Comments on: Knowing & Not Knowing

By: Janis Chambers

Janis Chambers — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:57:44 +0000

I have a limit to just how much I’m willing to suspend my belief, and Knowing went way past that tolerance. Things like super powers and gadgets with made-up mechanisims are fine.. but are we really supposed to believe that a space-fairing race with technology enough to send multiple space ships and predict events 50 years into the future can’t just tow a huge rock or something to deflect the solar flair? If Earth had 50 years warning and giant super-fast space ships then I imagine we would have come up with something. And I certainly hope that the other space ships are implication that more than two children were taken to “Planet Eden”. I may not be all sharp in my knowledge of Genetics, but two humans does not a stable breeding population make.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:02:02 +0000

This is a bit off topic, but is there a global warming section to this blog? Or am i just completely missing it. Hey, Knowing and The Day the Earth Stood Still are all about doomsday scenarios, aliens, and our responsibilities. Why not plop the debate of whether or not the Earth is warming, or cooling, or etc. (Maybe it’s the aliens.) I’ve seen science on both sides outlinge that it is either inevitable, or that it’s nothing but bunk. This is a skeptics site, right? Well, bring in one of the most contested “known facts” of our time and have a go. Besides, I trust what you guys say more than Al Gore or, on the other side, Lindzen (especially Lindzen).

By: jdac

jdac — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:44:58 +0000

I’m willing to suspend disbelief for fantasy, given that the writers plays by their own rules, a la Donner’s verisimilitude principle. Good characters whose motives and decisions I can relate to are also a plus.

Bring science fiction elements into a movie, though, and I want a REASON to suspend my disbelief. I become skeptical; I want to be impressed. I want a movie I can think about on the drive home and not rage about.

Basically I’ll accept a lot of fantastic stuff, but when your plot hinges on reasoned investigation by the protagonists or is supposed to show things that, “could happen,” It’s a harder sell.

In general, I find it hard to be uncritical of movies and TV shows. Am I supposed to just accept crappy writing because the writers were so enamored of a plot point as to strain credulity to accomplish it? Even suspension of disbelief doesn’t help in the face of such idiocy as Mr. Shermer described above.

I recently ran across the show Primeval, rebroadcast on the SciFi (soon to be “SyFy” *shudder*) Channel. The main characters in the show are scientists, with the exception of a few bureaucrats and a token conspiracy theorist/sci-fi geek (who balances his odiousness with an machine-enhanced encyclopedic knowledge of paleontology). The remarkable thing is that our scientist heroes don’t become credulous believers after they meet dinosaurs in a British forest. Plus, there’s a two-fisted ACTION LAB ASSISTANT. Who does that anymore?

Looking back, maybe that’s all because the movies/shows I’ve liked obeyed the “you get one fairy” rule that Joe mentioned in post 10. I’ll have to think about it.

By: Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:18:20 +0000

Try New Orleans on a summer Saturday night.

By: kennwrite

kennwrite — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:39:54 +0000

There’s too much info on the movie, Michael … you’re not supposed to give away the ending when you write a review ?!

There’s the precept that Sagan gave us … make the art consistent with the laws of physics … it bugs me when I see people running around in the hollow earth, for instance, when they should be crushed or melt.

Some movies just work because of the “willing suspension of disbelief” — the first Butterfly Effect, for instance, even though the science is suspect.

Why is historical theology so fascinating … and the biting gospel stories … the story as it evolves from Mark to Matthew to Luke (or for some, Luke to Matthew) is fascinating, even if it’s just a story. God, what a boring world without stories and magic and deception. Scientific methodology, evolution, pure science … all remarkable pursuits. But nothing beats “willing suspension of disbelief” while sitting on a recliner with a good beer.

By: Nihilodei

Nihilodei — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:01:51 +0000

Let me get this straight… from your review the aliens are sneaky enough to implant ideas in peoples heads and be altruistic enough not to start eating the kiddies?

Why would an alien race take all those bacteria filled people to a planet that obviously would have life forms evolving in their own right?

Were issues like religion adressed? It would not bode well for the aliens if the god of the big three saw a massive part of his chosen population escaping a right royal smiting.

It sounds about as hilarious as independence day!

By: tink

tink — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 23:08:42 +0000

Even though “Knowing” was a very average film (apart from the disaster sequences), I couldn’t get it out of my mind for days afterwards. The reason for this was the overtly, not-one-bit-subtle, religious message. Bodily assention to heaven by angels (aliens with massive white angel wings)? The rapture of innocents? Noah’s Ark, two-by-two? And the prodigal son skeptic who falls into the arms (literally) of his estranged preacher father and mutely embraces belief (moments before they all get blown to smithereens)?

And what about the chosen children? I couldn’t help thinking about all the other children (the ones the audience never saw in any of the disaster scenes; my own children, for instance, terrified and confused in the turmoil of Earth’s demise)- what about them?

And I have to agree with Kevin Murphy; disaster means more than just planes crashing with middle-class white Americans on board.

A Christian fantasy flick if ever I saw one. Ugh.

By: Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 17:10:49 +0000

By: Jor-L5150

Jor-L5150 — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:18:54 +0000

re: devil’s advocate ,post 13

LOL! i wasn’t saying ALL shows about magic/fantasy were good..in fact , adding magic/fantasy makes it HARDER to be handled intellegently.

By: Dan Parker

Dan Parker — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 02:12:57 +0000

I only read part of this I just wanted to get thru to Michael. I am a skeptic too. But hey, The thing I have the most trouble with is the big bang. I mean really, something out of nothing hah. Before which time did not exist?? Zillions of tons of roiling boiling atoms out of thin air??? Sounds a wee bit like a bible story. Why have all the scientists abandoned logical empiricism? And while I am talking to the head skeptic, what about the blatant major conflict between quantum hocus pocus and relativety? (Yeah well I am not a good speller.) You know, local, nonlocal, action at a distance, We need to focus on an explanation guys.
I believe that reality is infinitely fine in the Zen sense. That the so called laws of physics or whatever conform to reality and not the other way around. Explain it to me Lucy. Dan