“Now I just don’t believe that.” Surely all of us, at some point, have watched a movie and thought: It’s simply badly researched, or, the makers must think we’re fools.
If movies were completely scientifically accurate, they’d probably be as interesting as a Physics 101 lecture. In real life, there are no explosions in space, gas usually doesn’t explode from a lit cigarette, and Bruce Willis / Jackie Chan / Will Smith would most likely be in a coma(昏迷) after getting kicked in the head.
Recently, the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph ran a humorous piece on unconvincing tech moments from some top movies. Let’s see what they are all about.
Telegraph writer Tom Chivers’ first example is from the end-of-the-world movie Independence Day, in which a character comes up with a virus capable of destroying Windows, the computer system the alien(外星人的) spacecraft uses. “It’s a good thing they didn’t have Norton antivirus,” jokes Chivers.
It’s just one case of a movie that takes a lot of license with its science. Another one Chivers mentions is from Star Wars, where glowing beams of light traveling through space look very impressive. The problem is that in space there are no air particles(颗粒) for the light to reflect off. In reality, they’d not be seen, which wouldn’t look so cool on the big screen.
Chivers’ second piece of Star Wars nonsense is the sound the fighters make in the movies: “ the bellow(咆哮) of an elephant mixed with a car driving on a wet road”. But sound needs a medium to travel through, like air. In space, there wouldn’t actually be any sound at all.
Few people would deny that the mind-bending Matrix films make for great viewing, but for Chivers, the science in the movies is a little silly.
And finally: as Chivers points out, DAN is not replaceable. But this bit of elementary genetics passed the makers of the 2002 Bond film Die another Day by. In the film the villain(坏人) has “gene therapy” to change his appearance and his DNA, which is completely impossible.
小题1:What does the text mainly deal with?
A．Plots of some famous movies.
B．Characters in space movies.
C．Popularity of space movies.
D．Mistakes made in some movies.小题2:From the first two paragraphs we can know that some movie makers ____.
A．went against general knowledge of science
B．didn’t pay attention to the viewers’ real demand
C．overestimated viewers’ appreciation of movies.
D．didn’t try their best to improve the quality of the movies.小题3:What does the underlined word “they” in Paragraph 3 refer to?
A．The newspapers.
B．Unconvincing tech moments
C．Some top movies.
D．Heroes in the movies.小题4:We can learn from Paragraph 7 that ____.
A．most people like Matrix films
B．the truth of Matrix films remains in doubt
C．few people think Matrix films silly
D．Chivers thinks science is unacceptable
小题1:D
小题2:A
小题3:B
小题4:A
题目分析：文章讲述了在电影中使用了很多科幻的东西，便影片看起了非常刺激，电影不可非常的遵循科学，如果那样的话，他就成了物理的讲座。但是在电影中所采用的很多手段，其实在现实生活中是不存在的，文章举了几个电影作业例子。
小题1:D综合理解题。本文前两自然段介绍了本文的主要内容，即电影中很多的场面都是不能令我们信服的，电影的制作人认为我们是傻子，在实际生活中，太空是不会有爆炸的，汽油也不会因为一根香烟而爆炸。所以答案D是正确的，意为：在电影中犯的一些错误。A为一些著名电影的小伎俩；B为太空电影中的人物角色; C为太空电影的流行。均不符合文章的意思。
小题2:A细节理解题。从电影的制作者认为我们是傻子以及电影中的很多场面在现实中不会存在，例如太空的爆炸等可知电影的制作者违背了科学的常识，故答案A是正确的。
小题3:B词义理解题。第三自然段的意思是：最尽，英国的太晤士报发布了一些顶尖电影中的不令人信服的科学元素，让我们看看他们是什么吧。由此可知They是指不能令人信服的科学元素。
小题4:A段落理解题。第七自然段的意思是没有人否认这些怪怪的电影取得了好的观看效果，但是对Chivers来说，电影中的科学有点愚蠢。
考点:社会现象类文章的阅读理解。