At the end of the day it really depends how knowledgable you are in the field of science. If you're a physics graduate, you're going to notice the flaws. If you (like some of my housemates) spend most of your waking hours dug in to New Scientist or Wikipedia, you're also going to notice the flaws.
But, if you're like me. A Theatre Studies student whose interests lie mostly in art and history, then these (perhaps obvious) faults are going to fly right by your eyes. My focus is entirely on the characters and the pressure of their situation. It is also on the artistry of the piece and its composition. And I have to say, the images in the film were incredibly moving. Two such moments in the film were Searl's 'sun-bathing' sessions on the observation deck, and that beautiful moment when the crew looked on as Mercury passed by the sun. The subtext, the psychology, and the imagery all harmonise to generate an effect that is moving, thrilling, and at times, horrifying.
What pissed me off about my housemates last year is they would wait(yes, wait) for their moment to bash a film's plausibility, even if they'd seen the film a thousand times before and knew it was coming. Most notably being Agent Smith describing a virus as an organism in The Matrix when lecturing Morpheus. What hacked me off the most is that not only was it pointless for them to get all smart-arse about it ("A virus isn't an organism!"), but it was mentioned a good ten minutes before that moment in the film. They were just waiting for their moment to look clever, and it was sad.
They also made similar remarks about Morpheus saying that the machines combined human body electricity with a "form of fusion": "But you can't combine anything with fusion! Fusion's a reaction that produces energy!". And "If the machines just required the heat from the human body, why didn't they just start a fire and extract the energy from that?". Argh! It drove me around the bloody bend!
If you want good Tech, watch an episode of Star Trek. I love The Next Generation because each episode provides an interesting problem for the crew, the characters are both varied and all have appealing qualities, there's a great dose of humour, and there's sometimes an underlying philosophical subtext that really touches you come the end of the episode (The Q-featuring episode, "Tapestry", is a great example).
But, for all those people who do feel the need to act clever (or like Zoombie, rather than being picky their knowledge on the subject means they spot very significant flaws), the production hire a second party of writers to work on the science and technology aspect of the episode. Apparently the writers just put "[TECH]" in the script when they reach this stump, and that is where the second party take over.
If the lack of plausibility really bothers someone, then by all means express why you find the film's concept ridiculous (and why, as a result, you wouldn't enjoy watching it rather than refusing to see it on principle). But, just because people like me buy in to the concept, it doesn't make us ignorant, pathetic, and sub-human.
Zoombie: I'm not accusing you of anything, by the way. I'm just expressing my opinion on the critique of the film, using the experiences I had watching films with my housemates as an example. They could be quite elitist and snobbish at times, especially when it came to those who didn't know a great deal about science or mathematics. Occassionally it would be in jest, but I always got this feeling they held me in quite low esteem.
