surferdude69's Comments

i heard this piece on npr and they were pretty clear about the fact that it doesn't seem to be making us dumber

rather creatures with smaller brains are more likely to work cooperatively and actually succeed in tasks that require more than one person

they pointed to experiments comparing chimpanzees with bonobos (bonobos have smaller brains and more cooperative groups)

while the question of whether or not this cooperative function is akin to intelligence is still debatable, as intelligence in many ways is hard to measure, i would be willing to venture a guess that the people who manage to succeed in a task (civilized humans and bonobos over chimps) are probably the "smarter" ones.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@egbert

yeah man, i agree, it's clearly a film technique used to represent something metaphorically

the people who made this chart know very little of film, science fiction, or science
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
looks like there is some photoshop involved to create depth of field

i don't know how a flat peice of paper would be able to be in focus in on place and out of focus in another without appearing bent
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
why was my first comment deleted? was it too long? i tried to abstain from using foul language.

i have always assumed the final scene in contact was more of a internal experience than an actual trip into space. although there was space imagery, like the image of her father, it seemed pretty clear that this was a projection concocted by the aliens.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@cluck

human-xenomorph hyrbid in the alien franchise

calling it interbreeding however ignores everything about the alien franchise

it's not like ripley banged a xenomorph

whoever made this thing needs to watch these movies again
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
a lot of these seem to ignore the contexts of the films

for instance, criticizing easy communication with aliens in star wars assumes that humans (who in star wars aren't even really humans) are unfamiliar with aliens. it makes sense that humans can't communicate with aliens in most movies, because there hasn't been any time for them to learn about each other and the differences between their languages. when han solo talks to greedo in the cantina however, he is speaking to an alien he personally knows and it isn't that farfetched that in his career as a smuggler he has learned some alien languages. han solo knowing the same language as greedo is about as weird as me knowing spanish. (which i don't, but i should learn, because i work with a lot of mexicans)

in stargate also, the aliens that the humans encounter are familiar with humans. they are supposedly very smart and rule by masquerading as human gods. the fact that they can speak human languages is kind of logical.

the movie contact is entirely about aliens contacting humans on earth, if they choose to engage in such an endeavor without at least a rough understanding of our language they would be complete morons

the fact that other planets have gravity similar to earth in some movies isn't that odd either, for instance in alien the strange harsh world they land on in response to the distress signal is only one planet, which could very well simply be similar to earth in size. while on the planets surface they always wear giant suits also, so it's hard to judge the planets exact gravity. the very idea that highly habitable planets (the only ones we would ever choose to visit) would have at least similar gravity to earth is almost obvious. i can't see why humans would ever visit a planet with extreme gravity.

how can this chart be mocking movies for the use of "faster than light travel" when the chart itself describes lasers as "faster than light"

which is ridiculous, a laser is light, i don't think i've ever heard lasers described in fiction as "faster than light"

usually such laser technology isn't even explained, and sometimes it's not even called "lasers"...so we have no idea what we are really seeing depicted.

is a "blaster" a laser? is a "phaser" a laser? not specifying makes any arguments against their scientific basis moot.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.


Page 10 of 28     first | prev | next | last

Profile for surferdude69

  • Member Since 2012/08/04


Statistics

Comments

  • Threads Started 409
  • Replies Posted 0
  • Likes Received 9
  • Abuse Flags 0
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More