What's new

Blade Runner tops scientist poll (1 Viewer)

Steve Christou

Long Member
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2000
Messages
16,333
Location
Manchester, England
Real Name
Steve Christou
Rex, the finest minds on Earth voted Star Wars the third best Science Fiction film of all time, now who should I side with o'pompous one, someone who goes to the trouble of using different colored fonts in his quotes or the scientists who created that list? hmmm? ;)



That's my theory down pat, see Polls for more.:)
 

Jack Briggs

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 3, 1999
Messages
16,805
Wow, Rex, that was a terrific post. Damn good job of analyzing that little movie by Stanley Kubrick — and of assessing the meaning of science fiction.

Steve, buddy, meet Mr. Bachmann. Join us sometime in a Star Trek-related thread.
 

Brad Porter

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 8, 1999
Messages
1,757
Speaking of Douglas Trumbull films, I'd like to nominate Brainstorm for consideration. The last 5 minutes requires acceptance that the universe includes that particular brand of afterlife if it is to be interpreted literally, which is probably one of the reasons why it doesn't rank within this list. Personally, I interpret Dr. Brace's experiences during the ending to be driven by the same electrochemical processes that produce near-death experiences in real-life patients and not a direct reproduction of Dr. Reynold's post-death journey to heaven. His concious brain is rendered impotent by the playback's physical triggers, which accounts for the dreamlike quality of the post-death experience. But that's just my personal interpretation to keep the film in line with my personal beliefs.

Regardless of the ending (and in spite of some of the slapstick humor that shows up late in the film), I still think it's an exceptional science fiction film.

Brad
 

Steve Christou

Long Member
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2000
Messages
16,333
Location
Manchester, England
Real Name
Steve Christou


Thanks Jack, how high are the pomposity levels in the ST threads btw? ;)


Kidding Jack, as always. And I totally agree that 2001 is the greatest real science fiction film ever made.:emoji_thumbsup:
 

Rex Bachmann

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 10, 2001
Messages
1,972
Real Name
Rex Bachmann
Steve Christou wrote (post #53):


A better, more general, yet more concise answer than that of post #61 above is that "science"---by which I mean the "scientific method"---works to constrain possibilities by posing, testing, and eliminating variants to, or competing alternative explanations of, given phenomena or events, (ideally) until only the "actual" variant or explanation remains. Now, because there's a "universe (omniverse?) of possibilities"---we used to call this a "world of possibilities" in nonscientific contexts---which can never all be conceived of, let alone tested, as an empirical matter we can likewise never rule out all the possibilities. But that's just a practical human limitation that in no way invalidates the method. And, of course, the usual retort of people who object to having their favorite space-based adventure film(s) excluded from the category: "Since you can't prove it's not so, it's still possible and can be included" fails in any way to move the discussion forward on the issue: how to deal with unusual phenomena or concepts within the context of realistic and plausible fictive narrative presentation (whether on page or screen). The more far-out the concept or proposition of a story, the harder that narrative has to work to promote willing suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience.

Still, "science fiction" bears the burden of having to strive to work within known natural or scientific constraints, while "fantasy", as its name suggests, can be about anything conceivable, without regard to correlational constraints that "known laws" of nature and/or science might place on settings, characters, happenings, or other aspects of a story.
 

george kaplan

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2001
Messages
13,063
Well, just to be clear.

It would be far more accurate to say that any given story bears the burden of having to do those things in order for some people to call it science fiction. For many others, no such requirement exists. Despite the rigorous and heartfelt feelings of the "hard sci-fi" crowd, I haven't not seen sufficient scientific evidence that this is the "authoratitive" definition. Sorry, a few philosophical ruminations on what certain authors and certain fans think good science fiction manages to accomplish, does not override overwhelmingly common definitions in almost every dictionary and reference work on the subject (I have yet to see one example of a reference book on science fiction films that doesn't include Star Wars). Perhaps one of the "hard" crowd needs to go write such a book. :)
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060
I’m not sure that is correct Steve. I infer from the story that this was a list prepared by The Guardian and given to the scientists. Even with the well-known journalistic standards of the prestigious English press, this is a different matter than the list being prepared by a scientist.

To be sure the article did include quotes from two different scientists—but nowhere was there an implication that either had anything to do with making up the list.
 

ScottFH

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 16, 2001
Messages
68
Brad,

I agree:

Brainstorm is a very underrated and seemingly/unfortunately forgotten science fiction film, esp. when seen as Trumbull originally intended -

the "regular" parts of the film in seeming "normal" widescreen 35mm (with stereo sound, I believe);

then, when showing the "Brainstorm effect", it balloons to very widescreen 70mm and 6-track sound.

Quite awesome on a large screen.
 

george kaplan

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2001
Messages
13,063
but he may still insist it's not really water, because "real" water has to be flowing, and this is just standing still in a lake, so it might be something, but it's not really water. :)
 

Steeve Bergeron

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 3, 1999
Messages
2,541
Real Name
Steeve Bergeron
Since the similar thread to this one in the Polls area is practically dead, I'll continue here. Thanks, Steve, for the heads up.

So? They still have voted SW at the top of the list (third). Which means that, according to them, it's part of sci-fi.
 

BobH

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Apr 30, 2000
Messages
161
My own preference for science fiction are those stories that allow us to look at ourselves or our societies through the eyes of others from another planet or some radically different society (usually allowed by technology). Sometimes it's the advance of technology right here on Earth that makes us stop and think.

An example of the first is Contact where an extrodinary circumstance makes the character think about faith in a different way. An example of the second is AI where the moral issues just beginning to surface now about creating sentient beings are discussed (right up front).

I'm a scientist and like thoughtful movies (and books and music). I like discussing these experiences with other thoughtful people. But I don't think that list from the Guardian was anything more than "what SF movies do you like?" and deserves no more weight than the same question asked here. Never would I call 60 eminnent scientists "the finest minds on Earth." My contact with other scientists-of-note (published, patents, recognized) has rarely matched the movie knowledge and probity of this group (which is why I listen in on occasion.)

Having said that, some of you are clearly nuts! Solaris?!
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060
You are correct in that our understanding of the physical laws of nature is not complete. We only know what we know. But that does not mean that what we do not know is true.

Plus there are very many things that can be deduced by scientists about distant galaxies through their observations. Some of these observations have in fact challenged some of the principles of classic, Newtonian physics. Others have confirmed (so far as we are able to observe) that some physical laws appear to be universal.

Now they may not be, but (with the exceptions mentioned, like black holes) but they appear to be.

In other words there appears to be more evidence that some of these physical laws are universal, than evidence that they are not.

For example, spectrum analysis of distant objects confirms that hydrogen is hydrogen and helium is helium insofar as can be observed.

Now you may argue that there exists a galaxy somewhere where stars don’t work by fusion (and you could be correct) but there is much to argue that you would be wrong and little (probably nothing) to argue that you would be correct.
 

Jack Briggs

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 3, 1999
Messages
16,805
OK, since Lew quoted what I was going to quote, I am going to try to put it in a way that doesn't seem disrespectful, but here goes: Steeve, I would suggest that it might be a good idea to go to your local public library and check out some basic-level books on astronomy and on physics. Essential stuff. Before you can say what you're saying and still manage to be credible, you need to operate from a framework of understanding.

There are constants in this Universe. There are, of course, many things yet to be understood and discovered. But basic principles of physics -- physical law, from Newtonian concepts to Einstein's enhancements of same (based on his life's study of the nature of light) -- demonstrate that the for the universe to work at all there has to be a consistency. If physical laws are variable simply because of locale, then the result would be chaos and a universe that doesn't work.

I can suggest some excellent books, and would be happy to recommend them via PM.
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
I'd add that physical laws do not vary according to individual perception. They are independent of subjective viewpoints.
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
I'm not aware of any scientist who says that black holes are caused by the laws of physics being different in different parts of the universe. They're merely an extreme example of astrophysics that was previously unknown. Their existence cannot lead one to say "aha! They exist, therefore anything is possible!" That's unscientific.
 

Jack Briggs

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 3, 1999
Messages
16,805
Correct.

Black holes are a result of universal physical laws, but as to what happens inside such an intense gravitational well who knows? Here's where cosmologists and astrophysicists will tell you that they need more data.

Otherwise, we're going in circles here, some of us appearing to support the idea of magic. Like that first-season TNG episode where the Enterprise is whisked far beyond our galaxy, thanks to "The Traveler," into another galaxy where magical things occur and thoughts become reality.

'Fraid not. Things just don't happen that way.
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060

Thanks, as what attempted to point out was that black holes were an example of a phenomena that Newtonian physics could not handle.

That is not to imply that there is anything different about them, or that they would be different in different parts of the universe. Or that they do not obey natural laws—merely that the relativity straightforward view of gravity postulated by Newton did not work as expected in their presence.

I could go on, but it is time to stop. As Jack points out, we are merely going in circles.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,810
Messages
5,123,567
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top