<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What really gets me about movies like Mission to Mars, Armageddon, et. al. is that you could make any of those movies scientifically accurate and it wouldn't take away from the plot. In fact, many times it would enhance it. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I think qso is on the right track...<br /><br />You could make a plot dramatic even if stuck to real science... but it usually wouldn't <i>look</i> as dramatic -- no pyrotechnics, no diving just ahead of the shockwave, no sexy kiss at the end (...seriously, do want to see Gene Kranz kiss anybody in Mission Control?). Worst part: the audience wouldn't get it unless you explained it to them. Then they walk out muttering and the critics blow open the film for trying to cram a training video into a bit of escapism...<br /><br />Now, it's theoretically possible that you could get the best of both worlds, but... that would require hiring scientifically literate writers. Most good science writers are terrible dramatic writers. Most good drama writers are scientific nincompoops. You can hire advisers (and I think they did), but the director is always going to assume there is room for dramatic license.<br /><br />IIRC, though, this movie had at least one great line. It went something like: <i>I didn't come 650 million miles only to stop the last 50 feet</i>. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="font:normalnormalnormal12px/normalTimes;margin:0px"><strong>Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority.</strong></p> <p style="font:normalnormalnormal12px/normalTimes;margin:0px">-Andrew Jackson (1767-1845)</p> </div>