Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sci-Fi Movies and 'Bad Science'

Posted by simoniker on from the how-about-weird-science? dept.

Roland Piquepaille writes "Science fiction movies can be fun, and sometimes boring, when Hollywood producers want to show us a 2 1/2 hour film when 90 minutes would be enough. But what about the 'science' behind them? BBC News says it's pretty bad in 'When sci-fi forgets the science.' For example, the metamorphosis of Bruce Banner into The Hulk, based on work of marine biologist Greg Szulgit from Hiram College, Ohio, about sea cucumbers, is qualified by himself as "really awful"." The Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics website, which we've previously mentioned, is referenced in this article, and is now freshly updated to deal with movies like The Hulk.

3 of 958 comments (clear)

  1. Must be a record. by fleppir · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Time to /. the Intuitor website:

    2.3 seconds :D

    --
    I am the Barber of Seville.
  2. Re:You mean like "Superman"??? by Gaijin42 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    a) you dont know that she reached terminal velocity. She only fell for a few seconds, so at 9.8m/s/s she could be going only 20m/s or so.

    b) you dont know how fast he flew

    c) regardless of how fast he flew, he could have stopped and even started falling when he got even with her, to give her a gradual reduction in speed.

  3. Well... by OneIsNotPrime · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I hope I am not too presumptive too think I speak for the entire Slashdot community in saying...

    OBVIOUSLY ...and, while I have this chance to speak for everyone

    SHOW A LITTLE EFFORT IN YOUR WORK, EDITORS!

    and

    ICE CREAM IS A SUMPTOUS TREAT. ...

    There... now I pass for a Slashdot editor.

    --

    ---

    WARNING:Slashdot karma not redeemable in the afterlife.