Slashdot Mirror
Physics in the Movies
nucal writes "Here's a site rating Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics. A really thorough site with a rating system which ranges from GP (Good Physics) to XP (Obviously physics from an unknown universe)." My vote goes to the helix of M&M's.
I lost all respect (and desire to view that site) when I read the matrix review.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Maybe I am just a bit neurotic, but I spend lots of time living in the "real world" and am fairly familiar with its physics, and I notice almost every single time they violate physics. This site makes me feel so much better, as it seems that other people notice, too! :)
My favorite "bad physics" moment was in Eraser, where Arnie shoots the pickup truck several times with two rail guns held in each hand, which causes it to fly up and over him. Never mind the physics of the railgun firing in and of itself, in order to lift the truck off of the ground, the momentum must be provided by Arnie himself, transferred by the bullets to the car. So, essentially, Arnie picked a speeding pickup up and threw it over his head. (sigh). This really makes suspension of disbelief hard. Also, I don't remember exactly what they said, but they had the four DNA bases wrong in "Mission To Mars"...the correct abbreviations are A, C, T, and G (U if you are talking about RNA), but they had some wack-ass base instead of G.
BTW, I was mildly amused by the ego on display in their review of The Matrix:
Somehow, I don't think the creators were aiming to make it a "cerebral thriller". If the maintainers of intuitor.com didn't like The Matrix, that's fine, but they should review the difference between "fails to meet its potential" and "fails to meet your expectations."
That would definately have to be physics from another universe...
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
Now what kind of a dumbass analogy is that? You don't need to be shot by six bullets to get injured, one will do just fine. However I (and I'm sure most of you too) have survived 1-meter falls numerous times without injuries. Does that mean if I get shot by one bullet I wont get hurt? Hell no.
Yes a six meter fall will most likely hurt you, but pick a better analogy.
That really pissed me off, it was such a tease. When I saw the explosion and heard no sound, I said to myself "OMG, this is like the first movie since 2001 (the space oddessy) to get this right." I was so excited; it really made me feel like I was in space. Then a second later, boom. *sigh*
I don't know if maybe those were supposed to be electro-magnetic concussive waves or something, but whatever they were, it's impossible for sound to move in space. You wouldn't have heard them. On the other hand, as the site points out, flying debris moves through space quite well without any gravity or air resistance to bother with. I'd love to see a space movie where people were afraid to shoot at each other for fear of their own ships getting torn apart by the debris.
People say that adding sound to the explosions and whatnot makes it more dramatic, but I totally disagree. The silent bits in 2001 were among the most nerve-wracking in any space film. I just don't understand why people insist on going "boom."
c-hack.com |
Arrrrrgh! No! no! no!
Mr. Ebert confused the speed of the shadow of an object on Earth with the speed of the Earths Terminator.
Here's my e-mail to Mr. Ebert...
Mr. Ebert recently wrote in his review of THE MUMMY RETURNS:
"4. I have written before of the ability of movie characters to outrun fireballs. In "The Mummy Returns," there is a more amazing feat. If the rising sun touches little Alex while he is wearing the magical bracelet, he will die (it is written). But Rick, carrying Alex in his arms, is able to outrace the sunrise; we see the line of sunlight moving on the ground right behind them. It is written by Eratosthenes that the Earth is about 25,000 miles around, and since there are 24 hours in a day, Rick was running approximately 1,041 miles an hour."
Mr. Ebert is in error.
Mr. Ebert has over-simplified the geometry, and physics of the velocity of shadows generated by the Sun.
While it is true that the Earth's rotates with an angular velocity of ~7.29e-5, and thus has a tangental rotational velocity of ~1041 mph, it is manifestly untrue that a shadow cast by mountains, canyon walls, etc. also travel at 1041 mph.
The velocity of the shadow is a function of not only the Earth's angular velocity, but also of the hight of the object, the time of day, as well as the time of year.
Consider the shadow cast by a flag pole. The length of the shadow is infinite at sunrise, but at local noon it will be at minimum at local noon. If the pole is located along the equator, and it's an equinox the the shadow will have a length of zero. Thus in six hours the shadow will have gone from infinitely long to infinitely short, thus having an average velocity that is infinite. (It is written by Zeno of Elea) A second example may serve to make my point a bit better. Consider the same day, and the same flag pole, but this time let us stipulate that the flag pole is 100 feet tall. As 09:00 local time the Sun will be 45 degrees above the horizon therefore the shadow will be 100 feet long as the oppsite, and adjacent sides of a 45 degree right triangle are equal. Thus, in the three hours between 09:00, and 12:00 local time the shadow of the flag pole will have moved 100 feet. Thus, the average speed at which the shadow will move in this period will be 100 feet / 3hours = 33.33... feet per hour, or ~0.0063131313... mph. Manifestly, this is very much less that 1041 mph.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
Wasn't it something like melts in your mouth, not in your helix in outer space?
Actually, IIRC, I walked out on Mission to Mars when this woman was trying to jetpack over to this guy who was drifting slowly out into space, and let him die because she had used up half! her fuel. She was gaining on him, but of course, objects in motion (in this case, an ignorant astronaut) somehow... stayed... slowing down rapidly in outer space once she cut those jets off.
Sigh. That really annoyed me to the point where I couldn't possibly avoid yelling in a theater, which gets the men in the white coats after you.
I was really looking forward to reading this and expected to enjoy a good tongue in cheek look at Hollywood. What a disappointment. It read as though it was written by Rimmer following his mind patch on Red Dwarf. Uninspiring and anal retentive, derisive arrogance without just cause. As much as the author may think himself clever, perhaps he might care to compare his net worth to that of a big budget Hollywood producer and reconsider.
Most sad I thought was the author confusing cinematic technique with scientific ignorance. The reason bullets spark when they hit something in a movie is so you know both that they didn't hit the star of the movie, and you have a sense for how close they came to hitting the star of the movie. Something the sound of ricochets alone does not convey. It's similar to the classic sound of cameras in film, like an old fasioned flash. Almost no cameras make that sound, it's just a technique that cues the audience. A trick so you know without thinking that the flash wasn't lightening, something wrong with the film, or simply something that won't distract people into thinking "what the hell was that?" when they should be paying attention to the story.
Amazingly, he missed the most glaring sci fi physics invention - the tendency for space ships in film to bank like an airplane while making turns. Be that as it may, I'll take an X-Wing Fighter style high speed bank over a lumbering, time intensive, retro thruster burn as a "real" spaceship might be forced to make. Here's to invented physics!!
Oh well, cool idea for a website, I am just disappointed with how it turned out. I would love to see more science fiction executed with pendantic formality, but I won't trade my flights of fancy away entirely for it.
Cheers.
I may not have worked in a physics laboratory, but I understand what you mean. Man, one day I was reading Paradise Lost, and it struck me: just who does this John Milton think he is? Empyreal substance? Angels? God? What does he want, suspension of disbelief?
These fucking artists-- next thing you know, someone'll write a book about a man cursed with living death who goes around warning people not to shoot birds. I tell you, justifying the ways of God to men was bad enough, but using such poor physics? That's revolting.
sound in space -> this seems to be greatest problem with space movies at all. but i believe there are gadgets (THX certified of course) on the ships or in the ears, that scan the surrounding and give an audio-feedback, so that humans could behave in outer-space--traffic like on earth.
/. nobody knows, that you're a god!
but what really makes me thinking is why nobody complains about all the conversations with aliens in english! okay, on star trek there's a 'universal translator' and in another movie you've to swallow a pill with nanobots, which will do the translation. but why do they use the same frequencies and human-language for conversation?
but why bother about the right sound? i'm sure they've all a sony space amplifier, 'cause sound is so essential for flying a spaceship and in battles!
and can anybody explain to me, why all the spaceships (at least in star trek) just use 2 dimensions for flying around? when ships meet, they're always on the same level with the same orientation. and the energy waves (i.e. when a planet explodes) are more like a wave on a lake and no sphere. so the ship always tries to fly away and never uses the z-axis!
---
on
If I had moderator points, I'd mod you up.
This is exactly what I say to people who have a problem with this movie. (and that's always the reason they have a problem with this movie, clearly they're not terribly imaginative.)
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
I think including "2001 - A Space Odyssey" would have completed the review, stating that showing correct physics and making a good movie isn't impossible.
That wasn't the only example. He can't conceive of a machine which can act as a helicopter and a submarine at the same time -- but a hundred years ago people couldn't have conceived of helicopters in the first place. Why should he evaluate everything by present-day technology?
The Phantom Menace review was even worse. There was no real "physics" being objected to, only stuff like "if the force field can stop water, why doesn't it stop humans who are 80% water?" If we don't know how it works, how can we pass judgements on such things? Perhaps it actively detects the presence of humans or biological objects. Perhaps it only stops liquids and not solids. Perhaps any number of other explanations.
Remember Clarke's third law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Conversely, in the movies, anything which looks like magic could be the product of sufficiently advanced technology.
Overall, I'm not impressed.
I'm replying to this late and haven't read all of the posts yet, so don't kill me if this has been mentioned already.
Did anyone notice that Spiderman's powers apparently allow him to fall faster than the pull of gravity? Every time Mary Jane is falling from the sky, he somehows accelerates and catches up to her. I don't care that he may be in a more aerodynamic diving form, there's no way he could catch her in such a short distance. It's little physics things like this that so many people miss. The general public's concept of actual physical principles is fairly poor.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
1.People using other people as bullet shields. Unless it's a small gun or get's stopped by a particularly large piece of bone (the thickness of the actor's skull?) most jacketed bullets will go through the victim and into the guy behind him using him as a shield.
2.Bullets being stopped by tables, car doors or trunks and wodden walls. A 9mm bullet will go through about 9 half inch thick tables and will quite easily penetrate a car door or trunk and hit the people in the car.
3.The cars exploding on impact.
4.Unlimited amunition(tm)
5.The hero's ability to waste all the bad guys with his 9mm Pistol although they're firing at him with assault rifles on full auto.
6.Sound in Space(tm) (brought to you by Microsoft DirectSpace(R))
7.Fancy aerobatics in Space(tm)
8.Drag in Space(tm)
9.Aerodynamic spaceship that can't land on a planet (Alien got this right in the later movies)
10.Amazingly humananoid aliens(tm)
11.Slow, visible lasers.
12.The abundance of artificial gravity in space ships.
Why, when two spacecraft meet in the middle of space are they always the same way up relative to each other? Surly with no gravity or reference points, it would not be unusual to meet other space craft in space that are upside down etc.