blogs_blog_1497

 

Well I mean if you're going to butcher science in the name of your science fiction monster movie, just go whole hog I guess.

this is the most ridiculous thing i have heard all day.

why.

serious science fiction film

>serious science fiction

>Jurassic Park

I think you're forgetting the fiction part in science fiction if I may say so. But what do I know?

 

serious science fiction film

>serious science fiction

>Jurassic Park

I think you're forgetting the fiction part in science fiction if I may say so. But what do I know?

 

 

Right, because all sci-fi films totally pull out all the stops as far as believability. Something like, say, Interstellar or even the original Jurassic Park definitely stooped as low as telepathic dinosaurs.

 

Yes, it has the word fiction. Guess what? It also has the word science.

 

 

serious science fiction film

>serious science fiction

>Jurassic Park

I think you're forgetting the fiction part in science fiction if I may say so. But what do I know?

 

 

Right, because all sci-fi films totally pull out all the stops as far as believability. Something like, say, Interstellar or even the original Jurassic Park definitely stooped as low as telepathic dinosaurs.

 

Yes, it has the word fiction. Guess what? It also has the word science.

 

You could also classify Star wars as science fiction which had space wizards and explosions in space. Tons of science fiction films have stooped that low (The Core anyone?). One great example of a film that stooped that low was Lucy which pulled the disproven "we only use 10% of our brain" crud. The word science is just a modifier for the word fiction.

One great example of a film that stooped that low was Lucy which pulled the disproven "we only use 10% of our brain" crud. The word science is just a modifier for the word fiction.

 

 

Please please please don't tell me that we are going to use Lucy as the bar for science fiction. If this is the case, the genre is now dead and buried.

 

One great example of a film that stooped that low was Lucy which pulled the disproven "we only use 10% of our brain" crud. The word science is just a modifier for the word fiction.

 

 

Please please please don't tell me that we are going to use Lucy as the bar for science fiction. If this is the case, the genre is now dead and buried.

 

From the wiki article:

Lucy is a 2014 English-language French science fiction 

Well I'll admit wikipedia isn't too reliable, but the film seems to fit the description of science fiction. I'm honestly surprised you didn't get upset about me using The Core as an example. Point is just because it has the word science in it doesn't meant it's gonna be incredibly scientifically accurate. 

But that also doesn't magically make it immune to criticism?

I don't care that the dinosaurs are telepathic because it's scientifically inaccurate.

 

I care that the dinosaurs are telepathic because it's completely off-the-wall ridiculous in a franchise that has up until now been fairly good at not being off-the-wall ridiculous.

But that also doesn't magically make it immune to criticism?

That film is 100% horrible.

 

Mostly because I disagree with the film's themes for being dead wrong, not because of the mental powers. Although they really needed a better explanation for them than the 10% nonsense - I remember watching the trailers and thinking that it could be a really great film, until I found out that it was way bad-theme-in-your-face and rated R. 

 

So consider that film criticized and chewed out. (also, it was a Limitless rip-off too, but anyway.)

 

I care that the dinosaurs are telepathic because it's completely off-the-wall ridiculous in a franchise that has up until now been fairly good at not being off-the-wall ridiculous.

It's the wrong genre for that. If they had a telepathic superhero in a Marvel film (heck, they did) no one would complain.

 

I think it's pretty clear at this point that the Jurassic Park franchise is not trying to recreate authentic dinosaurs. They are going for super-dinosaur-super-heroes or villains. 

 

Geez, stop ripping off Marvel. 

But that also doesn't magically make it immune to criticism?

I never said it did make it immune

Science fiction, as a genre, has two forms: "hard" and "soft". Soft is the stuff that essentially just uses "science" as a passing (and out-of-this-world-wrong) explanation for something in the world or has a generic backdrop of something future-y. Really hand-wavy. Hard science fiction is awesome. It draws heavily on known and cutting edge science to create a world.

 

So.

 

My classification:

Jurassic Park - mildly firm

Interstellar - oh come on love isn't a force

Star Wars - space opera, so real soft

The Core - soft as silk

Lucy - softer than a baby's bottom

Jurassic World - seriously you aren't trying anymore this is just a dumb action movie that capitalizes on ignorance

Science fiction, as a genre, has two forms: "hard" and "soft". Soft is the stuff that essentially just uses "science" as a passing (and out-of-this-world-wrong) explanation for something in the world or has a generic backdrop of something future-y. Really hand-wavy. Hard science fiction is awesome. It draws heavily on known and cutting edge science to create a world.

 

So.

 

My classification:

Jurassic Park - mildly firm

Interstellar - oh come on love isn't a force

Star Wars - space opera, so real soft

The Core - soft as silk

Lucy - softer than a baby's bottom

Jurassic World - seriously you aren't trying anymore this is just a dumb action movie that capitalizes on ignorance

Jurassic Park is "Mildly firm" if you ignore a couple serious, gaping flaws (frog dna). I'd rank Interstellar on par with it. But good examples of serious, hard sci-fi are usually literature. Peter F Hamilto and Alistair Reynolds spring to mind, both of them writing some nice, hard SF. Also space operas sometimes.

Yeah…but the martian's coming out this fall!

 

Science fiction, as a genre, has two forms: "hard" and "soft". Soft is the stuff that essentially just uses "science" as a passing (and out-of-this-world-wrong) explanation for something in the world or has a generic backdrop of something future-y. Really hand-wavy. Hard science fiction is awesome. It draws heavily on known and cutting edge science to create a world.

 

So.

 

My classification:

Jurassic Park - mildly firm

Interstellar - oh come on love isn't a force

Star Wars - space opera, so real soft

The Core - soft as silk

Lucy - softer than a baby's bottom

Jurassic World - seriously you aren't trying anymore this is just a dumb action movie that capitalizes on ignorance

Jurassic Park is "Mildly firm" if you ignore a couple serious, gaping flaws (frog dna). I'd rank Interstellar on par with it. But good examples of serious, hard sci-fi are usually literature. Peter F Hamilto and Alistair Reynolds spring to mind, both of them writing some nice, hard SF. Also space operas sometimes.

 

I'd also like to point out the guy who they hired as a dinosaur consultant (Jack Hobbes I think his name is) stated that T. rex was scavenger. The problem? The palentology community has proven time and time again that T. rex was indeed a predatory animal. Thanks for that Jack.

Let me just say that if it were another franchise I'd totally watch a psychic dinosaur movie. Specifically, like, a terrible b-movie. Heh.

 

Jurassic Park though? Hm. Hmmmmmm.

 

While we're talking hard/soft I think Jurassic Park likes to think of itself as fairly hard so it's kind of weird they'd put something like that into it. Seems like something from James Cameron's Avatar even (or I guess Interstellar?), not like a Star Wars type magical force but more like trying to explain magic through fakey sciencey words.

 

Though I've never seen it so I dunno if that's how they handle psychic dinosaurs.