>>551145
not seen the core, but do hear about it often. what's the beef with it?

>>551145
My undergrad geology lectures showed this for extra credit on a Friday night. They served cake.

Travel through the core of the earth and readjust the earths spin using very small nuclear devices :|

:||||

>>551145

Not as bad as Sunshine, 2012, or The Day after tomorrow

>>551139
It's a fucking Disney movie. If you went into it hoping for a plausible scenario you need professional help.

>>551166
Fuck you.

>>551172
Ohai thar.

>>551163

Geologists tend to laugh at things in many movies.

Like in jurassic park, where they fire off the shotgun shell to get a seismic image of a dinosaur... SEISMIC DOESNT WORK LIKE THAT. Not to mention most of the stuff in the movie is from the Cretaceous.

Or Dante's Peak. Thats another good one

>>551168
that was the point of the thread bro

Here's a gem from The Core:

The earth's core has stopped spinning (!) so no magnetic field. A huge microwave beam then destroys the Golden Gate Bridge. That's right. Microwaves.

>>551163
>They served cake.
Are you sure?

>>551187
Was that game good?

I'm not into RPG's but the original Mass Effect was tolerable.

>>551202
i watched it when it first came out when i had the ambition of being a history major and wasn't too keen on science. years later and i'm a chemfag; it would be interesting to actually notice the scientific flaws and what not.

>>551194
Creating a movie that tries to fool an ignorant audience into thinking this could happen is one thing, a Disney movie with the word fantasy stamped on it over 9000 times is quite another.

>>551212
It had it's moments. The story was great. The combat was pretty average. But oh christ, the mining planets. "scan for 10 minutes->launch probe->scan->launch probe". Mining was essential if you wanted to upgrade anything.

"The signal pattern is learning, it's EVOLVING on its own, and you need to move past Fourier transforms and start thinking quantum mechanics." - Transformers

I also love how a cell phone magically acquires tiny rockets complete with explosives when exposed to the Allspark.

>>551223
i didn't come to the film expecting 'primer', my only problem was that when i saw the house go up with all the balloons, all i could think was 'WTF HOW DEH BLOONS DO DAT', hence this thread :)

>>551202
That's even more ridiculous and implausible than SUDDENLY BEARS

>>551236
The main problem is the structural integrity of the house. It's forgivable in a children's movie.

>>551236
Assuming the balloons are filled with helium, and you have a LOT of them, it would lift the house.

>>551258
millions perhaps?

>>551295
You could calculate the helium volume you'd need based on the house density and mass. But I don't care, it's not worth griping about.

Huge bolides and comets always make sound in vacuum.
A teeny tiny nuclear device blown up within ten miles of the surface of said bolide will completely destroy it/cut it in half, saving earth fifteen minutes before impact.

Newly forming cracks/chasms are intelligent and carnivorous; hence they always chase the easiest prey.

No matter how much work humans put into averting catastrophe, it's always thanks to Jeshua & Co.

A terrifying catastrophe that is seconds away will patiently wait a few minutes until several lame speeches have been said.

>>551236
Why were you so surprised when every single movie poster had a picture of a flying house? I simply can't understand your logic.

You: "Oh look, that poster and all the previews for up show a house flying around under the power of balloons. That is too implausible and would likely ruin the movie for. Time to go see it."

there was a thread here a while back where they calculated the amount of ballons to lift a house.

but no, its not actually possible, from a structural standpoint.
.
.
.
Theres also talking dogs

ITT people who don't understand fiction

>>551315
wow, this is really boring now. the film is nice, i watched it with family because they got the DVD. the balloons seemed implausible and made me go WTF, but i carried on watching, and enjoyed it.

i thought it was an interesting thread to post, so i did. i'm sorry if i've caused you offence.

>>551331
ITT people who can't enjoy fiction
Fix'd it for you

>>551336
>ITT: People who have Asperger's
Interpreted that for you

>>551336
I enjoy fiction.
I don't enjoy stupid hollywood fantasy.

Pixar films used to be scientifically accurate. Sentient toys, sentient bugs, monsters who use the screams of children as energy, sentient cars... they all made perfect sense.

>>551355
Whats the difference

ITT: People who need to get an imagination

ITT ITT corrections

All forms of entertainment must be 100% realistic or else it is flawed and shows how idiotic those responsible are.

/sci/ your making /co/, /tv/, /v/, /tg/, /a/, ect cry.

>>551360
Consistency.

If a film/game is based on this world, I expect it to obey the laws of physics (blown up asteroid spreads everywhere in space except the direction of the gravity well?).

If a film/game is based on a fictional world, I expect it to obey the laws of that world.

This is why I liked Who framed Roger Rabbit but not Armageddon.

I'd put up more examples but I'm suffering from a bad caffeine-deficiency.

>complaining about lack of realism
>in a childrens movie
>by Disney

How anal are you
Would you rather have the movie be about him being unable to do this, and spend the rest of his life in misery and grief?
Reality isn't fun to watch
Fantasy is

>>551409 read:
>>551332

>>551232
>probes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6rtQ0-ez4g

>>551409
I've hated internal inconsistency since I was six.
There are children's movies that are consistent and I still enjoy them.

>>551258
More like some of the house would be torn off and float away.

Any film made by Roland Emmerich

contact

>>551497

Fuck you Sagan is King.

I hate fiction movies, they're so unrealistic and filled with bullshit.

Movies and games are all about suspension of disbelief, so I really could care less if its believable or not as long as it is SELF CONSISTENT.

>>551506
hence why theyre fiction...
If they weren't unrealistic they'd be real and that would make them nonfiction.

I'm okay with most fiction, but hollywood manages some form of retardation that is beyond my tolerance.

Armageddon pissed me off fiercely. An asteroid that would destroy even bacteria? Dear fucking god bacteria can survive IN SPACE EXPOSED TO COSMIC RADIATION.

A nuclear blast that splits an object only hours from impacting the earth into two equal parts that safely go divergent ways around the earth?

I wanted to tear my eyes out.

>>551507
you mean you couldn't care less. otherwise it means you care

>>551232

They actually made it intentionally boring so that people just didn't get all the upgrades right away and took those which effected the game directly and not the ship upgrades which only effect the ending.

>>551513

No, just because something is fiction doesn't give it a license to be filled with bullshit.

ITT: People that don't know how to suspend belief to enjoy a film

>>551166
>Not as bad as Sunshine, 2012, or The Day after tomorrow.
>2012

Oh yeah, 2012. The movie is based on the theory of earth-crust displacement. I do not believe it, and it will never happen.

There are many problem with UP

1. You'd need more balloons than that.
2. If the ballons can tear the house of it's foundations, why doesn't it tear of the thing it's tied to first
3. I highly doubt that the houses centre of gravity it in the chimney...

>>551692

If an economist saw a movie where a bunch of people manged to construct a perfect socialist society, he'd probably have a hard time enjoying that movie.