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