b.

It’s
pretty good "normal science" but who the hell designs a multi-layered-security facility with trapdoors guarded by a laser? Reminds me of
the trapdoor in I Am Legend also. Writers should stop relying on those
damn trapdoors for easy escape! 😉

It’s pretty good "normal science" but who the hell designs a multi-layered -security facility with trapdoors guarded by a laser? Reminds me of the trapdoor in I Am Legend also. Writers should stop relying on those damn trapdoors for easy escape! 😉

Ok, well not completely;

I will grudgingly admit that I liked Iron Man falling through his roof because he was too heavy….is that right science?

I think that a lot of "human interest" sci-fi films would make the list of right science, because there really isn’t alot of obvious special effects for nitpickers to point to. Gattaca would make my list somewhere..

 The Andromeda Strain would top it. Scary as hell because it was too close to reality.

ROLLERBALL (the original, thank you!)

Demolition Man (presented alot of "that looks possible" science)

Soldier 

b.

b.

I have never made it through 2001; that’s got to be the most bloody boring movie in all space time, EVER!

ESEM: I almost didn’t think of that one as really sci-fi and thought of it more like…boring

Alien: ok, this one was def NOT BORING. But I agree with Saddy on this one. What’s right science about anything that grows like that? come on! Any movie that trys to close a blantant loop hole in another movie doesn’t count. (oh, they look humanoid because they take on some of the dna of the host…well, good job they didn’t find some cows then, eh?)

Gattaca: ok, this one was pretty interesting and memorable, (but still a little boring). As a "right Science nominee" though, I’d have to say it’s not an INVALID choice.  

Solaris??? Acckkk..Boring! That really why she kept trying to kill herself, you know…because he is soo bloody boring!

New scientist published their opinion of the top 5 sci fi films that actually got the science right (no ‘zoom’ sounds from spaceships etc.)

First, the obvious one – 2001: A space Odyssey (1968) "Open the pod-bay doors, HAL."

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) "I walked out the door. There’s no memory left."

There are lots of reasons why they like this one – this is just one: "As he encounters each memory, it is identified by the technicians and erased, leading to spectacular sequences of him running through bookshops while books disappear from the shelves and escaping from a house that is disappearing one wall at a time."

Alien (1979) "I can’t lie to you about your chances, but you have my sympathies."

I’m not so sure about this one though. One of the reasons New Scientist like it is: "Every element of the life cycle can be found in nature, variously in parasites, robber wasps and social insects. Much of the film’s suspense comes from the filmmakers’ decision to let events unfold without too much explanation – the viewer has to piece the life cycle together for themselves."

One of the reasons I don’t is that parts of it are bloody stoopid!  An alien (or any creature that can hatch from and egg and grow to 6-7 feet tall in a couple of hours is a bit suspect in my book.  Besides, Aliens 2 was much more entertaining.

Gattaca (1977) "We now have discrimination down to a science."

"Andrew Niccol’s film is noteworthy for its grimly plausible vision of a society dominated by genetic prejudice".  They liked it because: Nevertheless, it is one of the few films to tackle the issue of genetic determination. I.e. How much are we really controlled by our genes? Vincent out-competes genetically-superior characters mostly through sheer strength of will. Does that mean that genetic testing really cannot predict how people will perform – or does it just mean we haven’t found the genes for willpower yet?

Solaris (1972) "I was haunted by the idea that I remembered her wrong, and somehow I was wrong about everything."

New Scientist sum this choice up with, "This Russian classic makes the list not so much for the specific science it portrays, as for its portrayal of the limits of science and of human understanding."

I can’t say I strongly dissagree with any of these, I also can’t think of films that better portray more realistic science.  And, lets face it, are we bothered?

Do you have any noteworthy additions to the New Scientist list?