Parsec star wars wrong12/11/2023 ![]() This mistake doesn’t have to do with physics or chemistry or biology, but there is something a little odd about 10 Cloverfield Lane, and that’s the address. ![]() 10 Cloverfield Lane’s Implausible Address We’ll admit that “parsecs” sounds really awesome, but it sounds even better when used correctly. We’re not here to pick apart every implausible or impossible detail of the Trek canon, but there is an error from the 2009 film that shows a pretty major oversight.įirst mentioned in A New Hope, Abrams may have taken this hand-off from Lucas, but it’s no excuse to keep using it incorrectly: It’s a simple mistake and a silly one. Star Trek isn’t about being correct to the letter, it’s about giving audiences great characters and great stories set up against the backdrop of space. But, then, so does the entire Star Trek canon. The 2009 Star Trek film has plenty of inaccuracies. Oh Star Trek, how were you wrong? Let us count the ways. We’re also using some bad fake science to talk about awesome real science - because it’s never a bad day to talk about parsecs and asteroids. We love ‘em and that’s why we’re poking fun. But to love something truly is to understand and recognize its flaws and love it anyway, in spite of those flaws. Make no mistake: pointing out the errors in these films is not an act of curmudgeon-y poo-poo-ing. And known for his work in science fiction, Abrams films tend to contain a lot of science – and with science in film come mistakes. From Star Wars to Armageddon, he’s had a hand in shaping pop culture via blockbusters. Abrams’s films are a pretty big part of our cultural consciousness.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |