Re: Bad SF

From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Thu Mar 16 2000 - 09:24:49 EST

  • Next message: Joel Peter Anderson: "Re: Bad SF"

    Joel Duff wrote:
    >
    > At 07:26 AM 3/16/00 -0500, you wrote:
    > >Science fiction, good & bad, has a considerable influence on popular ideas
    > >about science & sometimes about relations between science & religion. 1
    > recent release
    > >& 1 coming attraction are bad news in this regard.
    > > 1) _Mission to Mars_ is, apart from the science, not very good SF - a
    > melange of
    > >old themes & plot devices. The previews & ads for it pretty much give
    > away the plot so
    > >I shouldn't be spoiling it for anyone to say that the ancient Martians (of
    > course
    > >humanoid, kind of a cross between _Close Encounters_ & Roswell) "seeded"
    > earth long ago
    > >to begin an evolutionary process which would end up with human DNA. How
    > that is
    > >supposed to work is anyone's guess. There is no overt religion in the
    > film at all but
    > >this idea of a directed, noncontingent evolution (a version of ID) serves
    > as an ersatz
    > >religion for some folks today - including some Christians.
    >
    > George,
    > Nice observations. When I first heard about this movie I had wanted to see
    > it but then I saw an add for it in which there was this revolving DNA helix
    > on a computer screen. A couple of people, presumably scientists, are
    > looking at it when one exclaims "it looks human." Wow, I didn't know the
    > human genetic code was so distinctive! At that moment I decided this flick
    > wasn't going to be a shining example of good science.
    >
    > I am always looking for a good science fiction movie but am so often
    > dissapointed. _Gattica_ was one exception in the last couple of years.
    > I also have high hopes for a big screen version of _Ender's Game_ (Orson
    > Scott Card) that I had heard a while back is in the works.

            I hadn't heard that a film of _Ender's Game_ was in process. It should be very
    good - if they stick to the book & don't mess it up!
            I think _The Matrix_ is - well, challenging, though theologically it's
    cyber-gnosticism. & _Deep Impact_ is good, especially if one thinks through the
    meanings of "Trinity".
                                                            Shalom,
                                                            George

    George L. Murphy
    gmurphy@raex.com
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 16 2000 - 09:23:54 EST