Joined: 25 July 2008
Back in the 1950s, Robert Heinlein provided the technical inspiration for a film that was 'right' on almost every count. Concepts of rocket propulsion were explained with cartoon assistance. Perhaps the only technical failing was the assumption that materials could withstand the necessary temperatures of atomic fission to heat the steam propellant.
Newton's laws reigned supreme, unlike the bunkum of starfighters in Star Wars.
But why do the filmmakers get so much more credit than the authors who dream up the concepts? However authors who do get credit do not always get it right.
Much has been said of the foresight of Jules Verne - but he got almost everything wrong! A water shock absorber to soften the shock of his cannon would do nothing. In the sequel to "From Earth to Moon" he describes a dead dog orbiting the capsule due to its gravitational attraction. In "Journey to the centre of the Earth" his heroes descend to a depth of 300 kilometres. Have you considered the air pressure at that depth? It rises exponentially, more than doubling every ten kilometres.
It is not easy to portray "great" science fiction in film. The economic conjectures of Frederik Pohl are true futurism. Will we ever see them on screen?