Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NASA Names Best & Worst Sci-Fi Movies of All Time

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the I-want-a-recount dept.

Movies 610

mvar writes "Working through the year-end best/worst movie lists can be a feat of Olympic proportions, but there's one list which is so damn cool you'll definitely want to give it a whirl. NASA and the Science and Entertainment Exchange have compiled a list of the 'least plausible science fiction movies ever made,' and they ranked the disastrous (in more ways than one) 2012 as the most 'absurd' sci-fi flick of all time."

cancel ×

610 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Money well spent. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34754636)

'nuff said.

Re:Money well spent. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34754758)

I know you're being sarcastic, but it is money well spent. NASA faces huge uphill battles from people wondering why they aren't doing as much as they could be, and why we're not building colonies on the moon. SciFi movies are the primary tool to impression people as to what is technologically available to us. Bad movies give the public unfair expectations of what could happen, who controls it, and how it can be fixed. These people then write their congress people and complain that NASA isn't doing enough. Congress then gets onto NASA on how they're spending what they're spending, and how they should change priorities. The public is dumb, congress is dumb, and they're controlled by images given in SciFi movies.

Think if a majority of the people in this country were convinced by "2012" that the world would really end at that year. Their priorities for government spending would be dramatically different.

Re:Money well spent. (4, Informative)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754888)

Think if a majority of the people in this country were convinced by "2012" that the world would really end at that year. Their priorities for government spending would be dramatically different.

This part of your comment reminded me of this article [slashdot.org] ; NASA actually had to post a rather lengthy FAQ [nasa.gov] about 2012 because of the sheer volume of grief that movie was causing them.

Personally, I agree that NASA should take the proactive approach on this one. It shouldn't be part of their job to educate the public like this but it has proven necessary.

Re:Money well spent. (1)

Trails (629752) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755096)

It's not so much the movie as the conspiracy theory to which the movie draws some vague inspiration.

The NASA take is informative, but for something more informative, with Gary Coleman no less, start here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN5sNXxe498 [youtube.com]

Re:Money well spent. (4, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755030)

It's not only NASA vs. SciFi Movies. That problem can be seen in a lot of genres. The more and more movies and shows try to claim they are "authentic" and are seen as such, the more people start to wonder why what they see in their shows isn't done in real life.

A friend of mine is in forensics. You might be able to imagine what he thinks of shows like CSI. To quote: "If they killed the prez, we wouldn't get the money needed to do half the tests they do routinely there on a hunch". Not to mention that the tests (those that ARE actually working as they do in RL, by far not everything they do has anything to do with reality, deus ex machinas are a staple of the later CSI episodes) sometimes require machinery so expensive that you couldn't get your hands on it if you blew your annual budget on just renting it. Not to mention that petty things like constitution or human rights seem to be non existent in the world of CSI.

But people see it as genuine and start to demand that forensics can flawlessly identify every culprit. That's not the case. By far not. Having a piece of hair or a cigarette butt doesn't mean you also have a suspect to match it against.

It's very well spent money if such claims are debunked so people do not have irrational expectations based on movies and shows. What people have to learn is that their main focus is entertainment. Not education.

Re:Money well spent. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34755050)

Right...we're all dumb. Great attitude. Since we're not astrophysicists, we have no right to criticize how NASA wastes public funds then? It's dumb-assed attitudes like that which have gotten us where we are today...a country $14T in the hole with no way out short of confiscatory taxes.

Re:Money well spent. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34754904)

I note that you ended your post with "'nuff said". You sir, are a moron.

How does this happen? (0, Flamebait)

NetServices (1479949) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754658)

How is it NASA is qualified to judge the best and worst Sci-Fi movies of all time? Don't they have something more important to be working on?

Re:How does this happen? (0)

Ricken (797341) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754686)

Sometimes, drinking coffee and looking at pretty pictures all day can get awfully boring!

Re:How does this happen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34755012)

Wish I had some mod points for your troll.

Re:How does this happen? (5, Informative)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754698)

Not since Congress won't approve anything good and keeps forcing them to work on bullshit they already cancelled until the money runs out, since apparently that makes good economic sense or something. Besides, NASA probably has one of the highest concentrations of nerds anywhere in the world. They probably know a thing or two about SciFi (as opposed to SyFy).

Re:How does this happen? (1)

inerlogic (695302) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755020)

+1

Re:How does this happen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34754708)

How is it NASA is qualified to judge the best and worst Sci-Fi movies of all time? Don't they have something more important to be working on?

You see, they're doing this to create content and then advertising. Then they'll have money for research. It's a new plan to have NASA support themselves without taxpayer money.

I hear they're thinking of making Martian Porn - hot chicks fucking Martian microbes or something.

Rule 34.

Re:How does this happen? (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754732)

I've always thought there were two forms of "Sci-Fi". We have Sci-Fi, and then we have Sci-Fantasy. It would seem we have far and way more of Sci-Fantasy and rarely any good Sci-Fi.

Re:How does this happen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34754808)

they are working on something more important, they're assessing the current state of CGI for the next 'moon landing' ;-)

Psst? They kinda ARE qualified in science (5, Interesting)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754872)

I hate to break it to you, but (A) they didn't judge best or worst, but most absurd as science goes, and (B) they do have people qualified in several branches of science and technology. In fact, I'd expect that if anyone is qualified to judge woowoo doomsday scenarios based on stellar alignments and mysterious radiations from the galaxy, it would be NASA. That's, you know, the kinda thing they _are_ supposed to do: know what's happening up there.

Of course, don't tell that to the homeschooled idiots who'd rather wait for a "rapture" that kept being sold as any day now for 2000 years straight and never happened, than fix the real problems on Earth in the meantime. And who'll even take a non-existent Mayan prophecy as support for their Bible delusions. Or to the gang who just wants to believe any non-scientific idiocy, presumably because it makes them feel less bad about sleeping through Physics class high-school.

Re:Psst? They kinda ARE qualified in science (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755176)

don't tell that to the homeschooled idiots who'd rather wait for a "rapture" that kept being sold as any day now

The newest day is May 11, 2001. At least according to Harold Camping. One can only hope that like the bunch of loons who left this world when the Hale Bopp comet came by, a large portion of these people will also do the rest of mankind a service and follow their example.

Re:Psst? They kinda ARE qualified in science (1)

CitizenCain (1209428) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755240)

A bit off-topic, but what's homeschooling got to do with anything? It was the **public** school board in Kansas that decided creationism was as scientifically valid as... science, not the Kansas coalition of homeschoolers (or whatever it's called). Frankly, with the shape the public school system is in these days it's hard for me to imagine any alternative doing worse. Hell, we may as well save the country some money, disband the public school system and let the kiddies learn by sitting them in front of the TV.

Re:How does this happen? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754996)

Don't they have something more important to be working on?

Not in the last 40 years.

Re:How does this happen? (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755076)

They do not judge artistical quality or entertainment value. They judge credibility, feasibility and scientific accuracy of the "science" portrait.

And given that they are mostly doing science in space, I'd say they're qualified to judge the quality of how science in space is described.

Re:How does this happen? (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755236)

Since people wowed a lot more a remote-controlled car landing on Mars than an orbiter mapping its underground compositions and finding the areas of dense water-ice, NASA decided that entertainment was where the future was.
/rant

Can't Argue (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754666)

I can't argue with it. It was an insanely awful movie, both for the absolutely retarded "ooh, look, Africa just rose a mile", but just as importantly because it was just a plan bad film.

Re:Can't Argue (1)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754798)

I can...Battlefield Earth.

Re:Can't Argue (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754870)

Ugh. My little sister liked that movie.

Re:Can't Argue (1)

JWW (79176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755004)

I was most impressed with the fact that they outran pyroclastic flow from volcanoes (multiple times) in planes (maybe), RVs (no), and on foot (WTF?).

Re:Can't Argue (2)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755052)

As god is my witness, I thought trains could fly.

Either Challenger or Discovery was the best... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34754674)

Need Another Seven Astronauts

Re:Either Challenger or Discovery was the best... (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754892)

Wrong. Oh so wrong. Clever but wrong.

P.S. You want Columbia instead of Discovery.

Re:Either Challenger or Discovery was the best... (1)

inerlogic (695302) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755054)

mod parent troll,
that was clever 30 years ago when i watched challenger explode live and the NASA acronym was first coined...

Re:Either Challenger or Discovery was the best... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755090)

Hush! Not 'til the next start!

Your tax dollars at work (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34754678)

Just sayin'

Lick my balls (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34755210)

Just sayin'

It's Because of the Phone Calls (5, Informative)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754684)

If I recall correctly, 2012 was the disaster movie that caused hundreds (maybe thousands) of overly emotional retards to call NASA directly and ask whether the world was actually going to end. I think one caller even asked NASA if they should kill their child now, in order to save them the pain of having to deal with the 2012 apocalypse. I know if a particular movie turned my work phone into a spam pot for dipshits I would declare that movie the ultimate fuck up of all time as well.

I think next we'll see NASA using it's orbital lasers to melt John Cusack's for his role in that film, at least, I can dream.

Re:It's Because of the Phone Calls (5, Funny)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754736)

Two things -
1. I don't even know how 2012 is considered a sci-fi at all.
2. If NASA indeed decides to use lasers, they should just go ahead and melt all of John Cusack's roles till date.

Re:It's Because of the Phone Calls (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754908)

they should just go ahead and melt all of John Cusack's roles till date.

Just preserve:

Grosse Point Blank
Serendipity
Runaway Jury

While he's not outstanding in any of them, the movies wouldn't be the same without him.

Re:It's Because of the Phone Calls (1)

scubamage (727538) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754992)

C'mon, leave "Say Anything" alone. It's a good movie. So is High Fidelity, and Being John Malkovich.

Re:It's Because of the Phone Calls (2)

K'Lyre (600056) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755118)

Don't forget Better Off Dead. Classic.

Re:It's Because of the Phone Calls (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755066)

High Fidelity

Re:It's Because of the Phone Calls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34755092)

You can't leave out Better Off Dead. That's one of the quintessential 80s comedies.

Re:It's Because of the Phone Calls (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755132)

>> I don't even know how 2012 is considered a sci-fi at all.

It seemed like horror at the time.

Re:It's Because of the Phone Calls (4, Funny)

jefe7777 (411081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755152)

TWO DOLLARS. I want my two dollars!!!

The trailer truned my off for seeing it (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754948)

The trailer turned my off for seeing it.

Way to much over the TOP.

At lest the B movies are so bad they are good!

Re:It's Because of the Phone Calls (1)

whitehaint (1883260) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754974)

John Cusack should be melted for being alive.

Re:It's Because of the Phone Calls (1)

Delusion_ (56114) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755072)

I knew a woman in the late 90s whose future plans ended on December 31, 2000, because of Y2K (a little) and "Nostradamus" (mostly). This was a responsible woman with a small business as well as a government job with a very high security clearance (which was how I knew her), two children, a husband, and a good amount of money saved up, which she was spending quickly since there was no need to worry about financial security after 2000 anyway. You can't take it with you, after all.

Unfortunately, my term of service there ended before the end of 2000 and I lost touch with her. I'd like to think that someone eventually talked some sense into her and she stopped using pop mysticism about Nostradamus to guide her investment strategy, or perhaps more accurately, her divestment strategy.

After the end of 2012, don't kid yourself if you think conspiracy nuts and apocalyptic thinking is going to go away. Every age of credible fools finds some new way to re-interpret Nostradamus and the Book of Revelation to service whatever crank end-of-the-world scenario they favour. I'm sure some of them are even going to re-interpret the so-called "end" of the Mayan calendar. They'd better take heed of the Mayans, after all, their prophecies have managed to save their civilization on any number of occasions. Oh wait.

Too busy watching movies (1)

slapout (93640) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754700)

Well, now I know why we never returned to the moon

Re:Too busy watching movies (4, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754790)

now I know why we never returned to the moon

No, it's because the NASA administrator says that the president has told him that NASA's top priority is to find ways to make Muslims feel better about themselves [telegraph.co.uk] . So, there's a lot of re-tooling going on, to make that happen.

Re:Too busy watching movies (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754918)

No, it's because the NASA administrator says that the president has told him that NASA's top priority is to find ways to make Muslims feel better about themselves.

Do they use historical revisionism, like "Neil Armstrong, a Muslim American, was the first man to walk on the moon!", or do they really stretch by saying things like "If it weren't for Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, we wouldn't have NASA today!"?

Re:Too busy watching movies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34755178)

Don't you feel bad about being so dishonest? It's a free thumbs-up to people the USA has spent a lot of time alienating to say "hey guys, Muslims help NASA too, thanks." Reagan and Nixon both also used NASA as a diplomacy tool, and anyone would be an idiot not to do so. Also: the Telegraph (Torygraph here in the UK) are not big fans of muslims, Barack Obama, and other things too, like journalistic integrity or spelling NASA correctly (unlike 'Nasa' in the article).

The conspiracy continues... (3, Funny)

Palestrina (715471) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754702)

They don't even list "Capricorn One". [wikipedia.org]

Re:The conspiracy continues... (1)

Picass0 (147474) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754966)

Capricorn one is more thriller than sci-fi.

And aside from a couple of classics, the list focuses on well known fairly recent films. Most people under 30 haven't seen Capricorn One.

I totally forgot about 2012 (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754704)

Even when I saw the name here, I was like: "wow, is that another 2001, like 2010? I should see that" Then I looked it up on IMDB. :(

Re:I totally forgot about 2012 (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754786)

Me too. My first thought was "what have they got against Athur C. Clark", then I realized it was 2012 not 2010 or 2001.

Re:I totally forgot about 2012 (1)

adonoman (624929) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755024)

I had nothing against Arthur C. Clarke, until I read 3001. [wikipedia.org]

Re:I totally forgot about 2012 (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754978)

the sequels to 2001 and 2010 are 2061 and 3001. Neither was adapted into film.

Re:I totally forgot about 2012 (1)

Jimbookis (517778) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755120)

Thank Christ. 2001 was great - 2010 was a dogs breakfast. 2061 and 3001 are hopefully forever left to the readers imagination.

Slashdotted already? (1)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754728)

I'll have to post without RTFA (what a shame). Gattaca is cool, but come on... instant sequencing of genomes?

Re:Slashdotted already? (2)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754822)

If Slashdotted, try this [theaustralian.com.au] instead.

Re:Slashdotted already? (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754956)

Uhh, yes? If you don't think we'll have that in the next 20 years you're not paying attention. [bigthink.com]

GATTACA is the most realistic (0, Flamebait)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754734)

"GATTACA" is considered the "most realistic." The fact that its politics is so obvious, its smarmy moralizing oozes from every frame, and it's "space mission" at the end consists of people in 3-piece suits entering what looks like an elevator in the lobby of a modern office seem not to weigh against it. I think we're seeing at work the presumption that in order for a film to be considered scientifically-accurate, it must first be considered a terrible bore.

Re:GATTACA is the most realistic (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754766)

Yes, SF shouldn't have a moral message. It should just be shoot-'em-up.

Obviously Gattaca was done on a relatively small budget, but it told a pretty compelling story that isn't exactly a mile away from what we'll likely be facing in fifty years.

Re:GATTACA is the most realistic (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34754928)

Yes, SF shouldn't have a moral message. It should just be shoot-'em-up.

Sarcasm, I assume. The best SF, the best stories, always have a moral dimension. Part of what makes SF so great is that it can explore moral questions that aren't otherwise safe to explore or are beyond our current problems, but someday may become one of them.

Re:GATTACA is the most realistic (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754990)

Well, I mean there's having a moral message, and then there's having the antagonist turn in one of the worst performances of his life, all of the secondary bad guys being the most cringe-inducing, mustache-twirling heavies this side of Snidely Whiplash. And then there's the completely lifeless romantic subplot, and the utterly non- ending where the leads settle their conflict with a swimming contest and the brother just commits suicide. Oh, and I'm sure that once they discover the guy on the mission faked his DNA tests, urine tests and skin scrapings in his computer keyboard, for, what, 20 years(!!!), I'm sure there will be no repercussions that would endanger the mission...

It was a bad movie, only the subject matter, and then only an elevator pitch of the subject matter, was remotely interesting. The execution on a basic storytelling level was... no good. And I say this as someone that really liked Niccol's Lord of War, but you do see some of the same problems, where he just MUST make his moral point and so he has characters do things that are completely unbelievable in the context of the story.

Re:GATTACA is the most realistic (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754840)

Gattaca is a great film, for many reasons. Great acting, great photography, deep motifs, solid soundtrack, realistic depiction of a possible future, etc... It's a thought film about a not-too-distant future, not a futuristic space adventure. You think the future will be as flashy as Blade Runner or Star Wars? Maybe in 1000 years, but that's not what Gattaca was about...

Re:GATTACA is the most realistic (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755134)

Well, science in space is not really as exciting as people think it is. Weightlessness is certainly nice, but I'm sure it gets old after a while. And then, well, what's left is doing your job and trying to figure out how to shit in a vacuum cleaner. And I'm pretty sure that sucks.

Well since they "discovered"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34754764)

...a new form of life on Earth which turned out to only be a present form of life that adopted to arsenic, I don't give NASA much credit lately except in the area of grandstanding. Guess this is what we get when NASA's shuttle funding gets cutoff.

Worst blogspam article of all time goes to... (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754770)

Please, if the title of the submission includes the word 'names best & worst' in it, please provide the list of the best and worst.

I got distracted and started checking out the live webcam from the ISS. [nasa.gov]

Interesting Favorites Chosen (3, Interesting)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754772)

The list of worst sci-fi movies carries mostly expected candidates, but I found these two pieces from the article interesting:

But not all sci-fi films were mocked by NASA experts, they did agree to praise 1982s Blade Runner, starring Harrison Ford. The movie which they said “convincingly portrayed a futuristic Los Angeles now only eight years away”

And the most “realistic” sci-fi film according to NASA, goes to 1997s Gattaca, starring Ethan Hawke, Jude Law and Uma Thurman. The movie was about “a genetically inferior man assumes the identity of a superior one in order to pursue his lifelong dream of space travel.”

It looks like the smart guys at NASA agree with many of us 'dotters that the future is going to be a bleak, dystopian police state where the richer get richer and the poor eat noodles off the street. Ah well, at least we get Harrison Ford and glowing umbrellas right?

Re:Interesting Favorites Chosen (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754850)

Ah well, at least we get Harrison Ford and glowing umbrellas right?

It's more than that. Didn't you see the tiny origami unicorn on Charles Bolden's desk?

Re:Interesting Favorites Chosen (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755058)

I'll take Harrison Ford over a unicorn any day, no matter the context.

Re:Interesting Favorites Chosen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34755032)

dystopian police state where the richer get richer and the poor eat noodles off the street.

Just replace "the poor" with "the middle class"..

Re:Interesting Favorites Chosen (1)

david@ecsd.com (45841) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755106)

Screw Harrison Ford, I want the chicks dancing with snakes...

Re:Interesting Favorites Chosen (1)

scross (1621251) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755208)

It looks like the smart guys at NASA agree with many of us 'dotters that the future is going to be a bleak, dystopian police state where the richer get richer and the poor eat noodles off the street.

Really? Despite all the long-term shifts up to this point that have been in the opposite direction? It seems you've succumbed to pessimism rather too easily.

Re:Interesting Favorites Chosen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34755226)

wait...

they're saying in 8 years we'll have androids that are not only fully functioning, but hard to tell from humans in both mind and form??

Is that what they've been working on in bunker D9??

Need Another Server Array (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34754774)

They went into space in double-breasted suits.

Core (1)

lioc (832312) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754854)

How did Core fail to make the list?

LINK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34754896)

Here is a better link [bit.ly] with the whole list.

Re:LINK (1)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755028)

Thanks for the list. I'm a bit surprised that 2001 didn't make the most realistic list. I mean, sure, the idea of an above-human-level AI and aliens might be a bit on the less realistic side, but no more so than The Day The Earth Stood Still.

I liked 2012 (2, Insightful)

Andy Smith (55346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754898)

What is the point of writing about 2012 being "absurd"? It was a special effects action movie intended to entertain people in a cinema for 2 hours. Mission accomplished, for me and millions of other people. The same team that made 2012 also made films about alien invasions and giant lizards, so they aren't exactly aiming for hard realism and non-absurdity.

Someone at NASA isn't making an interesting or valid criticism, they are demonstrating their own lack of humour.

Re:I liked 2012 (1)

zikoo (1947516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754972)

Because many people take the whole 2012 thing seriously.

Re:I liked 2012 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34755080)

Because many people take the whole 2012 thing seriously.

The only hope for them is 2013, but I can already hear them:

"We were told by scientists that ... What is it going to be next: To much ... is bad for you! They don't know what they are talking about!"

Re:I liked 2012 (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755172)

Because many people take the whole 2012 thing seriously.

The funny part about the 2012 thing, is if the folks whom made the "prediction" turn out to be correct, it'll be the first time they ever got anything right, yet also be the last time. Their 15 minutes of fame, sorta.

Now somebody like Nostradamus, he had the good sense to be so vague that he can't be proven wrong.

Re:I liked 2012 (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755174)

And that is the film's fault? Really? So when the BBC broadcast Orson Welles' telling of "The war of the worlds" that had over a million people in a panic thinking there really was an invasion, it should have been considered "The worst radio drama ever to be aired"?

Re:I liked 2012 (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755190)

Why was I thinking BBC? No idea. It was CBS's `Mercury Theatre On The Air`, for the record. Sorry.

Re:I liked 2012 (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755100)

I dunno, Bill Pullman's speech in Independence Day inspired me in a pretty realistic way....."We will not go quietly into the night!..." Ah, it still sends shivers down my spine...

Re:I liked 2012 (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34755196)

I think you're missing the point. Yes, it is 2 hours worth of escapism, but the entire premise is flawed and for anyone with even a modicum of science acumen, this tends to ruin the movie. If your premise is that an alien race is invading earth, then you're free to make up all sorts of technology and resulting mayhem. Who knows what an lien race might look like, what advanced tech they may have or what their mood or motives are? As a writer, you pretty much have a free hand. But if your movie's premise is the end of the world (2012), caused by scientifically explainable phenomenon, then you had better stick pretty close to what's possible, otherwise anyone with half a brain will have difficulty suspending their disbelief.

Here is the list. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34754914)

Worst Sci-Fi Movies

1. 2012 (2009)

2. The Core (2003)

3. Armageddon (1998)

4. Volcano (1997)

5. Chain Reaction (1996)

6. The 6th Day (2000)

7. What the #$*! Do We Know? (2004)

Most Realistic Films

1. Gattaca (1997)

2. Contact (1997)

3. Metropolis (1927)

4. The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)

5. Woman in the Moon (1929)

6. The Thing from Another World (1951)

7. Jurassic Park (1993)

Re:Here is the list. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34755098)

thank you. the main site is down

Between this and the 'alien lifeform' debacle... (1)

bfwebster (90513) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754920)

...I have to ask: doesn't NASA have anything better to do with its time (and our money)? ..bruce..

Re:Between this and the 'alien lifeform' debacle.. (4, Insightful)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755154)

The 'alien lifeform debacle' as you chose to propagandize it, was a very important and interesting discovery regarding the fundamental ingredients for life that is still being reviewed by major microbial scientists worldwide. Not recognizing the significance of that announcement just because it wasn't the discovery of alien life (something that NASA never advertised, but, rather, a speculation that the media over-hyped) does little more than betray your ignorance on that particular matter.

Obvious cover-up (3, Funny)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754934)

Why would a government agency be rating movies, anyway? The only possible explanation is that they know something we don't about 2012, and it actually is going to be the end of the world. The top gubmint politicians and military brass are confident that they have their secret shelters and caves to flee to, but the masses are being psychologically conditioned to quietly walk right into their doom.

The worst thing is, the few brave voices that speak out against this stuff tend to get a bullet in the head without warni

Duncan Jones' Moon? (1)

android.dreamer (1948792) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754940)

Where is Duncan Jones' Moon on the best of list for science?

Orwell's 1984 (1)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 3 years ago | (#34754988)

The major western governments were still functioning democracies in calendar year 1984, so technically the film would be implausible.

It's only absurd if..... (1)

Danathar (267989) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755000)

It does not happen.

What about our dear GNAA's favorite? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34755036)

What about our dear GNAA's favorite, namely, Gay Niggers from Outer Space?

It's VERY bad.

Anonymous Coward (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34755038)

but, are they reaching out to the muslims enough? This science thing sounds like a distraction from their real goal.

I for one welcome our new MCP overlord. (1)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755112)

Article slashdotted so I can't RTFA but I find it hard to believe that NASA really think Tron, Avatar, and Mars Attacks! are all more feasible scenarios than disastrous environmental effects from global warming.
It seems NASA saying 2012 was most unrealistic was more than slightly motivated by proagandist politics.

capricorn one (1)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755114)

If I were at NASA I'd have voted Capricorn One as the worst SciFi movie of all time. After all this film claims the moon landing was faked.

Perfect timing (1)

Cthefuture (665326) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755206)

Just this week I have been searching for something Sci-Fi to watch that I haven't seen.

I'm looking for something like Firefly, Battlestar Galatica, Farscape, etc. Spaceships, alien planets, etc. Or something with worlds inside computers like The Matrix, The Thirteenth Floor, Caprica, etc.

I have seen most of the Star Trek TNG episodes and honestly didn't like it all that much. Same goes for the original Star Trek.

I have not seen much of Babylon 5 but I really didn't like what I saw. It's like watching a bad soap opera on the Spanish channel. The production values and acting are total crap. People have told me it gets better in season 2 but I watched some of that and it was barely any better. Not watchable if you ask me.

I have not watched any of the Stargate TV series but as far as I can tell it's not much of a spaceship show is it?

Anyone have any other suggestions?

Re: (1)

Nkwe (604125) | more than 3 years ago | (#34755230)

5. Woman in the Moon (1929)

and not the updated version Amazon Women on the Moon (1987) [imdb.com] ?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>