Slashdot Mirror

They did ...

That should have been linked to the "insultingly stupid movie physics" review.

I just watched that. Leaving aside all questions about the quality of the animation, it appears that the Biker Tux rides his motorcycle through a plate-glass window and into a bunch of other Penguins.

Biker Tux may wish to kill some or all of those imprisoned Penguins, but that is still not a good idea.

As one who waited in those lines back in the 70s, I can attest to that aspect of the first Star Wars. That's the only one of the series that did much for me. It was an exciting movie, different from anything we had seen (and don't talk to me about Star Trek, that was pretty amateur by comparison, although to be fair, it predates Star Wars by considerable - can you say 1966!).

Seeing it on a big screen - and I'm not talking about the little screens used in most theatres today, they are more like large TVs than like real movie screens - was really awesome (the Uptown in NW Washington is still the place to see real movies). Of course, in Star Trek, (at least the older episodes) the explosions in space were silent, unlike most space explosions we see now, which for some reason can be heard. Whatever happened to the idea that "in space, no one can hear you scream?" Of course, if you want "scientific realism" then perhaps movies are not for you. See: http://intuitor.com/moviephysics/

I didn't care nearly as much for the other two "older" Star Wars movies but the newer two are certainly worse even than they were. The silly teddy-bears in Return of the Jedi were bad enough, but Ja-Ja (or whatever) is really annoying. Some of the "animated" sequences are also a bit much. This holds true for other movies, too, like the Bond flick where he "surfs" on a huge wave from a calving glacier. Not particularly realistic but I guess it's the state of the art. Golum in LOTR was likewise not what could be hoped for. But that's what you get with cartoons, even sophisticated cartoons.

When it comes to action movies, they are usually best the first time round. Consider the Indiana Jones movies. Harrison Ford is a fine actor and has done many good movies but you aren't going to watch any but the first of the Jones movies more than once and that one only once in a great while. They are just too much like watching a professional wrestler "come back to life" to finish off an opponent after being nearly killed only moments before. Realistic? I don't think so. They can be fun to watch (once in a while) when you don't know what's coming but they aren't going to be mistaken for fine art.

Just from watching the trailers it looks like it will be another contender for inclusion on various bad movie websites.

How much of the public will be mislead into thinking thats how it really happens? I still cringe whenever Armageddon is on.

Somewhere on the INSULTINGLY STUPID MOVIE PHYSICS site there was a quote that said basically, "You can expect your audience to believe the impossible, but not the extremely improbable."

This means that it's okay to have time travel from the future to steal some documents, but it's NOT okay to have them guess the safe combination on their first try. Now to someone who knew nothing about safes, this might be okay, cause they don't know any better so it doesn't bother them. But someone with even a basic knowledge of safes will think this is stupid and it will annoy them.

The grandparent post was correct in saying that if you have flying pigs in your movie you'd better explain them somehow. Maybe the movie takes place in a fantasy world or maybe there's a mad scientist who created them, but you have to offer SOME kind of explaination. If halfway through Casablanca Bogart sent a message by flying pig it would be a glaring sore spot for everyone and would detract from the whole movie.

Nowadays I'm so used to people saying "enhance" and having pixellated computer images suddenly become hi-res that when a movie doesn't pull this I'm impressed and suddenly have more respect for the movie makers.

Jeff Goldblum's magic Mac in Independence Day is the classic example. We're willing to accept that aliens have come to destroy earth cause that's what the movie is about, but connecting to an alien computer system and infecting them with a virus? Come on! Arthur C. Clarke used this same basic idea in 3001: The Final Odessey, but he gave a very reasoned explaination of how this worked. You can't just dump something like that in a movie and expect anyone with even a basic knowledge of computers to buy it without explaination.

It's not that we're "pedantic whiny-asses", it's that we know it's stupid. Suspension of disbelief doesn't mean throwing your brain out the window, it means accepting certain basic concepts as necessary for the director to tell his story.

I doubt it. They still wouldn't give a fuck. I KNOW the REAL physics, and sometimes it just doesn't matter.

Sometimes it doesn't matter. Sometimes it does. My point is that the more physics people know, the more it will matter because it affects the believability.

Reality isn't fun. It isn't interesting. I live here, it's fucking boring. I don't want to watch movies filled with people acting like everyone I know doing the usual things I do.

No one said it has to be all true, just believable.

I want to see something INTERESTING.

It can be interesting and correct at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.

It's called "Suspension of Disbelief".

Suspension of Disbelief still requires it to be believable. It has to be at least remotely possible. If a guy jumped from the sidewalk to the top of a thirty story building with no explanation for his ability to do so, I'm willing to bet even you would say "that's bullshit. It can't happen". The only difference between that and most bad movie physics is that people know better. The existence of midget bears and turd-shaped monsters hasn't been conclusively proven to be impossible, while a shotgun blast knocking a guy through a plate glass window (without getting cut, mind you) has. If everybody knew that being shot wouldn't knock you through a window, how often do you think we'd see it in movies?

You might want to look up the Hydroplate Theory as one possible alternative (granted this link is from a creationist website I found on google, but the science is at least plausible, as opposed to the nonsense found here)

I always thought teaching of phsics with movie would be most efficient by showing the bad examples, so people won't start to think that reality is governed by the same mad-up laws of physics as seen in most action flicks. Lots of bad examples are listed at INSULTINGLY STUPID MOVIE PHYSICS

Movie physics site

BBC Link

And would they cover things like the cranking the van up the sand dune in Ice Cold In Alex

mind this studies :)

It would never happen to other proprietary sources of information, such as technical manuals or computer programs.

Give people a way to pay money for something that's available now for free and they'll pay every time!

Just maybe it's possible that people aren't complete idiots after all!

Oh. Never mind...

Looks like two significant figures to me. I want my thirty one cubits.

Actually, it looks like we're measuring to the nearest multiple of 5 cubits. Diameter = 10 (+/- 2.5), circumference = 30 (+/- 2.5).

Of course, the entire exercise is silly. It's like trying to back into Bruce Willis' orbital calculations.

When I want to know how big a sphere is, I'll get a ruler. When I want to know the meaning of life, I'll turn to faith. When I want to reply to anonymous troll, I'll visit Slashdot.

Intuitor had a great article about this awhile ago.

For a different point of view, go to Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics. In particular, check out their write-up on Spider Man.

For a different point of view, go to Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics. In particular, check out their write-up on Spider Man.

The Core and Real Science should never ever appear within the same train of thought. Not only was it a horrendous movie, but the physics they used to explain it was complete garbage.

This is silly. Everyone knows that the microwave beams can't penetrate the electro-magnetic field created by the earth's spinning core!

The Weekly Standard's Jonathan V. Last has written a scathing review, The Matrix: Exposed of the 'The Matrix: Revolutions'. Typical quotation: '"Revolutions" reveals that underneath the philosophy, allegory, and intellectual pretension of "The Matrix" is a great big wad of nothing.'

His article points to the site Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics which Last claims will have a field day with the latest Matrix installment. ISMP rated Matrix: Reloaded RP = Retch.

Leave off the apostrophe in the URL: http://www.intuitor.com/statistics/SimpsonsParadox .html

A statistical fluke known Simpson's Paradox?

Well, it's a good opportunity to send Bruce Willis up there so that he can prove that this is all nonsense and that HE got it right.

Don't forget about Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics. Let's see what they have to say about Hulk.

Don't forget about Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics. Let's see what they have to say about Hulk.

1. This was the first Hulk movie.
2. The Hulk origin story is worth telling.
3. This movie, being first, had to tell it.

And that telling was woefully worse than the TV show, and thats saying quite a bit.

4. Hulk's origin story nessecitates a experimental science setting involving high energy radiation, and explaining, even with much hand waving, where his super powers come from.

As did Spider-Man's origions. But you don't see such inane appologetics that make a mockery of science and drain the "wow" factor of the plot.

But hey, I'm not the retard who can't see the patently supperficial yet obvious similarity between human tissue greatly expanding for some silly reason, and sea cucumber tissue greatly expanding for some silly scientist before returning to their original states.

No apperently you that retard.

As for your IQ points, they were almost certainly declining before Ang Lee got anywhere near them.

Moron.

Come on. In reality, you would never need to approach something that fast, the orientation of your ship wouldn't matter, you couldn't bank a hard left turn, and if you smacked into an object like that it would only happen once, as you would then bounce off it, out of control, and out into space.

This movie was made by a bunch of english lit. guys and it never occurred to them to get the opinion of someone who had passed at least one science or math class in high school. I saw it years ago, and it still pisses me off that this kind of crap can get through the Hollywood corporate machine. What kind of idiots to they think we are?

But then again, it appears that they are right, and we are idiots, because it made assloads of money. And I can't even exclude myself from the idiocy, because I saw it too. Therein lies the problem. Any film you've can criticize, you have seen, and therefore you have supported, and therefore they will make more like that. There is no escape.

I also hate this crap but i don't think the film makers are answering to market demand for CGI. I think part of the reason for it's prevalence are the filmakers' personal infatuations with this technology.
I watched the commentary track for a bunch of movies that incorporated CGI and noticed the near-orgasmic way that directors and other filmakers will talk about these shots. It's almost like a child playing with a new toy, except that the child is an ugly old guy producing crap.
I think what sums it up the best was something I read on the Insultingly stupid movie physics website. They said that audiences appreciate good physics. Noone outside of the /. community is gonna stand up in the middle of a movie theater and go: "DAMN that's good physics!" But nonetheless this holds true. Unless scenes are done _very_ skillfully most people will prefer those shot closer in line with reality, whether it's the elimination of CGI or of quadruple somersault backflip kickpunches.

(Disclaimer: there might be bad physics involved in this posting)

When I startet this posting, I realized, that all bad jokes about Seti@home were already made and there is nothing more to invent left. Let's try a new approach:

Recounting? That reminds me of something...
Florida, I hear you calling. Will the number of Aliens found increase or decrease when you recount the number of blibs and blurbs coming out from the Universe? Will the Federal Court of the Universe stop this recount by a 5:3?

Well, if someone could finish this pointe.

The only thing the entertainment industry has any skill at is entertaining people. And even then, I find them questionable.

frob

"To cover itself, the movie throws in a quick mention that the human energy source powering the machines is combined with a source of fusion. This is like getting on a 747 and having the captain explain in great detail that the plane is rubber band powered, then add that it also has four jet engines."

It was here. I dunno. Just made me think of that.

Consider portability - you fire a small piece of steel at several thousand kph... the recoil is going to blow off your own arm. Every reaction and whatnot...

From Movie Physics in the Classroom:

As Lee observes, "...they said the physics [of the rail gun] were impossible", and we're inclined to heartily agree. The first problem is a nasty little law of physics called conservation of momentum. Briefly, this states that the forward momentum of the bullet must be counteracted by the backward momentum of the gun. The magnitude of an object's momentum is equal to its mass times the magnitude of its velocity, as expressed by the following equation:

p = mv

We know that the bullet is travelling close to the speed of light (3 × 108 m/s). To be conservative, we will assume the bullet travels at only half the speed of light, and that its mass is about the mass of a paper clip (0.0005 kg). For the sake of simplicity, we will ignore the effects of relativity, which would cause the bullet's mass to be even greater. Thus, we calculate the bullet's momentum:

pbullet = (0.0005 kg)(½)(3 × 108 m/s) = 7.5 × 104 Ns

If we assume the mass of the rifle is 10 kg, its backward velocity must be 7.5 × 104 Ns divided by 10 kg, which equals 7500 m/s. Compared to the velocity of a .45 cal bullet going a sedate 330 m/s, our rail gun would be a mite difficult to hold.

Okay, so the gun has a little kickback; so what? Well, let's look at the bullet's kinetic energy, calculated from the equation:

KE = ½mv2

Hence, the kinetic energy of the bullet would be:

KEbullet = (½)(0.0005 kg)(1.5 × 108 m/s)2 = 5.625 × 1012 J

The impact of our bullet would be like blowing up over 1000 tons of TNT. Needless to say this would take out a little more than just Vanessa Williams.

-T

Read about The Matrix' bad movie Physics from the Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics Page

Read about The Matrix' bad movie Physics from the Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics Page

Dave

Thad: Our charter is to create the sequence that the director of the film wants for his movie; that usually means building things that look and move like things do in real life. Often we would use real-world physics to do this. Typically, though, we take extremely simplified views of the real world to make the computations more simple, and to make them run faster.

However, movies typically include a bunch of made-up bullshit physics: cars explode on contact with anything, lead bullets flash when they hit things, everything in Armageddon, etc..

Are movie directors and other industry people generally aware of how bad physics in movies often is? If so, why do they allow the nonsense to continue? Who puts the bad physics into movies, and who tries to stop them/fix it?

How often, if ever, do you tell directors "That's not how things work".

Hex time is already available: Hex Headquarters

First thing I thought when I saw "Isn't it Time for Metric Time", I thought about HEX Time. Which although makes sense in a technological sense, it's about as easy to convert as binary time and metric time. Yah, you can count on your fingers up to thirty five in HEX... or up to 1,023 in Binary but it's just annoying to switch.

Honestly, what else are you going to get out of switching to Base-2 or Base-6 or even Base-10 for time? Easier coding? Not really, instead of the computer doing the conversion, you will be for the next couple years until it makes sense.

Think of this, how long does it take you to quit writing checks for the previous year in January? Or when we switched over to 2000, how long did you write 1900? Things like this have been proposed, anyone remember Internet Time, ie: .beat or @time? I will give Swatch Time one big kudo, during the Dot-Com era, I did see it on CNN and MSNBC once or twice, it went a bit futher than any other time went.

None of the current ideas are "intuitive" to humans, not enough studying has been done, and no one big enough has adopted it and kept it.

Best of luck, good article though.

-M

First thing I thought when I saw "Isn't it Time for Metric Time", I thought about HEX Time. Which although makes sense in a technological sense, it's about as easy to convert as binary time and metric time. Yah, you can count on your fingers up to thirty five in HEX... or up to 1,023 in Binary but it's just annoying to switch.

Honestly, what else are you going to get out of switching to Base-2 or Base-6 or even Base-10 for time? Easier coding? Not really, instead of the computer doing the conversion, you will be for the next couple years until it makes sense.

Think of this, how long does it take you to quit writing checks for the previous year in January? Or when we switched over to 2000, how long did you write 1900? Things like this have been proposed, anyone remember Internet Time, ie: .beat or @time? I will give Swatch Time one big kudo, during the Dot-Com era, I did see it on CNN and MSNBC once or twice, it went a bit futher than any other time went.

None of the current ideas are "intuitive" to humans, not enough studying has been done, and no one big enough has adopted it and kept it.

Best of luck, good article though.

-M

First thing I thought when I saw "Isn't it Time for Metric Time", I thought about HEX Time. Which although makes sense in a technological sense, it's about as easy to convert as binary time and metric time. Yah, you can count on your fingers up to thirty five in HEX... or up to 1,023 in Binary but it's just annoying to switch.

Honestly, what else are you going to get out of switching to Base-2 or Base-6 or even Base-10 for time? Easier coding? Not really, instead of the computer doing the conversion, you will be for the next couple years until it makes sense.

Think of this, how long does it take you to quit writing checks for the previous year in January? Or when we switched over to 2000, how long did you write 1900? Things like this have been proposed, anyone remember Internet Time, ie: .beat or @time? I will give Swatch Time one big kudo, during the Dot-Com era, I did see it on CNN and MSNBC once or twice, it went a bit futher than any other time went.

None of the current ideas are "intuitive" to humans, not enough studying has been done, and no one big enough has adopted it and kept it.

Best of luck, good article though.

-M

But I propose a switch to hexadecimal. While we're at it, let's switch the U.S. to Celsius, switch the U.S. to metric units, win the war on 'terrorism', save the whales, and assume pi is equal to 3.
Or, we could just not attempt to change things that have been established for centuries.

The physics were completely XP.

To start off with, our boy TC jumps from one rapidly falling car thingy to another more-rapidly falling car thingy just like anybody could jump from a three foot portch. Hello? Newtonian physics?

Then there's the jetpack scene. Guy in jetpack is flying around at incredible lift/weight ratios with standard rocket propelled thrust. As if that wasn't bad enough, these things can actually cary THREE PEOPLE, with armor weapons and backpacks! And all of this done with about an 8 inch flame. And evidently for a gosh-darn good amount of time.

To top it off, these amazing devices can skim the ground at about 3' without any wings to use for lift!

Then there's the whole problem of temporal paradoxes. Evidently TC has been set up to find this guy by his 3V|7 boss who pretends to be the man who kidnaped his kid. Fair enough. But how did the "precog" see this happening when seeing it happen is what caused it to happen. There would have had to be an initiator for the temporal paradox to have occurred. Somewhere along the timeline something would have had to put TC in the room with the fake-rapist without the intervention of the precog. But wait, we can't travel in time, so that's not possible. Evidently this "precog" isn't just seeing the future, she's creating it.

Then there's the villain himself, who somehow turns from noble champion of justice into a person willing to do anything , including murder innocent people, just for the perfect justice system. Yet he's not portrayed as a madman, because he shoots himself in the end.

I'm informing you in this message that your use of decimal is disturbing to geeks. Why did you choose to use decimal? I'd really like to know. We may have ten fingers, but we don't even use decimal for time. Decimal is clearly for stupid people. I think it likely that you do not know what radices mean, or else you would be using hexadecimal. Read about hexadecimal at intuitor and repost your comment using hexadecimal. You may use "0x" as a prefix or "h" as a suffix for the numbers. Intelligent people despise decimal--so try to show some intelligence. So do you know what hexadecimal is? Reply to this and prove it, otherwise we will assume that you are stupid.

Personalized message:

Hmm?

I'm informing you in this message that your use of decimal is disturbing to geeks. Why did you choose to use decimal? I'd really like to know. We may have ten fingers, but we don't even use decimal for time. Decimal is clearly for stupid people. I think it likely that you do not know what radices mean, or else you would be using hexadecimal. Read about hexadecimal at intuitor and repost your comment using hexadecimal. You may use "0x" as a prefix or "h" as a suffix for the numbers. Intelligent people despise decimal--so try to show some intelligence. So do you know what hexadecimal is? Reply to this and prove it, otherwise we will assume that you are stupid.

Personalized message:

How many minutes? Hmm?

I'm informing you in this message that your use of decimal is disturbing to geeks. Why did you choose to use decimal? I'd really like to know. We may have ten fingers, but we don't even use decimal for time. Decimal is clearly for stupid people. I think it likely that you do not know what radices mean, or else you would be using hexadecimal. Read about hexadecimal at intuitor and repost your comment using hexadecimal. You may use "0x" as a prefix or "h" as a suffix for the numbers. Intelligent people despise decimal--so try to show some intelligence. So do you know what hexadecimal is? Reply to this and prove it, otherwise we will assume that you are stupid.

Personalized message:

How many lines? Two errors. Stupid idiot.

I'm informing you in this message that your use of decimal is disturbing to geeks. Why did you choose to use decimal? I'd really like to know. We may have ten fingers, but we don't even use decimal for time. Decimal is clearly for stupid people. I think it likely that you do not know what radices mean, or else you would be using hexadecimal. Read about hexadecimal at intuitor and repost your comment using hexadecimal. You may use "0x" as a prefix or "h" as a suffix for the numbers. Intelligent people despise decimal--so try to show some intelligence. So do you know what hexadecimal is? Reply to this and prove it, otherwise we will assume that you are stupid.

Personalized message:

I see two grave errors. Reply as a repost or admit your stupidity.

I'm informing you in this message that your use of decimal is disturbing to geeks. Why did you choose to use decimal? I'd really like to know. We may have ten fingers, but we don't even use decimal for time. Decimal is clearly for stupid people. I think it likely that you do not know what radices mean, or else you would be using hexadecimal. Read about hexadecimal at intuitor and repost your comment using hexadecimal. You may use "0x" as a prefix or "h" as a suffix for the numbers. Intelligent people despise decimal--so try to show some intelligence. So do you know what hexadecimal is? Reply to this and prove it, otherwise we will assume that you are stupid.

Personalized message:

Idiot. What out of what? Repost and stop being an idiot.

I'm informing you in this message that your use of decimal is disturbing to geeks. Why did you choose to use decimal? I'd really like to know. We may have ten fingers, but we don't even use decimal for time. Decimal is clearly for stupid people. I think it likely that you do not know what radices mean, or else you would be using hexadecimal. Read about hexadecimal at intuitor and repost your comment using hexadecimal. You may use "0x" as a prefix or "h" as a suffix for the numbers. Intelligent people despise decimal--so try to show some intelligence. So do you know what hexadecimal is? Reply to this and prove it, otherwise we will assume that you are stupid.

Personalized message:

If you have to use out of a hundred, just say 1Eh/64h. Unless you're stupid and can't figure it out. Then just don't reply.

I'm informing you in this message that your use of decimal is disturbing to geeks. Why did you choose to use decimal? I'd really like to know. We may have ten fingers, but we don't even use decimal for time. Decimal is clearly for stupid people. I think it likely that you do not know what radices mean, or else you would be using hexadecimal. Read about hexadecimal at intuitor and repost your comment using hexadecimal. You may use "0x" as a prefix or "h" as a suffix for the numbers. Intelligent people despise decimal--so try to show some intelligence. So do you know what hexadecimal is? Reply to this and prove it, otherwise we will assume that you are stupid.

Personalized message:

What percentile? Use hexadecimal percentages (out of 256).

I'm informing you in this message that your use of decimal is disturbing to geeks. Why did you choose to use decimal? I'd really like to know. We may have ten fingers, but we don't even use decimal for time. Decimal is clearly for stupid people. I think it likely that you do not know what radices mean, or else you would be using hexadecimal. Read about hexadecimal at intuitor and repost your comment using hexadecimal. You may use "0x" as a prefix or "h" as a suffix for the numbers. Intelligent people despise decimal--so try to show some intelligence. So do you know what hexadecimal is? Reply to this and prove it, otherwise we will assume that you are stupid.

Personalized message:

How many in the list? Stupid decimal-using idiot.

I'm informing you in this message that your use of decimal is disturbing to geeks. Why did you choose to use decimal? I'd really like to know. We may have ten fingers, but we don't even use decimal for time. Decimal is clearly for stupid people. I think it likely that you do not know what radices mean, or else you would be using hexadecimal. Read about hexadecimal at intuitor and repost your comment using hexadecimal. You may use "0x" as a prefix or "h" as a suffix for the numbers. Intelligent people despise decimal--so try to show some intelligence. So do you know what hexadecimal is? Reply to this and prove it, otherwise we will assume that you are stupid.

Personalized message:

It's the percentage that is bad.

I'm informing you in this message that your use of decimal is disturbing to geeks. Why did you choose to use decimal? I'd really like to know. We don't even use decimal for many of our basic needs (time especially). Decimal is clearly for dinosarus. I think it likely that you do not know what radices mean, or else you would be using hexadecimal. Read about hexadecimal at intuitor and repost your comment using hexadecimal. You may use "0x" as a prefix or "h" as a suffix for the numbers. Intelligent people despise decimal--so try to show some intelligence. So do you know what hexadecimal is? Reply to this and prove it, otherwise we will assume that you are stupid.

Personalized message:

How many tracks? Idiot.