[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) Hollywood "Earth-Impact" Movies
Dear Dave,
You make many insightful and worthwhile posting to this list. Please keep
it up. Several of your postings I have saved to use with my students as a
basis for discussions in class or possible papers. (I consider them
copyrighted by you so if I use any of you words verbatum, I would be coming
back to you for permission before doing so.)
On the matter of this movie we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
The astronomically ignorant lay American movie watcher deserves better than
"Contact" even with Carl's input.
(Maybe he was caught up in the Hollywood aura. I have long maintained that
Hollywood should hire undergraduate physics majors for science advise. They
dig this stuff, know the theory well enough to advise on the science
wisely, and considering even low budget movies, in Hollywood dollars, they
could be had for fees that are essential free.)
First, as a practicing scientist who has team-taught a science fiction
writing course, the mistakes with time dilation travel (when the gal does
the 18 hour worm hole trip) are serious and unnecessary. The mistakes are
obvious enough that my freshman non-science astronomy students draw
attention to them and ask why? One of the principles of good science
fiction writing or cinema is faithfulness to scientific fact unless it is
absolutely necessary to utilize the scientific equivalent of poetic licence
with things like warp drive and the Star Trek transporter which may be
possible but are beyond our theory and engineering at this time.
Ad to the problem of mistaken science or poor science fiction the fact that
scientific infighting and power struggles are totally unlike the way they
are portrayed in the move (I know I am there) and you have one very flawed
portrayal of science fact and personality. Mind you this move is not as bad
as the Disney move "The Black Hole" (or whatever it was called) or the
high-priced-actor low-budget movie called "Meteor" that was released about
19 years ago. (Member of this list ought to rent that one for laughs.)
So Dave, I look at the same thing you do (the movie "Contact") and find
just as you do that it a good
example of Hollywood's potential to portray the scientific. But I find the
portrayal rotten. I only wish Holloywood could do better and hope that some
day maybe they will.
Dave's Text>
> I also read the book Contact about 10 years ago and agree there are major
>differences. Hollywood would not have made the movie unless they knew ways of
>"entertaining" the astronomically-ignorant lay American movie-watcher. I was
>just happy they made it into a movie at all, since it described one of the
>more probable methods of first contact.
> The movie may have ruined the story for you, but I don't think it did
>for Dr. Sagan. I have a video tape of the making of the movie, and Dr Sagan
>was not only consulted on every scene (as were a host of other Space
>Scientists), he was present for the majority of the filming. Subsequently,
>when considering HolIywood's track-record of science fiction movies, I must
>disagree with you concerning the use of "Contact" - the movie, as a good
>example of Hollywood's potential to portray the scientific.
>
>Dave Garrison
Terry
*****************************************
Terry Richardson
Department of Physics and Astronomy
College of Charleston
Charleston, SC 29424
pager #937-1048
803 953-8071 phone
803 953-4824 fax
http://www.cofcdot edu/~richardt/
*****************************************
References: