Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site nbires.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!nbires!nose From: nose@nbires.UUCP (Steve Dunn) Newsgroups: net.movies Subject: 2010 and scientific accuracy Message-ID: <359@nbires.UUCP> Date: Wed, 19-Dec-84 12:50:48 EST Article-I.D.: nbires.359 Posted: Wed Dec 19 12:50:48 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 20-Dec-84 05:26:29 EST Distribution: net Organization: NBI,Inc, Boulder CO Lines: 15 This line iz not an error. I think all of this discussion of the scientific accuracy of 2010 is a bit overblown. I don't think the main point of science fiction movies is exactly how accurate the effects are but rather the elements that make any movie worth watching - plot, acting, ideas etc. Its only when the science gets blatantly ludicrous that it gets in the way of enjoying the movie. It didn't get in my way in 2010 although a number of other things did. I suppose that if I had spent my whole time watching the movie trying to exactly analyse the science I too would have found the holes distracting but if I wanted to do this then perhaps I'd watch those school science movies that have recently been discussed on the net instead. To summarize, movies go better with a bit of "suspension of disbelief." Steve "Brain? Sorry, wrong planet" Dunn Boulder CO