Slashdot Mirror
Physics Goes To Hollywood
pigreco314 writes "What do films like Independence Day, Armageddon and X-Men have in common? The answer is that apart from costing millions of dollars to make, they all feature in a new course called Physics in Films that is being taught to students at the University of Central Florida, according to PhysicsWeb. Costas Efthimiou, the mathematical physicist who teaches the course, believes that non-science students learn more about the fundamentals of physics by studying films and science fiction than they do from more traditional approaches." Among the topics discussed is "the conservation of momentum in Tango and Cash."
mind this studies :)
Trolling using another account since 2005.
For every slashdotting, there is an equal and opposite failure of the webserver?
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
But it's just another course trying to entice non-science students to do science. What's the point?
In UK universities in 2003, there were around 35,000 applications made to study Sports Science BSc. To study Materials Science, 37. Just thirty-seven.
Which do you think produces better scientists?
#define struct union
Hollywood is nothing but a political machine. Can't wait for Michael Moore's "Farenheit 9/11" to come out!
It's All Politics
Due to vital maintenance work, some Institute of Physics Web sites will be unavailable for a short period.
This work is part of an ongoing programme of improvements, designed to maximise the reliability and performance of our Web sites and services.
Pages provided directly by the Institute are available as normal.
We apologise for any inconvenience, and hope you will visit again soon.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Customer Services on:
Electronic Product Support
Institute of Physics Publishing
Dirac House
Bristol
BS1 6BE
UK
Tel: +44 (0) 117 929 7481
Fax: +44 (0) 117 929 4318
E-mail: custserv@iop.org
Action movies are notorious for not respecting basic laws of physics. For example:
...etc...
- A guy gets shot by a bullet, gets thrown backward 10 feet.
- A car jumps over something without a launching pad
- A car jumps over something and flies straight into the air, and lands flat (real cars tip forward when they do that)
- A computer hacker does something real quick on a computer because someone's coming, downloads or save something in half a second
- A woman drinks a tainted glass of wine, drops immediately after the first sip
- A red-caped, blue spandexed lunatic hoists busses, entire bridges into the air
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Can't quite find the previous Slashdot story though this one is close.
But Tango and Cash dangling from electric cables as part of a physics course? This is kinda old news.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
I thought your post was very interesting.
I say WHATEVER WORKS. People (not just kids) don't always learn what is taught by traditional means. I know --i-- didn't. Seeing something visually or in new ways can sometimes more easily or quickly create understanding.
Movie physics site
BBC Link
And would they cover things like the cranking the van up the sand dune in Ice Cold In Alex
RoseColor red={0, 0xffff, 0x0000, 0x0000};VioletColour blue={0, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0xffff};find / -name *mybase*|chown you
when you give tax dollars that should be going to a decent cause like liberating the people of Iraq
I hate to tell you that Johnny, but you guys have been in Iraq for month, and somebody told me Iraqis are still fighting.
Almost like if they were resisting a foreign invader..
Just like if they were in the process of liberating themselves from you in fact...
What better to get people to learn reality, than to teach it in the context of movies? I'm sure the young'uns of today wouldn't touch a book if there was a movie version. Heh, I'm sure people believe American cars explode in a ball of flame when all four tyres no longer touch the ground....
"We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over." - Aneurin Bevan
Since they're currently experiencing a "server failure", I can't comment on the course content as such, but there are vital pieces of physics that simply cannot be taught from watching a movie. You can talk about conservation of energy in a car crash, sure. You can laugh at the physical impossibility of that bit in Hollow Man where the chick opens a door with an electromagnet. You could even try to talk about "time folding over" in Event Horizon.
The fact of the matter is however that physics is made interesting when you actually think about it yourself and realise why it is interesting. If someone makes a movie that makes relativity or quantum physics interesting enough to justify the cost of the movie, then I take my hat off to them.
This just sounds like another course to fill credits.
nevermind my last statement. that guy is dead wrong. I thought he was calling Bush a "crackpot academic".
It's All Politics
I'm always open for new teaching and learning methods but this is plain silly.
and it's 4am here!
It's All Politics
... the only animation I recall we had in Physics was the teacher throwing chalk at dedicated pupils in order to demonstrate ballistics :)
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
is essentially due to traditional classroom coaching method which leave little room for imagination.
On the other hand, Physics(or Science) illustrated in movies, could in a few subtle scenes, tickle the itch to followup, run imagination wild, to validate or invalidate flaws or ideas, just for the sake of geekiness.
I only wished that factual subjects can be written like novels, with a page turner storyline...
Hey, that's my password you are typing
I guess the machines forgot what theories Newton came up with, so thats why all the theories taste like chicken.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
The sites down so I can't see what it has but I hope it doesn't try to say Independence Day has correct physic. when the gigantic spaceships hovered over the Whitehouse and the cities it should have created enough gravity of its own for things to start levitating or at least aapear like some of the earths gravity was being negated.
MMKalinga
One of my best professors used to say that history is only there to help us understand movies.
No different?
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
And why should we want to? As a physicist I am more annoyed by the people who insist on having correct physics in movies (or books) than the incorrect physics itself.
Hello? It's a movie! Not a documentary or part of a curriculum. At least to me hard sci-fi like R.L. Forward's Dragon's Egg is immensely boring.
The owls are not what they seem
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
Since most of the Hollywood movies physics is nothing but pure bullshit, this course could give you the one and only degree of double BS - Bachelor Of Science In Bullshiting!
Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics
http://intuitor.com/moviephysics/index.html
music in movies sucks!! Especially load music. It irritates the hell out of me. In real life I never hear a sudden burst of music out of nowhere when something was about to happen or just did happen.
So you guys are now learning physics by watching movies!!!
So, don't cry when your physics reasearch gets outsourced.
Make learning fun... but NOT a JOKE !!
- mritunjai
So should the military teach combat by showing Rambo movies? Perhaps convicts can learn to be nice people by watching episodes of Family Matters. I'm thinking about opening a Salvage Yard, I'm gonna do some market research by watching Sanford and Son.
... teaches that it is actually possible to accelerate from 0 to warp 8 in 25 milliseconds. OK, so you look like a 300 mile long piece of spaghetti afterwards but this is true physics.
The Erogenous Zone
The site is far from a tome of truth.
Lead does not glow in the visible spectrum and so even a blob of molten lead would not produce visible light.
They even obliquely recognize that whether something glows or not is related to it's temperature. The boiling point of lead is significantly higher than its melting point and should pretty close to yellow.
If you're looking for science, it's best to be very careful where the internet is involved.
Blockquoth the BBC site:
Very impressive, since it the building is only 32 or 33 floors high (indicated several times in the movie). It also implies 105 m of fire hose, which is itself ludicrous. However, the fall is "really" only a few floors (say, 4, if you take the building to be 34 floors and he ends up back on floor 30), his final speed would have been 16 m/s rather than the 46 m/s the BBC got.
Does it matter? Well, it turns out that the BBC thinks "head shear" would have killed McClane, because his "severity index" was 3018, way above the fatal number (about 1000). But their speed is high by a factor of about 3, and the speed appears in that equation raised to the 2.5 power. So his "real" idex would be about 16 times lower, or 190.
But interestingly, this is only about half of the index required to knock you out. So actually, using numbers more consistent with the film, you find that not only does McClane survive the fall, he is not knocked out!
All of the stress arguments also depend on this bad speed, but since they concluded he'd survive the overly-strong stop, he's OK at the lower speed too.
BTW, I don't know how elastic firehose is, but they neglected its retarding effect as he fell, too.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
... and suddenly it came to me!
e=mc^2
But of course this is only relative
The Erogenous Zone
'conservation of momentum in Tango and Cash' ...
There is nothing that needs to be conserved about a movie that shows both Kurt Russel AND Sylvester Stallone's bare ass.
(note: the capital AND does not make my statement SQL compliant)
For some reason I think I have a lot more fun in live.
Get a life some of us see movies to be entertained, not to see applied physics.
Your kind was making movies and boring audiences when a guy called George Lucas stepped in and changed movies. He made them fun again. (and then ruined it with episode 1 but that is another story)
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Because classes like this are how all us american engineers learned physics. The serious physics students started with the complete first season of Mr. Wizard on DVD.
Based on what you've pointed out. In hollywood movies there's nothing a good nuke can't solve. Nothing.
---- Take the Space Quiz!
Fubared the imdb link to George Stevens.
Blog
The trailer for The Day After Tomorrow looks great, and certainly has a strong message about global warming in the film (just don't try to visit their website over a modem!) Starts May 28th.
The BBC with Open University did a really good science series called Hollywood Science. Link.
Originally it was aired late at night but got moved to a more prime slot, I can't remember what time. Anyway it was very good and accessible because one of the presentors is Robert Llewellyn, the actor who played Kryton in Red Dwarf.
Its definetelly worth seeing if you ever get the chance.
...I'd say posting their story on /. was a practical real life lesson in entropy. (Or at the very least Chaos Theory: "Some where across the ocean a fly's wing beats- eventually causing a server halfway around the world to crash"
Along these lines: There are great books on "The Physics of", like "The Physics of Startrek," "The Physics of the X-Files," and "The Physics of Starwars" (although the Starwars book should probably be an economics book >:)
"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams."
I only saw previews for The Core, but I gathered that the core of the Earth had stopped spinning, and the good guys had to restart it with nukes.
.3c.)
e ar_bomb_chart.htm, CRC books, Wikipedia, and sites on the internet I forgot about =).
Recall moment of inertia for a sphere, I = 2/5 mr^2. The mass of the Earth's core is 1.932e+24 kg, the radius, 3.488e+6 m. This gives a moment of 9.402e+36 kg m^2. The period of the core's rotation (one sidereal day) is 8.616e+3 s, giving [E= 1/2 Iw^2] rotational kinetic energy of 2.500e+28 J. Note that SI prefixes only go up to 10^24 (unless I'm mistaken).
Now, how many nukes would have to be used to supply this energy? One kiloton TNT is 4.184e+12 J, giving the Earth's core kinetic energy of 5.975e+15 kilotons TNT. Were we to actually use TNT, the diameter of the dynamite required would be 953 kilometers and surface gravity would be 4.5% that of Earth. But I digress.
So, back to nukes, the highest yield nuclear weapon that the US has ever produced (I think) is the triple-stage Mk-41, with up to 25 megatons TNT of explosive yield. 2.4e+11 of these would be required to provide sufficient energy to start the core's motion. To put this in perspective, each Mk-41 being 3.4 m long, the nuclear bombs required would span the average distance between the Earth and the sun five and a half times. (Hey, a lever! Never mind that the outside edge of this ridiculous construction would be moving at
For the Star Trek crowd, the amount of antimatter required is half of [E=mc^2] 2.781e+11 kg. The amount of energy is the same amount that the sun releases [our nice big 4e+26 W bulb] in about an hour. Enough energy to boil all the oceans almost thirty million times over. I knew that the movie premise was absurd, but I had no idea how many orders of magnitude the absurdity was.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out such trivia as "Where the hell did the law of conservation of angular momentum go?"
Sources: http://www.strategic-air-command.com/weapons/nucl
i go to UCF, and coastas is a tough sucker when it comes to regular physics. this class will start off a dream, and turn into a nightmare.
-Chase
.... you'll actually look more like a schnitzel.
I'm never changing the tyres on my Ford again.
- All car bumpers are extremely explosive
- Regular people will get knocked out by a simple punch while a hero will only get mildly scratched after running away from 10 terrorists with machine guns
- Time is relative. You can jump into an airplane or helicopter in free and still be able to not only reach the controls, but also turn it on and recover it
- The most l33t hackers crack other computers using nice and friendly GUIs. So getting into a file really looks like entering a building.
-
Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
Ah, he subbed for my TA a few times in physics in college. Unfortunately, he was hard to understand....
...people are teaching Art History using the movies too.
Due to vital maintenance work, some Institute of Physics Web sites are temporarily unavailable."
In physics, the Slashdot Effect is called "vital maintenance work".How quaint.
You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
Which series presents a more probable model of time travel:
Back to the Future or Terminator?
-- "I can't tell the future, I just work there." -- The Doctor
Can't get to the site to rtfa, but I had a similar course from the same University (different prof) over 25 years ago. It was called "The Physics of Science Fiction" and the premise was that we would read various works of popular science fiction (and watch some movies) and consider how the "laws of physics" were either the same or different in their universes.
Wasn't a bad class really. We read Fred Hoyle, Larry Niven, Hal Clement, and some others that I don't remember. It gave a decent introduction to basic phsyics and was fairly popular on campus amongst the nonscience majors. (I took it because the prof was a friend of mine and said I would enjoy it.)
Courses like this are certainly not going to replace traditional lab physics for science majors, but they can do a fine job of making science more interesting to some students who normally don't enjoy it.
1) They send through a gate some kind of probe and seconds after they activate it, they receive a signal that the probe sent through the space and they say the probe is at XXX light years.
2) An Egyptian expert learns to speak old Egyptian in an afternoon..
Biggest gaffe for physics in Sci-Fi Films:
Celestial explosions that go "Ka-Boom."
License always trumps accuracy, starting with this ubiquitous device.
This course started a couple years ago.. It's a 1000 level course which is freshman level. I've met a few people that took it although most of them are film types. Most engineering majors and physics majors at UCF don't bother because it's virtually useless for our degree requirements.
Here's an article from our student newspaper from the fall 2002 semester.
Strangely, the course number listed in the article is for physical science. I don't know off hand what the real number is. Here's the O-P page from the latest online course catalog.
Well, finals ended for me yesterday (with my orbital mechanics final) so I'm going to die for 2 weeks until summer semester starts.
Daniel Davis
Aerospace Engineering major
University of Central Florida - Orlando
Planetes
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promo Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitl
You can perhaps take comfort in the fact that no government in the world is a democracy. Plenty of republics though.
I thought Armageddon was a pretty good movie up to the point where they took off from earth.
And then it turned to crap.
But of everything that happened after that, the worst, in my opinion, was when they docked with the Space Station to refuel.
Apparently, the director had been told that if you spin the Station, it will create a psuedo-gravity, so you can save money on weightlessness effects.
Unfortunately, that's all the director knew, because everything else about the Space Station scene displays a total ignorance of physics.
First, does the Shuttle dock with the center of the Station, where it is standing still?
No -- the Shuttle latches on to the outside of the spinning ring!
And does the sudden shift in center-of-gravity throw the Space Station off balance?
No, because, fortunately for them, they have two Shuttles that can latch on to opposite sides of the Space Station at exactly the same instant!
So we have two Shuttles approaching the spinning Space Station from opposite directions, on exactly the right trajectory, at exactly the right speed, so they can both latch on in the same fraction of a second, and start spinning around with the Station.
And does the fact that the full mass of the Shuttle, as it spins around the Station, is now being suspended against gravity (in effect), by just its door and a docking clamp, cause the Shuttle to snap in two?
No!
And does the Shuttle attach by its roof, so that the "gravity" will be down to the floor?
No, it attaches by a side door -- but the "gravity" is still down to the floor!!!
And do they have to climb ladders to move toward the center of the Station?
No, walking along straight corriders, sideways to the spinning motion, seems to work just fine.
If you ask me, that scene is a low point in all of sci-fi movie history. Even the old el-cheapo 50s space movies showed more respect for science.
Were there any physics in that were even kinda correct? I seem to recall the space shuttles bobing and weaving like airplanes through a meteor shower. Uh, there's no AIR in outer space, guys, thus flying with your big engines pointed back makes you go faster and faster and FasterAndFASTER until you die, and you can't use your wings as control surfaces to turn.
Ah, and when they were stressfully docking with the spinning(!) "mir", there's this shot where you see the docking hatch extend, and its like the shuttle is "orbiting" mir, even before they make contact.
I'm pretty sure most big meteors aren't shaped like they're designed by an evil asteroid designing picasso. Yep, I'm pretty sure they're usually just oblong balls.
I'm pretty sure that meteor swarms that have travelled cosmic distances aren't constantly having sub meteors bang into eachother like bumpercars. They got all that out of their system 10,000 years ago.
The people that made this movie should be hunted down and shot by their highschool physics instructor.
People learning physics better from movies is exactly who most people think they can leap through a plate glass window from an exploding car, submachineguns blazing with no apparent need to reload, ever.
Physics lessons from Hollywood is like, the exact opposite of what we need.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
2) An Egyptian expert learns to speak old Egyptian in an afternoon..
If watch the movie, Daniel Jackson already knew how to speak ancient Egyptian, but since the planet's language evolved seperate from Earth's, it had a different dialect. Essentially, he learned a new dialect of a language he already knew, which is probably simple for a linguist.
What do films like Independence Day, Armageddon and X-Men have in common?
they all suck??
Unbelievebale !
So, students teach that in space the space shuttle make a loudly noise and run with his main engine on ?
They learn that ET follow RFC for networking and that our software (virus) run perfectly on their hardware with their OS. But their screens are VGA compatible !
So they learn physic with movies ?
But why those movies ? The only space movie physically true is 2001 as far as I know...
Ploum.net.
At my school my Physics 211 (Mechanics) professor adds a semgent to almost every leture called "Hollywood Physics." It similar to the idea of the article. His aim is to bascially prove, and show why a particular stunt or action scene would work, or disprove the ones that would not work. He formulates some assumptions and then solves the problem with formulas we are using during that chapter. It's one of the more interesting parts of the physics lectures, that is, the ones I can crawl out of bed for. It sure beats massless pigs on a frictionless inclined plane.
Presenting dogfights in space, even whole planets exploding, in complete silence would be very dull. In most films, the soundtrack is where the drama is, and sets the context for the action (or lack of) on the screen. It's audience direction, pure and simple.
The only sci-fi film I can think of that successfully elides this issue is Kubrick's 2001, where classical music is used instead to stunning effect - if only because it credits the audience with some intelligence and gives sufficient pause to wonder.
That's not necessarily wrong! If there's any low-frequency electromagnetic emissions from the Ka-Boom, they will cause any ferromagnetic materials in whatever vessel you happen to be watching from to vibrate. Hell, you might even get *non*-ferromagnetic conductors shaking about from the interactions between eddy currents and the magnetic fields. Because the EM fields travel at the same speed as the light from the explosion, you don't even need to take account of any speed-of-sound delays.
Anyone know the typical low-frequency emission spectrum of a detonating Death Star/Warbird/Cylon mothership?
Why then is there always sound in space movies?
Why is there no delay for sounds that are far away,
Distant explosions screwed up, i.e an explosion far away and the light and sound alway arrive at the same time!
[ Sig mantra: Always perviwe befroe postng ]
You say attack him for his facts, well:
Here you go. Here's more.
There's a reason he gave back his award for Best Documentary...it wasn't a documentary.
That's why he's called a nutcase. He will distort facts, then justify it as "comedy." If some right-wing nut twisted facts to make Kerry look bad, then justified it by saying "there aren't falsehoods in comedy," lefties would be all over it in a heartbeat.
There's a reason Michael Moore's fanbase has dwindled so.
Corrected link. Sorry.
I guess I just find it amusing when someone will jump up to defend Moore and say "you shouldn't insult people, you should argue with facts," and yet Moore loves to call everyone under the sun "liars" and "greedy" and actually invents facts and splices together speeches for his own agendas.
Oh, and yes, IAAP (I Am A Physicist), so really obvious physics stupidities jump out at me. Like sound effects in space....
Calling them names just makes you look childish.
Nuh-Uhh !! YOU are Childish !!
Dear god, most current movie producers grasp of physics and science ranks as below that of the average 16 year old. And their products are being used to teach the next generation of producers physics. Riiiiiiighhht.
If I remember well, he knows how to speak modern Egyptian, and he is able to read ancient Egyptian.
I doubt very much that anybody on Earth knows how to speak ancient Egyptian: modern Egyptian is likely to be quite different from ancient Egyptian, a few thousands years tends to change quite a lot a language as evidenced by the fact that until the 'pierre de rosette' was found nobody was able to read ancient Egyptian anymore.
One of the things that impressed me about the TV show "Firefly" was that when something in space blew up it didn't go "boom".
I've found that my posts don't format quite right w/o a sig.
The director has obviously never played Elite!
American kids are at high-school until their late 20s. (unlike Grange Hill for example). This is explained by them never having anything to learn in class or having homework (or school uniforms come to that). I know there is at least one guy in his late 40s at high school in India who is still trying to pass his exams, but statistically I would have thought the majority of americans should have graduated from high school at least by the age of 21.
The speed of sound == the speed of light. Explosions are heard instantly even if they are kilometres away.
And deleting a file on a hard disk, a simple matter of changing a directory entry, takes many seconds instead of a few milliseconds seek time. Oh wait, Windows XP has implemented that feature as a tribute to Hollywood.
This class seems to be the third kind. Didn't some other professor do something like this with a Harry Potter theme? I'm so sick of physics professors teaching these BS classes to try and get the average student interested in physics. Physics is hard, that's why there were only three advanced physics degrees awarded last year at my university, versus about 150 MBAs. Not too many people can handle physics. Classes like these that try to make physics fun are just BS classes so that people that can't handle real science classes can complete their general ed requirements. These classes may teach people a few dumbed down theories, but they don't teach people how to do physics.
I may be a bit biased of course, since I am a physics major, but there are already enough people out there who don't appreaciate the effort it takes to get a degree in physics. There were some semesters when I practically lived in the labs doing research. Physics is hard work. We don't need classes that delude people into thinking that we physicists just sit around and watch movies all day.
In which it's shown that the boat is hauling away a phony safe? The real one did what you predicted, it went straight into the water for a safecracker to work on, underwater. Which is fairly amazing in its own right come to think of it.
This is just like "Math in art", or "History of calculus" courses that fulfil math requirements.
They're still bloody arts courses.
Back to topic...
If you you don't go 'Wow' at everything you see around you, there is something wrong with you. The world is full of mystery
Anything that makes people say 'Oh! So that's how it works!', or 'Wow! Thats a lot of stuff!' is a Good Thing (tm).
But it is sad that people need to be reminded.
--
BBD
/* This comment may not be thread-safe */
Anyone else think Akira should be on this list? I mean it observed nearly every law of physics even while it screwed around with them so much. The way the lasers shot in a stream instead foot-long jolts (much like real plasma would), you couldn't hear anything when Tetsuo was in space, the use of air-displacement on solid objects.
Plus you'd get to severely traumatize everyone in the class. What more could you want?
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
I'm sure this sort of class isn't WORTHLESS, especially for people who wouldn't learn anything from a more technical science class, or a physics student just looking for a few laughs. I just hope it doesn't satisfy the baccalaureate core requirements at that school.
Film students should be required to take classes like this. THAT would make it really meaningful.
I can't remember if it is any more respectful of physics than the Bruce and Ben testosteronefest, but Deep Impact is a much better movie, with some moving performances.
However, Armageddon does have some nice humor, particularly the Steve Buschemi stuff, so it's not totally worthless.
I thought on Stargate they imply that the probe is communicating via the gate. The stargate transmits both energy and matter so radio waves should be able to go through ok.
Mark
Straczynski wanted to be true (well, mostly true, anyway) to the laws of physics in Babylon 5. When he originally created the show, all scenes taking place in outer space took place in silence. When they did a test showing to interested audiences, there was too much negative reaction -- most notably, a lot of people thought that there had been a problem with the sound production, so Straczynski decided to put the sound back in.
It's still really cool, though, that his design for the Starfuries is now being adapted by NASA for use in the future.
"Dear Die Hard,
You rock. Especially that scene with the guy on the roof.
signed, Homer Simpson
p.s. do you know Mad Max?"
My favorite part was when magnito manipulated copper from the statue of liberty to form a holding pen.
George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
While I would have to agree that it may be difficult to get the stress and accent correct, the tones of ancient Egyptian can be identified fairly easily from the hyroglyphics, which are phonemic in nature (i.e. represent specific sounds... roughly anaogous to what you are more familiar with in terms of the letters you are reading right now.)
Chinese ideographs are much harder to identify what sounds or even words were used it pronounce the glyph, because there are no tonal indicators with that writing system. It expresses ideas rather than sounds.
Still, even if you were extreamly fluent in ancient egyptian and had even come up with your own interpretation of the sounds of the words, not all of your guesses would be correct and it does vary even from one period of time to the next (just look at what English has done in the past 300 years).
This is one instance where you do indeed get sound in space... and why if you hear anything in space like an explosion or grinding metal that your bowels should suddenly start to loosen: It is the ship you are in that is falling apart!
There were some sound effects in that movie that weren't 100% accurate, but for the most part it was from the perspective of the astronauts, including in some cases the music being played.
I would agree that for some reason seeing a huge explosion and not hearing anything until several minutes later you start hearing a ping, ping, ping (from debris hitting the ship you are in) just wouldn't be satisfying to the typical Hollywood-style movie.