Is there any reason to be certain that we will have such technology? (Hint: answer may be “no.”)

I agree; some stuff does not need to be “explained.”

Oh, for fuck’s sake.

http://www.siliconbunny.com/fsn-the-irix-3d-file-system-tool-from-jurassic-park/

Wow, my bad, so sorry.

I have read the book, but it’s been well over 20 years, so it was like high-school-ish.  (umm, or maybe it’s more like 30 years now, ouch, getting older blows)  So I fear the movie is more current in my mind, thus the mistake.

Thanks Neal & B. E., I don’t like being wrong much but I like not knowing I’m wrong even less.

-abs would like to apologize for bad facts, but he’s still pretty sure that both stories (and Blade Runner) qualify under the “sci-fi but not about FX” category

There is an xkcd reference for that, which I don’t have to hand. I imagine it will be posted within seconds of this comment.

Again: willing to let it go for the sake of a good film, but totally inconsistent.

Minor quibble, but in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, there really is virtually no mention of electricity for the purpose of stimulating a physical creature (she refers a bit to galvinism in the preface/prologue), and no mention of lightning for this purpose whatsoever. Those perceptions are largely the result of “enhancements” to the story of Frankenstein over time, especially the 1931 movie with Boris Karloff.

Hasn’t anyone told you not to say that name three times while looking in a mirror yet?

-abs isn’t certain exactly what you’ll summon, but he’s pretty damn sure you won’t like it

-abs guesses that “magic” and “lightning” are, for their time, pretty equivalent to the tech-babble Blade Runner uses to explain replicants

(cool stuffs)

Society responds by treating the symptom rather than going to the root cause?

I would agree it’s stupid. But there’s nothing in that I find hard to believe.

The only “sciency” thing about it is the fact that he got his superpowers from a radioactive spider, which in itself is highly dubious. (GASP SPOILER!)

You might as well be pointing out all the mistakes they make in CSI and NCIS in scince as part of science fiction. Usually in a LOT of movies or TV shows (not just Science Fiction) scince is changed for purposes of the movie, not a lack of understanding of science. They don’t even care what the actual science is, they want something that works for the film.

Science Fiction on the other had will take it one step further, and will not only pervert science, but will simply make things up and call it some future science thingy. Usually to fit a plot, a hole, or simply for convience.

Where do you think the “Transporter” in Star Trek came from. It had nothing to do with science. It had to do with the fact they wanted adventures on planets, but didn’t have the money for shuttle sets and sceens….

Of course you could translate that to just about ANY action movie where they have hired profressional trained killers, that can’t seem to hit the good guy no matter how hard they try. Rambo, Die Hard, Leathal Weapon, at nausum…

In the movie, the bomb is switched off with something like 8 seconds left.  In the book, the hero wakes up in a hospital, sees his colleague who tells him something like: “There was a minute and a half left.  It wasn’t even a cliff-hanger.”