Realistic enough space films

>it's based on realism
No

You're not exactly clear on what you're no-ing

>realistic

Moon Landing was pretty realistic.

>realistic

>Star Trek
>Alien
>High Life
>Europa Report

... what a joke list

God everyone is complaining about "realistic"

By your standards we can only list Apollo 13.

Any constructive feedback bitch?

Those movies in the list are not based on realism.

See
You big whiny baby

The subject says realistic ENOUGH, not realistic.

don't fucking call the list realistic if you don't know what it means.

youtu.be/KTcOOzD-JQs

can you not read, it's says "realistic enough", not "realistic"

That just adds the Martian to the list.
So only two movies.

how do you claim a space movie is realistic if you dont know what space looks like? have you been to space? everything we know about space and what it looks like is based on artificial images by nasa and governments.

Attached: EarthComparisons.jpg (600x429, 73K)

That movie was too shit

Any constructive criticism instead of whining? What should I call the list instead?

Sci-fi movies.

Leave

Ah yes, because there are only 14 sci-fi movies

Idiot

Well there is nothing else that relates them to each other besides your silly definition of "realistic enough"

>nothing else
>not even space
ok bye

shit list desu

Attached: right-stuff-4e9bf63ff834d6dc.jpg (348x475, 43K)

Space isnt a genre m8.

Who said the list was restricted to genre desciption. Clearly not me given that the list isn't.

wew lad you are a thicko

you probably meant apollo 11

Cool man, any recommendations?

So what is the list restricted to?

Serious enough space films

Nothing apparently. Might as well put barney on there.

get rid of the Sci-Fi stuff

i meant realistic enough not serious

>Serious enough space films
still breaking your own list.

The only realistic one is 2001.

It's the only one that

thanks for the useless reccomendation that clearly is the opposite of what i am trying to achieve

>forest moon
true, only the first 20 minutes or so is in space.
it is kino and semi-realistic so I thought it was worth a mention

>realistic enough
but the list doesn't follow that.

oh my god you guys a

The Last Push is realistic enough, though it's mostly two people talking.

Cool man, got any recommendations? Or just some whinging?

You are so thick. Realistic ENOUGH. Not realistic. So you disagree that the films are realistic enough. We just have different definitions of enough. Doesn't mean the list breaks itself

Eek, 5.4 on imdb and no reviews on RT. Probably not gonna make any essentials lists.

>Solaris remake
Subtle bait.

Thanks man, I'll give it ago.

Did you take a stroke?

6.6 on imdb and 66% on RT, so it's not universally hated.

How exactly does one take a stroke?

I would add Star Wars I guess. That is "realistic enough" right?

is 2010 worth watching?

Someone can't stand suspension of disbelief. Do you only watch documentaries?

Oh great, an inflamatory response that adds no substance to the discussion.
>arguing Star Wars is as realistic as 2001
Yip top job mate you've won the debate with that quip!

Yes it's fantastic. One of the best serious space movies ever. Just don't expect 2001. It's very different but great in it's own light.

Well, I mean Star Wars is certainly as realistic as Alien covenant

I remember seeing a chart of space movies ranked on the X-scale with realism, and the Y-scale with enjoyment. Can anyone link it?

Finally a sensible discussion. I'm open to removing Alien Covenant. Admittedly it's slim pickings for realistic space films

Awesome. Sounds way better than my list idea

Interstellar too then.

You cannot compare Star Wars to Interstellar

I don't think you have a brain or read. I am not saying all of these films are 100% correct scientifically. Just that they have more focus on space faring realism than Star Wars or Armageddon.

Hence the realistic ENOUGH part of the title. Which I've explained about 3 times and you seem to ignore every time.

You know what's more realistic than all of those except for Apollo 13 and maybe The Martian? Passengers. If you strip away the slightly dumb romance plot and the concessions it makes for that (like, why was there only one medical station on a ship with thousands of people?), every single piece of tech is realistic - it has the forward plasma shield that an interstellar spacecraft would need, it has the centrifugal gravity, it has realistic AI, and it even has a fusion reactor that looks not at all dissimilar to what's being built in Germany at the moment. It even has a plausible explanation for why it would slowly start malfunctioning over the course of several years.

Maybe the plot was so-so, but the sci-fi elements were a masterpiece.

>aliens manipulating human evolution
>gateway to beyond space and time
>giant foetus
>realistic

Attached: passengers.jpg (454x640, 59K)

Yes thank you, I will add this to the list.

He goes into a black hole and then wacky time hijinx happen. Star Wars is more realistic than Interstellar.

ok bye

Marooned (1969)

lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol

Prove me wrong. I would rather believe in wapr drive and the force than a Black hole being a deus ex machina

Why was Europa Report so good? I was curious at what type of creature they were going against, when they got stuck.

Ah yes your preferences determine what is realistic. Good job

What are you trying to achieve?

Warp drive and the force don't have scientific evidence disproving their existence.
Nothing survives an event horizon. NOTHING.

>evidence disproving their existence.
brainlet detected
OP is a faggot tho

You already have shown you know nothing about science. Science can't disprove (aka prove a negative).

You can't disprove a warp drive but you also can't disprove a future 5 dimensional race altering the properties of a black hole to enable entry into it without spaghettification

Show me a scientific paper saying that the force doesn't exist.

confimred that this conversation is no longer worth having with you

>Science can't disprove (aka prove a negative).
Yes it can retard.

>realistic
>a magic god monolith imparts a higher intelligence and state of being on those that interact with it and a dude following it through the galaxy transcends time and space (which is a lot like taking mushrooms and staring at default screensavers on randomise) then turns into the chosen giant space baby god
Yeah man I had that happen to me once too.

No, it can't.

The Right Stuff and From the Earth to the Moon. Not a movie but together with Apollo 13 and The First Man they are a part of the same narrative.

Yes it can.

A fictional story can still be realistic.

Juno was also realistic even though the specific events never occurred

Science can't prove a negative. Show me a scientific paper that proves me wrong.

>Science can't disprove
Actually that is all it can do. That is how empiricism works.

You responded to the wrong person.

by the way it's aliens, not a magic god

Disproving something is logically not the same as proving tho.

Oh well, I'd rather talk to you any way

That is because you retards get along well with each other.

>something doing the impossible is realistic if I just say it was aliens
I guess Event Horizon is also realistic and Galaxy Quest was actually a documentary.

You still didn't post a single link or argument.

Attached: TMMfc.png (720x452, 238K)

That science can't disprove something? I don't think I have to for something so obvious. Just pick a journal at random and you will find out it probably disproves something.

kek

Disproving something is not the same as proving a negative. I already told you and it's clearly visible in very basic logical expression mate.

>Disproving something is not the same as proving a negative
Why? It is literally the same.

Proving a negative would be to (somehow) prove that SOMETHING doesn't exist.
Disproving means showing that a STATEMENT is wrong.

didn't say aliens are inherently realistic, just pointing out your interpretation of 2001 is wrong

The monolith creates new life and raises lesser beings into higher beings with what can only be described as magic powers. Are you saying aliens can't be magic gods? That is racist.

>Science can't disprove (aka prove a negative).
Then explain why you, or your friend, said this.
You know exactly what I mean't when I said disproved and I don't really know why you are intellectually flexing on me. It is obvious I dont know what this logic shit is.

>still no Orion's Arm-tier kino

Attached: ConfusedSlavojŽižek.png (518x499, 297K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Okay. So, I get what they are saying there, but I don't understand why exactly you linked it.

Am I the only one who hated everything about Contact?

>Realistic enough space films
>posts fucking fantasy movies

this thread is autism in its full glory

I think OP got the message, guys.
But I know this won't stop you to post the same thing until the post limit.

Attached: Mars Needs Moms - Ki Face 032.png (544x720, 578K)

Why is mission to mars and the martian on this list but not red planet, mars attacks, my favorite martian, ghosts of mars, total recall, and mars needs moms?

But in all seriousness, maybe red planet?