Fatal Flaws in Sci-Fi Films: which ones drive you mad? I'll start it off...

How is it in City of Angels, Meg Ryan is riding a bike and apparently has time to open her eyes and react to a semi truck pulling out slowly from a T intersection, but doesnt even swerve or anything and DIES from injuries on the scene? I mean....REALLY? The truck doesn't even hit her!
 
How is it in City of Angels, Meg Ryan is riding a bike and apparently has time to open her eyes and react to a semi truck pulling out slowly from a T intersection, but doesnt even swerve or anything and DIES from injuries on the scene? I mean....REALLY? The truck doesn't even hit her!

If chicks can die from a BROKEN HEART ( starwars Episode 3) You can be sure they can die from not being hit.
 
If chicks can die from a BROKEN HEART ( starwars Episode 3) You can be sure they can die from not being hit.

Ya know, technically Padme didn't die of a broken heart....

She died from complications occuring from Asphyxiation from Anakin choking her. She just happened to lose the will to live after he did break her heart...lol
 
She died of Broken Continuity, with complications from conditions relating to a Broken Screenwriter.
 
The engine room in the enterprise being a brewery? :)

Will Smith learning to fly the alien spaceship in about 15 seconds after liftoff....
 
I don't think any members of the Academy asked themselves that question before awarding the film the Oscar for Best Special Effects...

While I do agree with the flaw in the storyline, I don't see how that would effect the quality of the FX?


Other flaws Ive seen in Sci-fi films -

Again, another issue with Back to the Future -

In the first BTTF film we see that Marty's parents are in danger of never having their first dance, thus never getting married, and we see Marty vanishing from existence.
THis suggests that there is only one timeline, and that any changes made in the past will change and rewrite that timeline.

However, in the following BTTF film (Cant remember if it was II or III) Dr. Brown explains that the changes in the past don't erase or rewrite history, but instead create an alternate timeline.

THis pretty much contradicts what is established in the first film.
If travelling into the past does create an alternate timeline, Marty shouldn't have started vanishing in the first film, because he is a product of timeline #1 and the changes that are created should only effect timeline #2.

In real world quantum physics theory, the concept of an alternate timeline is used as a solution to a paradox....Such as the one seen in BTTF 1.
Basically BTTF future uses one theory of time travel in part 1, and then uses another theory in part 2 (Or is it 3?).
Both of theses theories contradict each other....You can have one or the other, but you can't have both if you want logical sense.

Then of course there are the other Sci Fi flaws in films -

Sounds and explosions in space.
 
THis suggests that there is only one timeline, and that any changes made in the past will change and rewrite that timeline.
Unless Marty going back in time is what caused the event in the first place, making it a loop in Marty's own timeline, assuming timelines are linear.

"Wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff"!!

Sounds and explosions in space.
Now THAT I applaud!
Additionally, I applaud people like Stan Kubrick and Joss Whedon
for NOT having space-sound in their flicks!!
 
She just happened to lose the will to live after he did break her heart...lol
Oh, never mind the fact that she just gave birth to two children! Those two kids aren't reason enough to live, I guess... so selfish. I actually said, "F*cking B*tch" out loud in the theater when I saw it opening night. This has bugged me so bad ever since I saw it.
 
Not really a flaw but I object that Marty and his family never really return to their proper timeline.

In Marty's world the car is crashed, he has no 4x4, his Mom is a drunk and his Dad a loser. Biff rules.

He never goes back to that.
 
Oh, never mind the fact that she just gave birth to two children! Those two kids aren't reason enough to live, I guess... so selfish. I actually said, "F*cking B*tch" out loud in the theater when I saw it opening night. This has bugged me so bad ever since I saw it.

Postpartum Depression...it happens....
 
Will Smith learning to fly the alien spaceship in about 15 seconds after liftoff....

Indeed!

He knew how to operate alien technology... because he had "seen them in action and knew what they were capable of".

Yeah... And I should go out and by the latest crotch-rocket (motorcycle) on the market because I have driven beside them on the highway. :rolleyes

Kevin
 
Not really a flaw but I object that Marty and his family never really return to their proper timeline.

In Marty's world the car is crashed, he has no 4x4, his Mom is a drunk and his Dad a loser. Biff rules.

He never goes back to that.


He made it better. Like Superman.
 
So I watched Fantastic Voyage again after a long break (at least 15 years) and one glaring problem struck me as a fatal flaw, aside from the actual sci-fi miniaturization concept itself:

So they miniaturize the Proteus to its Phase One size, then drop it inside a huge syringe filled with water or saline solution. OK, fine. Then they seal it with the massive plunger and miniaturize the entire syringe, further shrinking the Proteus and its crew. OK - I'm hip to that as well. But when the Proteus is injected into the patient, all the fluid in the syringe gets miniaturized right along with it... about the volume of a very larch residential water boiler, if I recall correctly.

...see where I'm going with this yet?

Now in the 45 minutes they are inside the blood stream, heart, lungs, brain, lymphatic system, inner ear, etc., all this miniaturized fluid has traversed pretty much throughout the patient's circulatory system and vital organs. So how come at the end of those 45 minutes doesn't the patient explode when all those millions of shrunken water molecules expand back to their original size???? :lol

One might ask: "ok, but what about the Proteus itself? Even if it was devoured by antibodies, the molecules & atoms that comprise it would also have to expand." My answer would be: "maybe they surgically removed it before it could be decomposed." But obviously they didn't, which makes the water issue now completely moot, because the Proteus was shrunk TWICE.

I don't think any members of the Academy asked themselves that question before awarding the film the Oscar for Best Special Effects... ;)

Did they ever address this issue in Inner Space? I can't remember - it's been too long since I've seen it.

Incidentally, a very young James Brolin (Josh's dad) of Westworld and Capricorn One fame, plays a technician in the movie and is seen briefly as he secures the hatch on the Proteus before it's shrunken:

2119-6054.gif


Discuss! :)

RR

Water is an incompressible medium. It can't be shrunk or compressed like oxygen can. It could very well be that the ship was shrunk twice, not the water that surrounded it.
 
In Blade Runner, there is too much that doesnt add up in the time frame. It should have been 100+ years into the future and not around 35. The easiest way to understand this is look back 100 years, then, follow the time frame forward to the present. All those changes that make areas unrecognizable and rapid technology. Your looking at 100 years as is for the city scape alone.

Would it have made any difference if it had been set 100 years from the time it was made? Not really. You'd still have the same problem if 100 years later, someone watched this film and it turns out to not even remotely resemble the future that was predicted.

To me, I think it's just best to picture it as 2019 of an alternate reality that is far separated from our own. Much like how I can imagine the 2001 and 2010 from the films "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "2010: The Year We Make Contact" as an alternate timeline to our reality or how the 2015 from "Back to the Future, Part 2" is an alternate too.

Basically, what I'm saying, it's best to picture any story, no matter what genre, as a fictional alternate reality to ours, which would make the problem with "consistent future" thing more acceptable.
 
Gravity on Space ships.

I always assume its just magnets in their shoes that hold them to the metallic surfaces underneath the floors. They hold them just enough to keep them atatched, but also allows them to jump or walk freely and the force just pulls their feet back down.

The Movie i hate is Battlefield Earth.
It takes cavemen one week of training in a flight simulators to fly Harrier jets in combat and after 1,000 years there is still working aircraft, weapons, fuel, and nuclear weapons........ HOW!!!?

Watch the Nostalgia Critic's review of that movie... the amount of wrongness that he points out will BLOW YOUR MIND! :eek
 
Back
Top