N O M
26th April 2007 - 04:30 AM
QUOTE (.001+Apr 25 2007, 02:49 PM)
Water world?
Just as long as it has nothing to do with Kevin Costner. That movie has to be one of the worst ever.
kaneda
26th April 2007 - 05:03 PM
It looks to be a planet far older than Earth with such a small parent star. At five times Earth mass, human life there is unlikely but certainly a plant kingdom if there is dry land and certainly life in the sea is possible. And of course insects and maybe a few animals which have adapted to the heavier gravity.
I liked Waterworld.
N O M
26th April 2007 - 09:55 PM
QUOTE (kaneda+Apr 27 2007, 05:03 AM)
I liked Waterworld.
As a Mad Max rip-off it was passable. As sci-fi it sucked big time.
kaneda
27th April 2007 - 05:13 PM
NOM. There was very little SF in Waterworld. Unfortunately with past SF films, most were small budget so had poor special effects and were filmed in quarries or chemical plants to show the aftermath of world disasters rather than fantastic cities which would cost a fortune and not look good before CGI came along.
Have you seen a film called Creepies? If not, then don't. At times you can almost see the strings pulling the plastic mutant spiders along.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.