What sci-fi movie was the most insulting to science?
- Thread starter infinix
- Start date
Suggesting and finding fact isn't the same thing though. One can suggest all they want and it doesn't make it true until they find evidence supporting the theory, because until then all it is is theory, and they've only recently found evidence linking birds to dinosaurs. The fact is irrefutable.
What they were doing was supposing, based on the theory that was out there at the time, which is really no different than any other author supposing any theories that sound like they could be possible, which is what good fiction is supposed to do.
Based on what was supposed at the time, which is no fault of theirs. They took the theory and ran with it, just like any other author would if they find a subject they find interest in. Fact or Fiction? What would you believe first?
<Weird outlandish science warning. Proceed at your own risk>
My take on this was that because amphibians are, evolutionarily speaking, a simpler form of life than reptiles, birds and (presumably) most forms of dinosauria, there was a greater chance that the DNA of modern frogs would be more compatible with the paleo-DNA extracted from the amber. Modern reptiles and birds would not be compatible, having evolved in new directions.
Plus, this gave great justification for the JP dino-constructs switching sexes...
^ Intriguing hypothesis.
Vulpes, your entire objection to Jurassic Park's science evidently rides on a single technicality. That's a rather petty thing to get so up in arms about. No movie gets every scientific detail right. But most movies don't even bother to try. They just ignore science and make up random crap. Compared to that, compared to the usual, contemptible sloppiness of science in the movies, Jurassic Park did a wonderful job. No, it didn't get every last thing right, but it's one of the best-researched, most scientifically grounded science fiction movies ever made -- although, sadly, that's largely due to lack of competition.
Besides, your insistence that the dinosaur-bird connection means there couldn't have been any value in using amphibian DNA is wrong. The genetic difference between distinct types of animal is actually fairly small. Most animals have most of their genes in common, largely the same building blocks, and it's only a difference in a few percent of the genes that defines how those building blocks are put together differently. In medical research, we can learn useful things about human genetics, drug reactions, etc. by testing pigs or mice. So yes, birds are a type of dinosaur, but that doesn't mean they're the only possible life form that could contribute genetically to the recreation of (near-)dinosaurs. And as I said, the fact that the movie's dino-frog hybrids aren't quite real dinosaurs offers a handy, built-in explanation for any discrepancies between the park's dinos and the real thing. I've always thought that was a very clever touch.
Besides, your insistence that the dinosaur-bird connection means there couldn't have been any value in using amphibian DNA is wrong. The genetic difference between distinct types of animal is actually fairly small. Most animals have most of their genes in common, largely the same building blocks, and it's only a difference in a few percent of the genes that defines how those building blocks are put together differently. In medical research, we can learn useful things about human genetics, drug reactions, etc. by testing pigs or mice. So yes, birds are a type of dinosaur, but that doesn't mean they're the only possible life form that could contribute genetically to the recreation of (near-)dinosaurs. And as I said, the fact that the movie's dino-frog hybrids aren't quite real dinosaurs offers a handy, built-in explanation for any discrepancies between the park's dinos and the real thing. I've always thought that was a very clever touch.
In case you don't know, Michael Crichton has an M.D. from Harvard. You're free to disagree with him, but you should at least appreciate that he's no slouch.
On a side note, the novel The Andromeda Strain is one of my favorite science fiction novels, incredible in that it manages to be superior to the Robert Wise film, mainly due to its detailed discussion of hypotheses regarding the origin of the organism. I do not believe that Wise's Strain meets the OP conditions in any way, so I'll defer further discussion of it until the appropriate thread may someday appear.
On a side note, the novel The Andromeda Strain is one of my favorite science fiction novels, incredible in that it manages to be superior to the Robert Wise film, mainly due to its detailed discussion of hypotheses regarding the origin of the organism. I do not believe that Wise's Strain meets the OP conditions in any way, so I'll defer further discussion of it until the appropriate thread may someday appear.
Don't know about his other works, but Verne's description of how the Nautilius worked was detailed, effective and tied together concepts that would be put to use in real world subs as well as combining technology that was know at the time (1870).
Of course then along comes Disney and has it nuclear powered.
I'm probably the only person who thinks that the Borg Queen is one of the worst science blunders in Star Trek. Before she came along, the Borg was highly decentralized. Individual Borg drones were highly replaceable and hence the Borg as a collective had no single point of failure. You literally had to destroy a large proportion of a Borg cube or it will just fully regenerate after a while. Ditto with the entire collective. The only way to fully stop the Borg is to destroy every single one of them.
Its just like modern p2p networks like BitTorrent where even today software developers are trying to make the network highly redundant and decentralized by replacing the central single point of failures such as the torrent server and torrent search engines.
Then First Contact came along introduced a single point of failure. Destroy the Borg Queen you stop the Borg cold. Its a step backwards that the Borg would have eliminated a long time ago.
Its just like modern p2p networks like BitTorrent where even today software developers are trying to make the network highly redundant and decentralized by replacing the central single point of failures such as the torrent server and torrent search engines.
Then First Contact came along introduced a single point of failure. Destroy the Borg Queen you stop the Borg cold. Its a step backwards that the Borg would have eliminated a long time ago.
Yeah, see, like I said I'm not knocking the author, but the story itself. I have 20,000 Leagues on my list to read next and I have no doubt it will hold up better compared to Journey to the Center of the Earth. Though to be fair, I guess it's much easier to write a story about a future technology than it is about a trip to the center of the earth. One's speculative about what could be at the center of the earth and one's speculative about what could float next.
Game over man. I thought that when I first saw the movie in the theater - and I was only EIGHT at the time.
Regardless of what Huxley said years before Jurassic Park was made, I do remember the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs was considered a crazy idea. Around the time the movie came out I remember discussing it with one of my teachers who said it was a ridiculous notion that a creature that had existed for so long with scales would suddenly shrink in size and grow feathers.
He was probably referring to the pterodactyl in regards to size.
What about the day the earth stood still? I think I remember reading somewhere that if that were to actually happen we'd basically be screwed.
If what were to happen?
Uh... you know that's not what the movie's about, right? Not even remotely. The title is a figure of speech.
That's sort of weird. Selective pressure could easily go either way with regards to something so cost-benefit-ish as size.
Also, had your teacher never seen an ostrich?
Well, there's his problem. Might as well compare them to tigers or something.
I'm not sure about the 1950s, but I know post-computerization it would utterly ruin the world economy. I'm relatively certain it would have cost the equivalent of several hundred billion dollars even back then as machines that depended on an uninterrupted electrical flow ground to a halt and possibly broke down as a result.
But then, Klaatu was at heart a dick. He was a dick throughout the film. Can you imagine landing on an alien planet without radioing ahead, marching toward a cordon of obviously scared people with weapons without saying a word when you took the time to learn their language, and then reaching for a concealed item?
I'm glad he died.
Something I've wondered since I saw the movie, though: when the doctors are discussing his age and incredible health, recounting his explanation of how they've eliminated negative health influences from the environment, was it a deliberate joke on the part of the filmmakers that the entire time the doctors are smoking cigarettes? Or is it just one of those things that turns out hilarious in retrospect?
Don't spoil the movie for Kaziarl.
Similar threads
