The Government has offered Australia's three mobile operators, and vividwireless, renewal of their existing spectrum allocated on 15 year licences in the late 90s and early 2000s at set prices, while the Government expects to rake in $3 billion.
read more
William Atkins
Saturday, 14 June 2008 19:53
It describes the inaccuracies of flashing bullets, flaming cars, jumping through windows without a scratch, outer space explosions, and other such problems in the movies—scientifically speaking.
Some movies that the website states are pretty good at being scientifically accurate are Apollo 13, The Right Stuff, Saving Private Ryan, Unforgiven, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Blade Runner.
However, I did notice the 2001 was given a not-to-good score at another website for its scientific accuracy. However, I think it was for its inaccuracies at predicting the future. We (in reality) did not accomplish these feats in 2001, and in 2008 still have not done so.
In my opinion, a movie can be made scientifically accurate and still be entertaining to audiences. Its been done before!
And, when it is done accurately (scientifically), it makes for a much more enjoyable movie. For those of us that cringe when we see scientific improbabilities in movies, it is nice to see a movie that tries its best to stay with the realm of reason.
It is especially frustrating to see movies depicted as historically inaccurate. Movie producers are using the actual event and modifying it for their own purposes. It seems quite ludicrous to be allowed to change an outcome of a battle in a war, for example in The Patriot, just so the plot looks better.
I’ll leave you with the quote:
“Do not believe all you believe!” --Joseph Roy D. North
Loading comments ...
 |
Microsoft Office 365Try an easy-to-use set of web-enabled tools for business-class productivity services. Office 365 provides anywhere-access to email, important documents, contacts, and calendars on almost any device.  |
