Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Star Wars is science fantasy rather than science fiction which takes some liberties with space or even science fact.
"Science fantasy" is Zelazny's Amber books.
Star Wars is space opera. It's conflict-centric. It's like Buck Rogers. Science takes a backseat to anything that furthers the conflict. That's why FTL is treated like a ride on the Metrolink in order to give characters a Speedpass to the next lightsaber duel or blaster volley.
By the way, they're planning a movie adaptation of Valerian, which is where Lucas "found" his main characters (Leia, Luke, Han, C3P0).
I don't see how you could say the movie will be sci-fi, if you have read the book, everything he did was based on science and in theory is possible. He was the botanist and mechanic of the flight. Read the book, I am looking forward to the movie, about time hollyweird did something a little new.
The farming on mars is just theory that is at the moment untestable which is why it is science fiction. It maybe true but we don't know yet. It's not like Star Wars adding artificial gravity into space stations which is fantasy elements.
Listen I am not creaking on the movie, it looks really good but unless you are talking say Apolo 13 you aren't talking about science non-fiction because in most original stories there is some liberties with established theories and laws.
The farming on mars is just theory that is at the moment untestable which is why it is science fiction. It maybe true but we don't know yet. It's not like Star Wars adding artificial gravity into space stations which is fantasy elements.
Listen I am not creaking on the movie, it looks really good but unless you are talking say Apolo 13 you aren't talking about science non-fiction because in most original stories there is some liberties with established theories and laws.
My question is... "Have you actually read the book?"
I have. Twice. And I have taught the physical & biological sciences at the college level for over 2 decades. The book's premise is that what the astronaut did is w/in the realm of possibility, assuming the components from the other manned and unmanned missions were in place. It of course takes liberties with certain pieces of tech, but no more than (and probably a whole lot less than) other books/movies of its type.
Actually I find this one easier to believe than believing that soaring through a black whole would put me behind my daughter's book shelf.
It may be good but watch it bomb. No movie about Mars has done well in the past quarter century, all have been huge bombs. Mars Attacks, Red Planet, Mission to Mars, John Carter from Mars, Mars Needs Moms... Don't know why Hollywood keeps barking up this tree, someone powerful must have a weird Mars fetish.
It may be good but watch it bomb. No movie about Mars has done well in the past quarter century, all have been huge bombs. Mars Attacks, Red Planet, Mission to Mars, John Carter from Mars, Mars Needs Moms... Don't know why Hollywood keeps barking up this tree, someone powerful must have a weird Mars fetish.
You really think those movies failed because they were "about Mars?"
I can't believe I misspelled "hole" in my previous post. WOW
As much as I like Matt Damon, I actually didn't picture him as being the main character. While he's got a sense of humor, and can be witty at times, I don't believe he's a right fit.
For those of you who've read the books, you know how witty Mark Watney can be. I actually pictured Chris Pratt as the best fit. When I saw him in Guardians of the Galaxy, I knew he should play the lead. He's perfect! Anyone else agree?
You really think those movies failed because they were "about Mars?"
Yes. Can you give me your alternate theory as to why every movie about Mars has failed at the box office? I watched Mars Attacks, John Carter and Mars Needs Moms and none were terrible.
Yes. Can you give me your alternate theory as to why every movie about Mars has failed at the box office?
Because they were bad movies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolZombie
I watched Mars Attacks, John Carter and Mars Needs Moms and none were terrible.
I actually liked Mars Attacks, but I'm a nerd. I thought it was hilarious and a great satire on '50s flying saucer flicks. I have no idea why it bombed.
John Carter I admit I haven't seen. But apparently no one else has either, because it looked like another CGI-heavy action cartoon.
Mars Needs Moms. Haven't seen that one either. But I haven't avoided it because it is about Mars or Moms. I have avoided it because it sounds like a dumb movie.
As for the rest ...
Red Planet is horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE movie.
Mission to Mars is just a snoozer.
But I really don't think "Mars" enters into the equation of anyone deciding to see or not to see movie. It isn't like the audience is sitting there saying, "Oh, no! That preview looked great until I saw it was Mission to Mars. If only it had been Mission to Saturn, I might have gone to see it. But Mars? Pfft. Count me out!"
TOTAL RECALL was huge hit back in the '80s. It was set on Mars. Maybe all movies on Mars should star Arnold Schwarzenegger from now on?
Mars is an endless red desert. Movies about Mars are boring as Mars.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
