Quote from: Cassia on May 15, 2023, 08:04:15 PMI agree. Jurassic Park checks those boxes. The storyline seems almost probable when real scientists are growing tissue in labs, creating GMO crops and inventing mRNA vaccines. Sci-Fi that detours into the supernatural just aggravates me. 'Contact' with Jodie Foster comes to mind. Kinda of a "lets show atheists how wrong they are" plot, IMHO. Any movie that reveals in the end that the meaning of life is "to just believe" sucks.

Well, she did finish with evidence, so it's not 100% a leap of faith.  Nor was the initial journey a leap of faith, imho - it was more like the first supersonic flight than anything else.  Not everything was known, but it wasn't like it was completely unknown.

Quote from: Unbeliever on May 15, 2023, 06:19:03 PMYou just need a bit of OJ and vodka... 🥂

Baby drives her.

Quote from: Hydra009 on May 15, 2023, 08:16:05 PMWell, she did finish with evidence, so it's not 100% a leap of faith.  Nor was the initial journey a leap of faith, imho - it was more like the first supersonic flight than anything else.  Not everything was known, but it wasn't like it was completely unknown.

It's been years...but I recall there was a "Christian" scientist guy that just totally killed the flick for me. I still don't understand how a scientist can have faith in the scriptures. Compartmentalize much? I remember an engineer who had a mantra "act on fact" and then I found out he was a big church dude. So much for that.

Yeah, there was a Christian guy who I swear came up with the concept of negging in that film.  Weird that the thing he wants her to have faith in is the schematics for an alien transport ball found in a radio burst.  Kinda seems like that's the sort of thing those kind of people don't like at all.

Also, there was one super religious guy who did a suicide attack on the launch site, sooo I dunno what the message is supposed to be about faith, but imo the recurring theme seems to be that faith is an unbalanced approach to new things - either unwarranted confidence or unwarranted hostility.

The character in Contact isn't a scientist, he is not a priest either. (E: I think the character is also a point against organized religion. ) I don't remember if some sort of an education was mentioned -I guess so, I've seen that movie dozens of times- but education alone doesn't make anyone a scientist anyway. Theology? I agree that he is an annoying figure, but I think he is a necessary annoyance. First of all, he is there to balance the murderous religious fanatics -like the man who sabotages the first attempt- and the unethical scientist who worked to undermine, undervalue Arroway's research, and then try to hijack it when she gets lucky. It's the natural background to remind what kind of a world we live in. Actually, even an optimistic one, come to think of it.

As I've said before about this, I never took the concept of 'belief' in the movie as faith in religion or scripture. I honestly don't see any indication of it as message. Just a representation of the human culture. The believer character himself believes in science and scientific knowledge. He believes in a creator, but he is expressing his approach from a point of human relations, can human handle this. 'Are we happier because of it?'. While this doesn't mean anything to people like us -other than annoyance that is- the character is right about how the people sees it.Also it makes the movie watchable to a big audience.     

Also, I like that characters are not painted black and white. Because people are not. Even the asshole scientist is right when saying 'science needs to be practical' if we consider the kind of research they make is very high bar, expensive...time consuming. People need to share telescope time, lab time... but then it is just one side. The character is a villain and so the idea of putting a stop to certain research or operations because it is just for science.(For example, space missions...etc. when putting ridiculous amount of money for national security.) In the general context, doesn't matter how incredibly low the odds are receiving en extraterrestrial message, somebody should be 'listening' anyway.

And Sagan is exactly the kind of man, who would go to that kind of messy lengths to provoke skepticism, which I believe all his purpose was in life, including the movie. He knows better about the odds concerning the SETI. The very reason he has endorsed and supported is that because I think he thought, it's the best way to get the skeptic virus into the children and young people, get them excited and curious about science. I agree with him. And if you get that in young people, nothing's gonna defile that. (Astronomy, cosmology, paleo-zoology...)

If you look at the movie, it includes every bullshit scientific research endures. Sure, the whole thing is very fast and epic in the movie, but then it's a kind of scientific theme that doesn't need slow paradigm change that could take decades or even a century. You can't tell the discovery of Higgs boson like that with a bang -no pun intended- and giving all that to the audience, promoting values this movie does. (Dan Brown does it, and it becomes a Vatican freaks story, and makes people think art history is more than shapes and forms with some meaning beyond them...yikes.)

Apparently, the book is very different, I haven't read it, but the movie seems to me designed that way purposefully. Esp. now at this age, I think they knew what they were doing.

About a scientist having faith in scriptures, the father of The Big Bang theory, Lemaitre comes to mind. He is a real Catholic priest. He didn't imagine it -I mean of course he did- he calculated it. He offered an equation. Actually, he also has calculated the Hubble constant a few years before Hubble. He was dismissed by everyone, famously personally by Einstein, and even after Einstein again personally agreed with him and said 'his conscious wasn't right' people continued to dismiss him. According to what current mainstream science offers us, he was the only one in the right track at the time. A catholic priest. That's not a plus in religion, it is plus in science's chart, lol. Because doesn't matter what you believe, you can't beat science and how it works. Fortunately, it is not a Boltzmann kind of story, but it's how it goes. Lemaitre died before seeing his ideas being proved and becoming a profound impact on scientific development. 

And about that, just a very short time ago, the questions of Cosmology humanity treated as knowledge today was a fairy tale and the only thing besides there was 'religious inquiry'. I doubt people even knew how to ask them without some 'divine feeling' interrupted their brains.

The world has changed so much in a very short time of period, it is incredible. Fuck religion, it is not even in the odds, but how did humans do with science's gifts to them? Guys, we have just lived through a world pandemic, we are still in it, and in the end the human reaction overall wasn't different than the pandemics of 500 and 300 years ago. We actually have the historical research to prove this. 

Personally, I find the James Woods character -the gov man- the most annoying by far. These projects shouldn't be militarized at all.  (He is in just for a few minute overall and he is brilliant too. If you consider that he is an atheist with a very high iq and far-right in real life, he is another contrasting character in meta sense, lol.) And then there is Rob Lowe's character. I could slap a guy like that till he faints.

Quote from: Cassia on May 15, 2023, 09:40:45 PMIt's been years...but I recall there was a "Christian" scientist guy that just totally killed the flick for me. I still don't understand how a scientist can have faith in the scriptures. Compartmentalize much? I remember an engineer who had a mantra "act on fact" and then I found out he was a big church dude. So much for that.

It wasn't the character. It was the actor. Matthew McConaughey is an asshole.

QuoteThe world has changed so much in a very short time of period, it is incredible. Fuck religion, it is not even in the odds, but how did humans do with science's gifts to them? Guys, we have just lived through a world pandemic, we are still in it, and in the end the human reaction overall wasn't different than the pandemics of 500 and 300 years ago. We actually have the historical research to prove this.[/i]

The big anti-vax wave really took me by surprise. The death-bed pleading to finally receive the vaccine (way too late) was a too common, heartbreaking scenario. A very intelligent religious friend of mine routinely says things that has my brain squirming. He can't seem to grasp the difference between random coincidence and statistically proven cause and effect. However, a scientist must have a handle on that. Yet many of them have brick boundaries where rationality cannot enter. And people often automatically equate wonder with the supernatural. This will always infuriate me.

Movie makers, authors, and politicians go there so often just to "elevate" their fiction. When I detect a tiny hint of that BS, I recoil no matter how good the story is, LOL. I react so fast that maybe I miscomprehend the main point. It is that same feeling when I was young, fearing god, kneeling and doubting in a church pew. It is even worse because now you are bringing gods into the realm of science. It is personal because I lost friends and family simply for what I don't believe.

One thing about superheroes is that they are godlike. More like Greek gods. They don't bother me much because we know it is pure fiction, unlike sci-fi which often endeavors to merge plausible reality with fantasy.

Quote from: Cassia on May 15, 2023, 09:40:45 PMIt's been years...but I recall there was a "Christian" scientist guy that just totally killed the flick for me. I still don't understand how a scientist can have faith in the scriptures. Compartmentalize much? I remember an engineer who had a mantra "act on fact" and then I found out he was a big church dude. So much for that.

Matt was there to give the religious viewpoint. She isn't seduced by that.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 16, 2023, 08:27:52 AMMatt was there to give the religious viewpoint. She isn't seduced by that.

My point is: I don't want the religious viewpoint. It was a let-down. That's all we get, day in and day out. From child indoctrination to 24-hour TV/radio/internet channels to sidewalk preachers, coworkers, a church on every other street, a bible in every hotel room, every 5 minutes an "OMG" or a "god willing", billboards, invocation prayers before secular governmental business and every coin telling me "In God We Trust". It is like pure non-belief just scares the living fuck out of everyone.

Quote from: Cassia on May 16, 2023, 08:46:45 AMMy point is: I don't want the religious viewpoint. It was a let-down. That's all we get, day in and day out. From child indoctrination to 24-hour TV/radio/internet channels to sidewalk preachers, coworkers, a church on every other street, a bible in every hotel room, every 5 minutes an "OMG" or a "god willing", billboards, invocation prayers before secular governmental business and every coin telling me "In God We Trust". It is like pure non-belief just scares the living fuck out of everyone.

And your point is YOUR point. I'm a life-long atheist and liked that the religious were included, like that albino dude, and ultimately shown to be incorrect. Carl knew this would be required.

In the movie this character (Palmer Joss) is in the committee full of people from every field whose job is to choose someone to represent people from earth. The planet where the overwhelming majority of the population believes in a supreme being. Palmer Joss doesn't vote for Arroway and asks her openly if she believes in god, which ultimately prevents her from being chosen, thinking she is not the person in this case. Which she isn't. He is honest about the job he is given, like Arroway which is important about what they are telling, they both are unlike Drumlin the piece of shit playing to the politics to get on the mission.

But after the first attempt has gone the drain with the bombing and loss of life, the theologian realizes that the reason he didn't vote for Arroway was a good legitimate reason, but not true in his case. The real reason is he just doesn't want her to go because she is not likely to come back alive from that kind of a mission. He is in love with her. That's it. And he apologizes profusely before she leaves.



 

More funny pictures! Less jibber jabber! 🫣

Quote from: Cassia on May 16, 2023, 08:46:45 AMMy point is: I don't want the religious viewpoint. It was a let-down. That's all we get, day in and day out. From child indoctrination to 24-hour TV/radio/internet channels to sidewalk preachers, coworkers, a church on every other street, a bible in every hotel room, every 5 minutes an "OMG" or a "god willing", billboards, invocation prayers before secular governmental business and every coin telling me "In God We Trust". It is like pure non-belief just scares the living fuck out of everyone.

OK. First of all, you don't represent the majority. This is not an obscure, low budget indie sci-fi for  a fandom. This kind of movie is made for the general audience. Secondly, what kind of a realistic conflict/relief you expect them to build without that character? Where do you get the religious message in the movie?

You just want them to impose a certain point? So the movie should have preached a certain thing instead of giving the choices; provide a comparison and pointing out the rational one? Because it does point out the rational one. It's very obvious what's right or correct or wrong in the movie. And from multiple points. When we watch the movie, we the audience is the only side that knows what really happens, who is right and correct or wrong from the beginning till the end. 

Do you really think Sagan would agree to do something along the lines you wanted? The whole point is to inspire people to question things for themselves, not preaching them as religion does. Nobody can teach that to a person. They got to go there themselves.

World is not divided between religious suicide bombers and Arroways. They are both minorities. Very little ones. Most people are good, ordinary, and they just want to live their lives away from conflict. They do not desire to interrupt great scientific endeavours with violence to give some religious message. Most religious people are like Palmer Joss. 

By the way, there are various critical points in that movie, you couldn't find in the 21st century sci-fis.

I don't see the let down. I don't get where is the religious message in the movie other than if that's ever to happen in reality, the committee would include a dozen, unethical Palmer Josses and fucking Drumlins. So the movie has a good, complicated, realistic plot -if somewhat optimistic- but realistic because it is messy. We are messy. Everything about the theme the movie takes on is very messy. (Even the casting of the theologian is on point if you ask me.)

I'm curious though. What is so familiar to you about the belief/religion part represented in that movie?

OR we could complain about the rain in Spain failing to fall on the plain.

For real, it is fantastic vantage point.  I don't know if it's just the time of day or what, but like half the amazing sunsets I've seen are when I'm ankle deep in last day's rainwater (at least, I hope that's rain) and I suddenly had to dodge an unexpectedly backing-up PT Cruiser like it's an irl quicktime event.