PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Observations of Futuristic Movies



dgiharris
04-09-2009, 05:16 AM
So I'm watching Star Trek (Nemisis) and came across an interesting observation

There is a pivotal scene where the Enterprise is boarded. Commander Riker leds a security detail and they encounter the boarding party and a phaser fight insues.

THe two sides are separted by about 10 - 15 yards, and phaser/laser beams fly with only one little problem.

Both sides are notoriously bad shots.

They miss each other again and again with little or no cover.

To say they are horrible shots is an understatement. They are criminally incompetent and couldn't hit the broad side of an asteroid :)


I noticed this same trend in a Star Wars Clone Wars Animation episode.

So what other interesting observations have you noticed when watching futuristic movies?


Mel...

dclary
04-09-2009, 05:52 AM
You can't seriously expect a serious conversation about the future, or even science fiction in general when you kick off with a "star trek: nemesis" and "star wars: clone wars" blast, can you?

Wow.

Sarpedon
04-09-2009, 05:00 PM
I'm always amazed that the bolts from futuristic energy weapons seem to travel slower and do less damage than modern bullets, as well as the weapons themselves seeming to be less reliable.

ChunkyC
04-09-2009, 06:14 PM
Future people in futuristic movies are surrounded by astonishing technologies, yet are just as dumb as present day people. So who built all the really cool stuff? ;)

Gravity
04-09-2009, 06:49 PM
I'm still waiting for the day men's clothes come with those excellent, Forbidden Planet sharp-looking plastic cups coming off each shoulder.

Oh yeah. And to quote one of the lunatics in The Ninth Configuration, "I want my flying belt!!"

williemeikle
04-09-2009, 06:53 PM
Bad shooting is not restricted to futuristic movies.

The black hats in cowboy movies never hit anything, nor did German or Japanese soldiers.

shokadh
04-09-2009, 07:17 PM
Heh, the theory of evolution is put to the test.

Even in the future with superior technology, mankind is still trying to figure out an effective means to pairing mismatched socks.

okay, that was random...

(just shoot me with one of those clone lasers)

Sarpedon
04-09-2009, 08:19 PM
Oh, and I have to say this about Star wars 3; I always thought that Anakin's paranoia about Padme dying in childbirth was ridiculous. I mean, worrying that a healthy, athletic, rich woman living in a super-technologically advanced society dying from childbirth is like worrying that she'd be stricken with the bubonic plague. Even today in developed nations its particularly rare for such a thing to happen.

maestrowork
04-09-2009, 08:55 PM
They all seem to have bad fashion options.

(By the way, Star Wars is not the future! It's a long, long, time AGO in a galaxy far, far away! Come on, people, get it right)

SirOtter
04-09-2009, 09:20 PM
Bad shooting is not restricted to futuristic movies.

The black hats in cowboy movies never hit anything, nor did German or Japanese soldiers.

Or anyone firing at Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sly Stallone or Bruce Willis.

Actually, scientific examination of many historical combat situations indicate that MOST shots miss. That may be less true with modern weapons and sighting systems, but IIRC there have been many battles in which the miss to hit ratio was something like 1000 to one. I recall reading about a battle during the American-Indian wars in the late 19th Century in which something like 7000 shots were fired by both sides without a single casualty, all at ranges not much greater than in the ST:N example above.

maestrowork
04-09-2009, 09:30 PM
Futuristic civilizations seem to always be one huge megacity that covers the entire planet....

And of course, every inhabitable planet is EXACTLY suitable for humans.... but somehow, they have three suns instead of one.

Cybernaught
04-09-2009, 09:32 PM
Or anyone firing at Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sly Stallone or Bruce Willis.


Arnold's sheer awesomeness is impervious to bullets.

Sarpedon
04-09-2009, 09:35 PM
(By the way, Star Wars is not the future! It's a long, long, time AGO in a galaxy far, far away! Come on, people, get it right)


The thread title says 'futuristic,' not the future. Star wars is futuristic.

dclary
04-09-2009, 09:37 PM
Bruce Willis.

Bruce has been shot in multiple movies. He died from a gunshot wound in at least one of his films -- he just didn't know it.

maestrowork
04-09-2009, 09:53 PM
The thread title says 'futuristic,' not the future. Star wars is futuristic.

Well, that's a very loose definition of "futuristic." But we still need a point of reference, and it seems like we're using our current Planet Earth as one. Still "futuristic" pertains the the notion that it's "future" or "ahead of time" -- neither is true in the Star Wars universe because a) it's alien, b) it's in the past from Earth's perspective.

If you're talking about "technologically advanced" or "alien" then yes. But "futuristic" would be very loosely applied here. That's not what the word means.

ChunkyC
04-09-2009, 11:25 PM
In the future, cars can drive themselves at 300 mph only inches apart and never crash, but whenever there's a bad guy on his tail, the hero always takes over. :)

Kathleen42
04-09-2009, 11:32 PM
I know it's a "long time ago" but one of the things which always bugged me about the SW prequels is that the technology seemed much more advanced than it did in the original trilogy (which, chronologically, takes place later).

maestrowork
04-09-2009, 11:33 PM
I know it's a "long time ago" but one of the things which always bugged me about the SW prequels is that the technology seemed much more advanced than it did in the original trilogy (which, chronologically, takes place later).

And you will find it even more so in the Star Trek prequels! :)

Kathleen42
04-09-2009, 11:57 PM
And you will find it even more so in the Star Trek prequels! :)

Yes but no one takes those seriously ;) *hides from the wrath of the trekkies - that's right! I said "trekies" not "trekers"!*

dgiharris
04-10-2009, 12:05 AM
I know it's a "long time ago" but one of the things which always bugged me about the SW prequels is that the technology seemed much more advanced than it did in the original trilogy (which, chronologically, takes place later).


And you will find it even more so in the Star Trek prequels! :)

This will require that 'suspense of disbelief'

We will all make a pact to just ignore that since we know the real reason is due to better special effects :)

BTW, the definition of futuristic is: Of, relating to, or characteristic of the future, futurism, futurology, or very modern.

You can have futuristic apply to the past. For instance, the Roman aquaducts are cited all over the place as being modern, ahead of its time, and dare I say, futuristic... :tongue

Mel...

Gravity
04-10-2009, 12:28 AM
All I know is I long for the day I can have a Back to the Future II microwave oven: put in a pill, five seconds later, deep-dish pizza.

ChunkyC
04-10-2009, 02:06 AM
I know it's a "long time ago" but one of the things which always bugged me about the SW prequels is that the technology seemed much more advanced than it did in the original trilogy (which, chronologically, takes place later).
In Star Wars lore, after the emperor took over, his tight control over everything caused a certain amount of 'devolution'. Plus, the rebels scrounged for ships and weapons in their fight against the empire, and thus had to make do with old beat-up equipment.

-- Charlie, bit of a Star Wars geek. :D

ChunkyC
04-10-2009, 02:11 AM
And another thing ... why is it always raining in the future? (Bladerunner, etc.)

SirOtter
04-10-2009, 02:15 AM
And another thing ... why is it always raining in the future? (Bladerunner, etc.)

It's in the script.

shokadh
04-10-2009, 02:18 AM
In the future, cars can drive themselves at 300 mph only inches apart and never crash, but whenever there's a bad guy on his tail, the hero always takes over. :)

And he always jumps on top of his speeding craft and rides it like a surfer...

Kathleen42
04-10-2009, 02:18 AM
In Star Wars lore, after the emperor took over, his tight control over everything caused a certain amount of 'devolution'. Plus, the rebels scrounged for ships and weapons in their fight against the empire, and thus had to make do with old beat-up equipment.

-- Charlie, bit of a Star Wars geek. :D

I know that's the official story but it just bugs the heck out of me.

Kathleen (who used to want to marry George Lucas but who is now more like the bitter ex-girlfriend who can't let go of the past)

ChunkyC
04-10-2009, 02:31 AM
Kathleen (who used to want to marry George Lucas but who is now more like the bitter ex-girlfriend who can't let go of the past)
Me too. Well, the bitter part. ;)