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.
Windows XP, eXtreme Programming, XPCOM, eXperience Points, "Cross Platform", and now this. It's got to be one of the most overloaded acronyms of all time.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
They give the coveted GP == Good Physics award to Seven Years in Tibet...?!?! Like... okay? How about we give other coveted Good Physics awards to Lolita, Joy Luck Club, Pi, True Stories, and Office Space since they were so full of projectile cars, falling, laser beams, and other physical effects that could be modelled poorly???
Then they go and say the Matrix had questionable physics, despite the fact that a key element of the plot is that the physics of the world are simply rules in a computer which Morpheus so eloquently describes: "some can be bent, others broken."
I'm gonna just have to go ahead and disagree with you there.
fifth sigma, inc.
I liked the comment about the sniper rifles and laser sights, mostly because they're wrong. They were correct in stating that the army doesn't use LASER sights for sniper rifles, however, as an army friend was recently telling me, they now use a form of IASER for sights.
The IASER basically paints an infrared dot as opposed to a visible light dot, thus it can't be seen with human eyes. But, If one is looking through the infrared sight of a sniper rifle, it is clear as day. Thus, one gets all the advantages of a laser sight without letting the victim know of his impending death ahead of time.
One thing to note though, is that these sights are only really practical on sniper rifles, as one would have to be wearing infrared goggles for them to work on normal guns.
Star Wars has some strange physics. For example, 'Light Speed' makes a trip to Tatooine seem like a a weekend camping trip.
Just to tweak the people who take SW too seriously (they read the books, and the books tried to patch up obvious flaws in the script...), I came up with a theory that the Star Wars galaxy is scaled down to about 1/3rd of a lightyear wide. (Remember the galaxy in MiB?)
You'd think they'd be receptive to this idea, afterall it explains a lot of strange physics in the movies. (Like people falling from 30 feet without injury...) It even gives motivation for the Force to 'surround all life forms'. Nope, it created contraversy.
You see, SW fanatics think that the Empire could wipe out the Federation in Star Trek. If a Star Destroyer is virtually microscopic, it cannot possibly fight the Enterprise.
Amusing, isn't it?
"Derp de derp."
If you set off some sort of explosion outside the space shuttle for example, would the force of the explosion move through the shuttle?
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
In reality you will not be able to hear the laser guns firing on another ship or the screech of its engines as it files by, and you will not be able to hear the death star explode. This is of course because space is a vacuum and sound does not travel through it.
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.
God forbid that I attempt to defend Trek physics, but I'm not sure why you believe that the orbital velocity of any spaceship has much of anything to do with the mechanics of doing an EVA or a hull excursion.
Yes, a ship in orbit around a planet is moving at several thousand miles an hour, with the associated inertia. But guess what? As a fringe benefit of being inside the ship during liftoff and orbital insertion, so are you. Your own body's velocity relative to the planet does not suddenly change as a result of stepping out of an airlock. You'll stay close to the ship until you apply some force to push yourself away from it -- hence the little backpack-mounted gas jets that Shuttle astronauts use for EVAs.
As far as the boots are concerned, they didn't strike me as terribly unrealistic. Put an electromagnet in the sole, and a pressure switch inside the top of the boot that switches the magnet off when you apply enough upward pressure on it with your foot. Et voila.
Orbital EVAs are incredibly tricky things; just not for any of the reasons you describe here.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
Nitpicking makes a movie better! Every time I'm watching TV with my friends, and I see a physical error, I pause it with Tivo, and draw out a diagram of how it cannot happen. My friend threatened to shoot me with an Uzi for doing this, but I reminded him that a Mac 10 is what the REAL action heroes use.
In my oppinion about the worst movie error was in "Voyage to the bottom of the sea".
In this movie the Van Allen radiation belt above the earth catches fire, slowly roasting the planet. Pretty silly, but that's not the mistake I mean. In a rush to save the planet the nuclear sub Seaview races under the polar ice cap. The Icecap begins to break up from the intense heat and we get to see huge chunks of ice come crashing down on the sub...
Think about that scene a moment. Submarine a hundred or so feet under water. Blocks of ice raining down and hitting the hull. What's wrong with this picture?
+
+
+
+
ICE FLOATS!
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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 |
Quoted directly from this page "Lawrence Krauss, in the book Beyond Star Trek, points out that an object with a quarter of the moon's mass, parked in geostationary orbit would create a tide producing gravity force 25 times higher than the one caused by the moon. This would flood coastal areas and disrupt geological formations resulting in earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, not to mention extreme weather changes.
According to Krauss' calculations these disasters of biblical proportions would only be the beginning. If it took the mother RV an hour to slow down, the energy released by its engines would be about 10 times greater than the entire luminosity of the sun. We'd be fried before the aliens even arrived. In the movie, however, we are somehow miraculously spared from these inconveniences"
So I guess the Death Star needs no giant laser cannon to destroy planets just grab a handicapped spot in front of any planet and watch it rip to shreds.
If you are a geek or have geeky friends the green laser's a must-buy. You have to be damn careful with it though; it's much easier to permanently blind someone with the green laser than a standard red one, and it's difficult to look directly at the spot it creates on a surface unless the batteries are almost flat.
I'm still looking for a blue one :-)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Hey now! Automan totally ruled. I have a whole bunch of it in DiVX too! I remember liking it when I was a kid because it was the first show I ever saw that actually involved computers and, yes, hackers (the REAL kind).
Granted, it's total BS, but it's entertaining.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
they are supposed be fictional.
But fiction needs consistency and a connection to the real world to be successful. What if Captain Ahab had chased Moby Dick to land, wherein Moby and Ahab's ship sprouted legs and continuted chase? Would you have accepted that? Some of these physics errors are nearly that bad to anyone familiar with the subject, and come in movies that are set in realistic settings that shouldn't have whales sprouting legs and Macs interfacing with alien technology on an instant's notice.
Uninspiring and anal retentive, derisive arrogance without just cause.
I found the site to be entertaining in its derision. And I feel his pain, as a fairly intelligent geek whose intelligence is regularly insulted by the mass media which is dumbed-down for the great unwashed masses.
As Homer lamented before he had Moe hammer the crayon back into his brain to make him a dope again, "I'm a Spalding Gray in a Rick Dees world!"
Sadly, movies are not made for the intelligent minority, they are made for the people who need a "Caution! HOT!" warning on their coffee cups. The Matrix was probably the closest we'll ever get to a thinking man's movie, and I heard somewhere that even that was dumbed down a tad (IIRC, the enslaved humans were originally supposed to be part of a tremendously huge RAID via their unused brain capacity, instead of as an energy source).
~Philly
actually, Han Solo clearly gives a hint on SW Physics in 2 points:
1) "...Jump to hyperspace..." There not traveling "light speed" there travelling in an alternate space.
2)Kessel Run in 1.2 parsec. Everybody assume its a mistake, I never believed its a mistake. I also believed Kessel Run was some "flat space" distance, say 10 parsecs, but the challenge was to complete it by traveling the shortest distance in real space. so by traveling in hyperspace, you can travel a shorter distance then in "real space"
Imagine bending space, ot a worm hole.
I came up with that in 1977, when everybody was boohooih the parsec "mistake".
Now, perhaps Hyperspace is an alternate universe that is smaller, so you punch into the alternate universe, travel some distance, then come back to this univers and you may have travelled 3 time the ditance.
NO, I am not a star wars fanboy, but I used to be. Fortunatly, getting beat up with several movie release to video, each a little better then before, then realesing the stinker as ep 1, I'm not much of a fan anymore.The fact that I have yet to see ep2 astonishes some of my long time fans.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"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."
Hey bud, I totally agree with your point about Rimmerian arrogance, but the geek side of me wanted to argue this spaceship banking bit...
I'll use the Enterprise from STNG as an example. That ship (particularly the saucer section...) can generate a great deal of lateral thrust, presumably to hold a position close over a planet. It stands to reason that this thrust is much stronger than thrust from any other direction on the ship. I can imagine the ship banking to take advantage of the lateral thrust so that it can peform a 180 quicker.
I'm not trying to deflate your point, I think you're right. I just have a hot-button with that particular issue because I don't see too many people actually thinking about how a ship like that might need to bank. Rather, they'd use a generic "There's no air in space, so an airplane could be pushed in any direction" rule of physics to say: "Ah, I found a flaw and can explain it, so I'm smarter than the people who don't care about the issue."
Using a little more imagination, they could figure out a plausible solution. But there's no benfit to that. "Man, that just wouldn't work" sounds a hell of a lot cooler than my explanation for why it might work. (I could tell by the expression on my gf's face... heh)
"Derp de derp."
"What if Captain Ahab had chased Moby Dick to land, wherein Moby and Ahab's ship sprouted legs and continuted chase?"
I would love to see that version, heh.
What you said reminded me of Hithhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, particularly where the Improbability Drive turned a missile into a whale. How could a FTL drive do that? Because it was improbable! heh
Just about any physics can be accepted in the proper context, which some movies fail to explain too well. Few people criticize animated movies, for example. However, the comment about the physics in the Matrix sparked a heated "It's all a computer simulation!" rebuttal.
If you want an interesting example of context fixing scripting oddities, watch the first 3 eps of Robotech, and then read the first Robotech novel. (There are 6 books total....) There are some cheesy lines in the ep, but the book gave more attention to the context, while having the character deliver the exact same lines. I couldn't believe how much more mature it felt.
"Derp de derp."
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.
In 2001, Kubrick uses the "no sound in a vacuum" fact to amazing effect. The 2 scenes that stand out in my mind are when Dave picks up the body using the pod's claws (you really get the sense of weightlessness from the silence) and again a few minutes later when Dave comes in through the emergency airlock: the explosion, him thrashing about, etc are all silent until the airlock finally closes, at which point you get the rush of air and the tension can ebb away.
OK, so some people think 2001 is *way* too boring and slow to count as entertainment. But for me it shows that if you want the sound of an explosion, put the camera somewhere where it can be heard, don't just cheat and dub the effect on afterwards! I want to feel like I'm *in* the film, not just watching it...
- Oliver
The right to bear arms is only slightly less stupid than the right to arm bears...
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, remember?
Now, if Arnie had fired both railguns simultaneously, in opposite directions... :-)
I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.
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.
The one that really annoyed me was spidey's web being able to 'stick' to a steel bridge even with a friggin' car full of people hanging from it (and him). Please. Flinging the web around the girder would have been at least a 'little' believable.
Like how you can jump on missiles in the air, and then they keep going in the same direction without deflection. All attacks must be called out by name, even if they're as simple as pushing a button on a control panel. The best pilots have hair that completely covers one eye. And of course, all the usual Hollywood ones like the guns that never run out of ammo (unless it's a plot point to run out of ammo), and the Stormtrooper Effect (best parodied by the Rambo scene in UHF.)
Don't even get me started on the Laws of Anime Cooking.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
was when he pointed out how Itchy played Scratchy's rib like a xylophone, but when he struck a particular rib, it made distinctly two notes! That was some really screwed up physics!
I heard someone got fired for that one.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
That's great, but I think we've all seen this list before.
When NASA first started sending up astronauts, they quickly discovered that ball-point pens would not work in 0 gravity. To combat this problem, NASA scientists spent a decade and $12 billion developing a pen that writes in zero gravity, upside down, underwater, on almost any surface including glass and at temperatures ranging from below freezing to over 300C.
This is another moldy oldy, and what's more, it's wrong:
NASA never asked Paul C. Fisher to produce a pen. When the astronauts began to fly, like the Russians, they used pencils, but the leads sometimes broke and became a hazard by floating in the [capsule's] atmosphere where there was no gravity. They could float into an eye or nose or cause a short in an electrical device. In addition, both the lead and the wood of the pencil could burn rapidly in the pure oxygen atmosphere. Paul Fisher realized the astronauts needed a safer and more dependable writing instrument, so in July 1965 he developed the pressurized ball pen, with its ink enclosed in a sealed, pressurized ink cartridge. Fisher sent the first samples to Dr. Robert Gilruth, Director of the Houston Space Center. The pens were all metal except for the ink, which had a flash point above 200C. The sample Space Pens were thoroughly tested by NASA. They passed all the tests and have been used ever since on all manned space flights, American and Russian. All research and developement costs were paid by Paul Fisher. No development costs have ever been charged to the government.
-a
How to rationalize theft.