from the Force itself would have more power than one born of
the very Force itself.
When I think of when I hear people talking about the E.U. is that it
sounds a lot like they are saying Ew, as in a sound one makes when one is
disgusted by what one is exposed to. Ew as in Yuck; as though disgusted.
But then again, that is just my opinion.
Alkai
Live Long and Expire...
-----------------
"Freedom Fries" <RedumblicansShouldBe [at] gaschambers.com> wrote in message
news:42918a18_2 [at] x-privat.org...
> Boring story, no plot, bad acting, poor directing, special effects that
> were
> on pair with Stargate SG1 the television series. The only reason I can
> imagine anyone has anything good to say about this movie is that they're
> only comparing it to the last two in the series.
>
> This movie had nothing going for it, most movies that bad at least are
> unintentionally funny. This movie was nothing but a cure for insomnia. And
> please stop calling this crap sci-fi, there wasn't a hint of science in
> the
> movie and it's likely that George Lucas doesn't know anything about
> science.
> Sci-fi minus science equals fantasy; get a clue people.
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40601 ] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 04:58 |
|
Well actually it does. If you tell me that you want me to try a french fry
and all I have ever eaten is onion rings, the french fry is not likely to
taste the same.
"Snake" <fluidNOstatesSPAM_REMOVECAPSTOREPLY [at] mindspring.com> wrote in
message news:4Joke.7374$BF5.6549 [at] trndny06...
> <barber_anooooo [at] ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:nuoke.35179$Ph4.669994 [at] ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>> "But one must be accurate in its description"? For whose benefit? Will
> the
>> ticket prices be any different? Are people demanding their money back...
>> "Hey, someone told me Star Wars was Science Fiction.. it its,, really
>> Science Fantasy, boy did I waste my money, I had hoped it would help me
> pass
>> my physics exam"
>
> Calling a French fry an onion ring does not effect the taste, but it's
> just
> a matter of technicalities :D
>
> I guess it's just another one of those hair-splitting questions for sci-fi
> fans, not "movie" fans. I mean, here we are on this NG, among hundreds of
> other places, trying to figure out of the warp drive is feasible and can
> transporters really Heisenberg compensate. Why? Because we do indeed
> demand some science in our sci-fi. The majority of the population just
> couldn't care less, they simply are not sophisticated enough to tell
> sci-fi
> from sci-fantasy to put it flat bluntly. Hit them on the side of the head
> with a 2x4, with an attached laser pointer, and they're in the middle of a
> Star Wars battle. And wondering where the "laser splinters" came from.
>
> Hey, Trek isn't hard core sci-fi, but it is pretty much the only
> mass-media
> science fiction show that actually consulted theoretical physicist to see
> what might be possible. So we joke between each other, blabber, prod and
> filibuster ( :P ) ourselves, here, to try to get the science to work.
> I'll
> agree with Lord Hatred, Star Wars is great space opera and I enjoy it
> (usually, when it isn't boring like TPM) as such.
>
> Eh, I guess it's all in fun. :)
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40603 ] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 05:25 |
|
Thank God I am not into politics or the movies and TV programs I watch would
be ruined by political overtones and/or undercurrents. Politics? Let's break
that down shall we...Poly means more than one. Tics are blood sucking
parasites, so Politics would be many blood sucking parasites. Oh! My! God!
What an Epiphany! What clarity of thought! Politics is filled with multiple
blood sucking parasites...who'da thunk?.
And now, please excuse me while I go make mad passionate love to my
sister..... [and if you believe that, you are in need of some heavy duty
professional care].
Alkai
-----------------
"David B" <bothecat3 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42928901.38C4521 [at] hotmail.com...
> Freedom Fries wrote:
>
>> "Eric Nichols" <sugarbearnichols [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:SPmke.405$4N2.33 [at] newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>> >
>> > <barber_anooooo [at] ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> > news:gRlke.35068$Ph4.665489 [at] ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>> >
>> > > Listening to other negative reviews begs another question, since when
>> have
>> > > movie reviewers become closet political commentators? The world does
>> > > not
>> > > revolve around US politics
>> >
>> > No, but Hollywood does.
>>
>> Yep full of right wing crap like Independence Day.
>
> The same guys who did Independence Day did a movie called The Day After
> Tomorrow
> which was a left wing environmentalist screed.
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40604 ] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 05:34 |
|
"Snake" <fluidNOstatesSPAM_REMOVECAPSTOREPLY [at] mindspring.com> writes:
> Hey, Trek isn't hard core sci-fi, but it is pretty much the only mass-media
> science fiction show that actually consulted theoretical physicist to see
> what might be possible.
Trek? Real science? The show that didn't realize that space had three
dimensions until The Wrath of Kahn?
You *gotta* be kidding me.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm [at] mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40605 ] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 05:36 |
|
Rob Browning <pluvius3 [at] hotmail.com> writes:
> For the benefit of the people who are talking about it. The first
> thing any group of people who are discussing something has to do is
> agree on definitions.
And defining either of science fiction and fantasy is nearly impossible.
The boundaries are just to fuzzy. You'll almost certainly misclassify
something that someone considers a classic in the field.
Not to mention all the genre-crossing and genre-bending stories that
predate "science fantasy".
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm [at] mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40607 ] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 05:43 |
|
"Mike Meyer" <mwm [at] idiom.com> wrote in message
news:5j1x7yj8fd.fsf [at] idiom.com...
> "Chuck" <yadayada [at] blah.blah> writes:
>
>> "Freedom Fries" <RedumblicansShouldBe [at] gaschambers.com> wrote in message
>> news:42918a18_2 [at] x-privat.org...
>> > please stop calling this crap sci-fi, there wasn't a hint of science in
>> the
>> > movie and it's likely that George Lucas doesn't know anything about
>> science.
>>
>> DUH! - Science FICTION is . . . umm . . . FICTION!
>
> But it *also* says SCIENCE in the name. As such, is it to much to ask that
> they get the basic science right?
>
> For instance, I've heard that Lucas studied tapes of WWII dogfights to
> get some idea of how the various fighters in SW should behave. It could
> be true - they certainly do seem to fly around like airplanes.
[Alkai] Yes, that is supposed to be what Lucas did, but that doesn't mean
that just because he looks at and studies biplanes from WW2 that he has to
make adjustments for space ships that will be using the same maneuvers. The
Science was in the way they moved, the Fiction was in applying that motion
in a non scientific way.
> Except they aren't airplanes - they're space ships. They operate under a
> completely different set of physical laws than airplanes, and should
> display completely different set of behaviors. Behaviors that are easily
> predictable to anyone who's taken a high school physics course.
[Alkai] Strike 1 for suspension of disbelief. It is fantasy, not
science, so if Lucas wants to make a space ship operate like it has an
atmosphere to fly around in via WW2 dogfight style, that is his
prerogative...being the Creator! of the Star Wars Universe! and all, dontcha
think? Nobody tied you to the movie theatre seat and peeled your eyelids
back and forced you to sit and watch it...did they?
> B5 did that work - and has *much* cooler fight scenes because of it.
> Who else will show you a ship swinging around to fire back along it's
> flight path?
>
> People who *read* science fiction have certain standards for the science
> in the stories. Yes, we're willing to relax those standards for the sake
> of the story. But most of the stuff one sees on TV or the movies under the
> science fiction label gets it wrong for no good reason, and would be
> unpublishable in printed form.
[Alkai] Not everybody that reads or watches Science Fiction does so for
the same reasons. I watch it or sometimes read it for something to do
because I am usually bored. If it is something I am reading it is to find
out whether or not the writer is a good one that holds my interest and has a
complex story line or if his writing is painfully predictable to the point
that I can pretty much accurately guess what each chapter will be about
before I am finished with the one I am reading. I watch TV and movies to see
the latest special effects and hear the soundtrack, but rarely for the story
as they are way to predictable for my tastes. I want to watch a movie that
has a lot of subtle undercurrents going on at the same time that I am
watching the current story unfold. And have those undercurrents tie in at
some point to each other like a complicated web of mystery and suspense
where the individual parts don't seem as though they will fit together until
they come together after having led me through a maze of interconnected
threads. That is a story to me. Star Wars is just eye candy for me. I really
don't care one way or the other if anybody else likes it because I am not a
huge fan of it. I just like a lot of the stuff on it. To demonstrate the
level to which I pay attention to things in the movies I think Jar Jar is
cool. Not because he speaks in a stereo typical accent, but because he is
stupid and comical and it helps me to get through the rest of the freaking
flick without loosing my mind. He ads just enough stupidity to the movie to
make me happy. He definitely takes my mind off of that horrible casting
choice for Anakin. Hally Joel Osman would have made a far better choice to
play the young Anakin in my opinion.
Alkai
-----------------------
..
> This stuff should be called Science Fantasy.
>
> <mike
> --
> Mike Meyer <mwm [at] mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
> Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more
> information.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40608 ] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 05:50 |
|
"Freedom Fries" <RedumblicansShouldBe [at] gaschambers.com> wrote in
news:42918a18_2 [at] x-privat.org:
> Boring story, no plot, bad acting, poor directing, special effects
> that were on pair with Stargate SG1 the television series. The only
> reason I can imagine anyone has anything good to say about this movie
> is that they're only comparing it to the last two in the series.
>
> This movie had nothing going for it, most movies that bad at least are
> unintentionally funny. This movie was nothing but a cure for insomnia.
> And please stop calling this crap sci-fi, there wasn't a hint of
> science in the movie and it's likely that George Lucas doesn't know
> anything about science. Sci-fi minus science equals fantasy; get a
> clue people.
>
>
Ummm, swords of cohesive light, flying cars, spaceships, starfighters, and
intelligent/sentient robots aren't sci-fi? Since when?
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40613 ] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 06:45 |
|
"Alkai" <alkai [at] tampabay.rr.com> writes:
> "Mike Meyer" <mwm [at] idiom.com> wrote in message
> news:5j1x7yj8fd.fsf [at] idiom.com...
> > "Chuck" <yadayada [at] blah.blah> writes:
> >
> >> "Freedom Fries" <RedumblicansShouldBe [at] gaschambers.com> wrote in message
> >> news:42918a18_2 [at] x-privat.org...
> >> > please stop calling this crap sci-fi, there wasn't a hint of science in
> >> the
> >> > movie and it's likely that George Lucas doesn't know anything about
> >> science.
> >>
> >> DUH! - Science FICTION is . . . umm . . . FICTION!
> >
> > But it *also* says SCIENCE in the name. As such, is it to much to ask that
> > they get the basic science right?
> >
> > For instance, I've heard that Lucas studied tapes of WWII dogfights to
> > get some idea of how the various fighters in SW should behave. It could
> > be true - they certainly do seem to fly around like airplanes.
>
> [Alkai] Yes, that is supposed to be what Lucas did, but that doesn't mean
> that just because he looks at and studies biplanes from WW2 that he has to
> make adjustments for space ships that will be using the same maneuvers. The
> Science was in the way they moved, the Fiction was in applying that motion
> in a non scientific way.
Except - as just demonstrated - there was no science in the way they moved.
He just copied the same stupid mistake that pretty much everybody who
shoots a dogfight in outer space did.
> > Except they aren't airplanes - they're space ships. They operate under a
> > completely different set of physical laws than airplanes, and should
> > display completely different set of behaviors. Behaviors that are easily
> > predictable to anyone who's taken a high school physics course.
>
> [Alkai] Strike 1 for suspension of disbelief. It is fantasy, not
> science, so if Lucas wants to make a space ship operate like it has an
> atmosphere to fly around in via WW2 dogfight style, that is his
> prerogative...being the Creator! of the Star Wars Universe! and all, dontcha
> think? Nobody tied you to the movie theatre seat and peeled your eyelids
> back and forced you to sit and watch it...did they?
Right. Most science fiction presented in the video medium is closer to
science fantasy than to science fiction. Which was the point.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm [at] mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40614 ] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 07:03 |
|
Lio Convoy wrote:
> "Freedom Fries" <RedumblicansShouldBe [at] gaschambers.com> wrote in
> news:42918a18_2 [at] x-privat.org:
>
>
>>Boring story, no plot, bad acting, poor directing, special effects
>>that were on pair with Stargate SG1 the television series. The only
>>reason I can imagine anyone has anything good to say about this movie
>>is that they're only comparing it to the last two in the series.
>>
>>This movie had nothing going for it, most movies that bad at least are
>>unintentionally funny. This movie was nothing but a cure for insomnia.
>>And please stop calling this crap sci-fi, there wasn't a hint of
>>science in the movie and it's likely that George Lucas doesn't know
>>anything about science. Sci-fi minus science equals fantasy; get a
>>clue people.
>>
>>
>
>
> Ummm, swords of cohesive light, flying cars, spaceships, starfighters, and
> intelligent/sentient robots aren't sci-fi? Since when?
They're magic Robots! A wizard did it.
--
Rockboy
Everybody's all right
Everything is automatic
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40615 ] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 07:04 |
|
On Tue, 24 May 2005 01:27:54 GMT, Rockboy <rockboy [at] rockboy.net> wrote:
>When in 1895 was a Time Machine plausible? Using what scientific
>principles?
When was traveling to the center of the Earth plausible? (FWIW this
year is 100 year since the author Jules Verne passed away)
No matter how farfetched any sci-fi is, some element will always be
limited to imagination. Travelling to the center of the Earth by foot
is quite impossible and I doubt there can be time travelling unless
you count on cyro freezing and then waking up in the future.
--
When you hear the toilet flush, and hear the words "uh oh", it's already
too late. - by anonymous Mother in Austin, TX
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
|
|
|
| Re: Star Wars Sith Review Spoiler Free [message #40616 ] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 07:10 |
|
On Tue, 24 May 2005 03:50:27 GMT, Lio Convoy
<lioconvoy [at] iwonttellyou.com> wrote:
>Ummm, swords of cohesive light,
Can be done but either in glass tube or with flashlight and a fog
machine.
>flying cars,
Hovercraft exists
>spaceships,
We got Endeavour, Discovery, and Atlantis. We also have Enterprise
but she's never flown in space and she's probably a museum piece
anyway.
>starfighters, and
Don't think we got that yet.
>intelligent/sentient robots aren't sci-fi? Since when?
Intelligent robot, yes. There's even one that can aid in the nursing
home by checking on the resident, medication reminder, errand to pick
up food and meds from nearby store, and call for help.
Sentient robot is still a bit away. Maybe when quantum computer can
be developed at reasonable cost? (current computer runs on 2 states
per bit: on or off. Quantum is 4 states per bit)
--
When you hear the toilet flush, and hear the words "uh oh", it's already
too late. - by anonymous Mother in Austin, TX
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 12:15:32 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,10755 Sekunden |
