Not a member? Sign up now
NASA scientists: "2012" is the dumbest sci-fi movie ever, "Blade Runner" pretty credible
By Ben ReiningaJanuary 6th, 2011, 5:33 pmComments (11)
It's a bad day for science. Bill O'Reilly has been all over the news for claiming that no one understands how tides work. And now, NASA has unveiled a special website they had to create to explain to everyone that the events chronicled in the movie 2012 are not actually going to happen.
And yes, we're speaking of the 2009 film by Roland Emmerich in which people build ark-style spaceships to escape the earth because the crust is going to collapse from a solar storm, or some totally ridiculous shit. In a recent panel, NASA experts actually pleaded with Hollywood industry leaders to make films with more realistic plots — because they're so sick of people asking them questions about the impending alien invasion. We really, really need to start teaching more science in schools.
From NASA's assessment, some good folks compiled a list, reproduced below, of the most and least realistic science films of the last couple of years.
Bad movies:
1. 2012 (2009)
2. The Core (2003)
3. Armageddon (1998)
4. Volcano (1997)
5. Chain Reaction (1996)
6. The 6th Day (2000)
7. What The #$*! Do We Know? (2004)
Better movies:
1. Gattaca (1997)
2. Contact (1997)
3. Metropolis (1927)
4. The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951)
5. Woman In The Moon (1929)
6. The Thing From Another World (1951)
7. Jurassic Park (1993)
Blade Runner didn't make the top seven, but it was singled out as a pretty realistic film by some of the top minds in the country. So, folks, as a takeaway: The world is probably not going to end next year. But, nonetheless, I might not invest my life savings in a house in L.A.
Tags
Roland Emmerich
Commentarium (11 Comments)
"..they're so sick of people asking them questions about the impending alien invasion."
Then NASA should just put up a website wiki for how the alien invasion will go down.
Or you can read an Arizona newspaper.
2012 was probably the best movie of 2009 in terms of enjoyment-to-expectation ratio. It ended up being bad, sure, but they couldn't have done a better job of making me not excited to see it.
everyone is just overly dramatic about everything!!
Interesting that Jurassic Park is realistic. Let's stop with the shuttles and make that island.
I agree with NASA - Americans knowledge on science dealing with natural hazards and disasters is deplorable and misinformed. But, if NASA wanted to target this issue they should have spent their time refuting the right-wing claims that global warming isn't real or shouldn't be a priority. Roland Emmerich may be a sexy target but Bill O' Reilly is a worthy target.
2001...HELLO?!?!?
The Day the Earth Stood Still? I call bullshit. All of the science in that was either deus ex machina "alien super powers" or blinky lights and whirly dials. And the idea that some foreign, intelligent alien species would give a fuck what we did to our planet, or the uninhabited planets around us--I don't think so.
Are you sure you are talking about the 1951 black and white version? Because the aliens didn't give a shit what we do to our planet in that one (just the remake), they were warning Earth that if we brought our petty wars to the rest of the galactic community, they would destroy us, utterly and irrevocably.
take a look at when all the bad movies were made now compare that to when the better ones were made NASA says that we are slipping away from reality!
mita olin etsimassa, kiitos
blade runner love foreva, foos.