MovieChat Forums > Alien Planet (2005) Discussion > Utter Crap!

Utter Crap!

posted 19 years ago by ninja_superstar-1
35 replies | jump to latest

Who can believe this garbage? THIS is science? If you want to see anything remotely scientific -- with all of the nifty special effects to appease your ADHD -- buy or rent Carl Sagan's "Cosmos." Even after 25 years, almost everything Sagan says remains true and many of his speculations are prophetic.

"Alien Planet" has some of the crappiest CG I've seen, worse than the first Playstation game that attempted a cinematic sequence. Anyone who believes this tripe should have their heads examined. But go ahead. Join the circle jerk! Meanwhile, real science remains a mystery to the average American Idiot.

[–] mrh6368 19 years ago

You're taking it too seriously; its just suppose to be speculation.

Connecting you to the boards system -please wait a few seconds for the page to load...

[–] ninja_superstar-1 19 years ago

I didn't take this crap seriously at all. I laughed and laughed and almost spilled my wine!

[–] mrh6368 19 years ago

Good, then you enjoyed yourself - I did too :-)

Connecting you to the boards system -please wait a few seconds for the page to load...

[–] ninja_superstar-1 19 years ago

Alright then. ;)

[–] fitzgearl3 17 years ago

Well, if you were drinking while watching it then your opinion of it is not credible. I don't take seriously the opinions of drunks who try to pretend they're smarter than they really are.

[–] ninja_superstar-1 16 years ago

Um, you're about, what, two years late with your comment?

Oh, and having half a glass of wine doesn't get me drunk.

Thanks!

[–] enzo32ferrari 16 years ago

he might be two years late for a comment but you prolly only two years old.

[–] DurakSuka 11 years ago

Go *beep* yourself up the ass, you impudent retard.
Hama cheez ba-Beer behtar meshawad!

[–] mrh6368 19 years ago

Finally, just let me say something about the CGI. I thought it was pretty good, but you must remember they have a limited budget to work with. I mean, this isn't a huge Hollywood production... like Shrek 2 for instance, or even something like cut scenes from a big budget video game.

But that brings me to another point, just because the CGI may be better in something, it doesn't mean its a more compelling production. COSMOS is a good example. We have much more capable FX today than we did back when that was produced, but thats still a classic. That goes for entertainment as well: Shrek 1 is better than Shrek 2 even though the technology/CGI advanced.

Connecting you to the boards system -please wait a few seconds for the page to load...

[–] ninja_superstar-1 19 years ago

I'm not the one attempting to boost the brilliance of CG. See the other moronic posts for such comments.

[–] inignot12 19 years ago

ACTUALLY, it's hardly speculation. It was a bunch of pieces an artist named WAYNE DOUGLAS BARLOWE created then pieced together and made into a book called EXPEDITION. Check it out, its really amazing.

And forget the CGI, it was good, but the paintings are stunning. Wayne Douglas Barlowe is a gifted artist and his depictions of Darwin IV and its inhabitants are far more meticulous and interesting. So get off your high-horse and appreciate the real genius behind the world of Darwin IV

[–] ninja_superstar-1 19 years ago

High horse? You mean I should condescend to appreciate mediocrity? No thanks. Keep the pseudo-science for Church homilies.

And re-read your post. Artistic interpretation of what we don't know isn't speculation? Hell, that's the definition of speculation.

[–] inignot12 19 years ago

whatever, i meant like it wasn't EVEN speculation. Scientists had no input into the creation of these creatures, whatsoever. I'm saying that they shouldnt call it speculation, just like, we took these awesome paintings and called them our own! In that respect, i think the discovery channel were kinda jerks.

Just give the book a chance, its really stunning. I'm just trying to defer your supposed distaste towards the discovery channel, and get you to maybe appreciate the original genius behind this work.

They hardly gave him any credit, they just had like a 4 second interview piece with him at the end of the show. I'm kinda peeved at that myself.

[–] ninja_superstar-1 19 years ago

Well, then, we agree.

Why is this show even being run on the Discovery Channel? It has nothing to do with anything. You're right, I despise the Discovery Channel, because they favor vague drama over scientific rigor.

I'm not impressed by science art, mostly because I don't know how to read it. Is it based on the natural world or is it weirdness for its own sake?

[–] dcon 19 years ago

ninja superstar-1; "I despise the Discovery Channel, because they favor vague drama over scientific rigor."

any kind of theoretical mission like this one has to be intepreted by science fact. gaps were filled rather convieniently though, fiction tends to do that. you have plenty to fill with a documentary like this. i still enjoyed it though for what it was.

i remember there was a bbc/discovery co-production a couple of years ago which did a theoretical solar system exploration mission called space odyssey - voyage to the planets... that was more story driven, and drama? sure, but was at least more concieveable from a scientific point of view. watch it if you havent already.

some elements of this documentary could of been utilised by alien planet to convey it better, budgets of each though may explain the difference in overall finish

[–] trypt 19 years ago

Who is talking about belief here man? Its a fantasy for crying out loud, relax.

"You have been assimilated, resistance was futile!"

[–] The_NubiS 18 years ago

Crap? Only in your eyes. You must be pretty sick of CGI, or are a die hard fan of scientific facts. I like facts more than fiction, but does that mean I can't see what could well be on another planet far far away? This makes you think what else can be out there, nothing more, nothing less...

[–] trypt 18 years ago

NubiSlov, make sure you're replying to the right person next time. Its in your interest because if you don't, they don't get the message reminding them that you replied. In this case I got the reply from you even tho your message was not intended for me.

"You have been assimilated, resistance was futile!"

[–] The_NubiS 18 years ago

Sorry, didn't know you get notices for people replying to your posts.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] leonn131 18 years ago

It was just a animated Remake of the real thing.
The "real science remains a mystery to the average American Idiot." Is something i woood suspect from some 'real' idiot. or someone whos sadly trying to act like they 'know it all'?, if it was'nt real i hardly think the darwin iv alien plant movie wood be on tv.

[–] ninja_superstar-1 16 years ago

Yeah, I'm a "know it all" because I don't believe in space creatures for which we have absolutely no physical evidence. Wow, look at me trying to judge you...you, YOU are the idiot I'm writing about.

[–] e25171971 16 years ago

"Um, you're about, what, two years late with your comment?"

Is that a freaking musket?
Yeah, It's a freaking musket!

[–] ninja_superstar-1 16 years ago

Yes, because that's how much I care.

[–] jbaker1-2 17 years ago

"Who can believe this garbage? THIS is science?"

No, this is entertainment. It's based on the work of an artist, not on science. I'll agree that the Discovery Channel shouldn't have tried to present it as serious science, but then, the Discovery Channel is crap. What the hell do 'American Chopper', 'American Hot Rod' and such drivel have to do with science? 'Mythbusters', if only for its entertainment value, is the only thing that saves TDC from total worthlessness.

[–] Springwing2358 17 years ago

science isnt all fact its thinking outside the box u may be thinking of science as we know it or life as we know it but this is why modern day science has failed to advance. im not bashing science, im a sci geek (sci award and everything) im simply saying scientists need to think more creatively and less analytically if we hope to cure some of these challenging dilemmas in our lifetime

[–] jbaker1-2 17 years ago

Science is by its very nature analytical. Logical conclusions based on painstaking, impartial examination of real-world data are its stock in trade. Thinking creatively can on rare occasions result in breakthroughs, that's true, but only if you're on the level of a Newton, Einstein or Hawking. The average workaday scientist isn't going to accomplish much of anything beyond wasting time and grant money by breaking the rules. Look what happened when Michael Behe tried it. <G>

[–] Springwing2358 17 years ago

Science is in fact analytical, however most of the science accepted as known fact to date has been discovered on accident, and if this is possible then exploring our limits and going beyond the barriers based on fact is entirely probable to finding conclusions. time spent exploring and investigating further research based on previous discoveries is never wasted and grant money, what it comes down to on this subject is that Barlowe's book, which is what this show is based upon, was rooted from previous information but broke the barriers and thought creatively to widen the horizon.

[–] jbaker1-2 17 years ago

"Science is in fact analytical, however most of the science accepted as known fact to date has been discovered on accident,"

Some, yes, but most? You'll forgive me, I hope, if I express some skepticism regarding that claim. <G>

[–] Springwing2358 17 years ago

So when Copernicus discovered heliocentric theory by thinking outside of the box, you would have agreed that he should have been charged for blasphemy? Or when Newton discovered gravity? When Watson decoded DNA? Would you have questioned Aristotle or Galileo? Maybe Kepler? Though these great minds achieved even greater things because of their persistence and determination, without the ability to think beyond the grasps of most their work would have been useless rather than revolutionary. Your skepticism is forgivable, but your ignorance is not to be ignored. At least Barlowe cannot be charged on blasphemy for his revolutionary vision of extraterrestrial life.

[–] jbaker1-2 17 years ago

Thinking outside the box is not discovering something "on accident", as you put it. All of those men took science to a new level, but they did *not* stumble upon their discoveries by pure luck. They knew what they were doing.