9 Laws of Physics That Don't Apply in Hollywood

Ant writes "Neatorama lists nine laws of physics that don't apply in Hollywood (movies and television/TV shows). In general, Hollywood filmmakers follow the laws of physics because they have no other choice. It's just when they cheat with special effects that people seem to forget how the world really works..."

Comments

Same topics all over again

[yohanes]

It seems that we have discussed this kind of things so many times. Hollywood are not meant to learn about real world. It is about entertainment.

Re:Same topics all over again

[squiggleslash]

Yes and no. There has to be a willing suspension of disbelief, and frequently Hollywood (and television) assumes that the number of people in the viewership of a particular program is so low it quite happily removes all semblance of reality for that "minority" to the point, not really caring that the entire movie looks utterly ridiculous as a result for that group. What's bizarre to me is how rarely it's necessary for the plot or understandability of the end story for them to do that.

It would probably serve the plot well for quite a few films if a normal car's cruise control allowed the car to drive unmonitored, or if newspapers talked and responded to spoken database queries. They don't do either because almost the entire audience knows that there is too large a gap between reality and fiction for those specific examples. But if it involves computers, explosions and weapons, gravity, or even breaking glass, anything goes... Hell, sometimes if it's something that everyone knows today is ridiculous but once upon a time was a black-art, they'll get away with it because it's a cliche. Don't forget to hang up the telephone before they're able to trace the call!

It's worse when so-often the inaccuracies are basicly a Deus Ex Machina to get the hero out of a problem. If Chloe wasn't able to trace the call through the binary, Jack wouldn't know the terrorist's address, and so wouldn't be able to cross Los Angelas in twenty minutes at mid-day to prevent them from using the code they downloaded from the satellite to their PDAs to activate the chemical weapons.

Re:Same topics all over again

[Hoi Polloi]

I have to admit, if Hollywood was realistic and didn't have sound in space it would make sci-fi action films pretty dull. It would just have a lot of background music so I let them off on that one.

BTW, "2001, A Space Odyssey" was true to the no sound in space law and used it to dramatic effect. All you heard was the dull whir of systems in the pods or the astronaut's breathing.

Umm...

[geoffspear]

If you're going to write an article about the laws of physics, shouldn't you actually understand the laws of physics? "Equal and opposite reaction" doesn't mean that when I kick someone and they go flying in one direction, I must go flying in the opposite direction at the same speed, unless I had no momentum toward them before impact. In which case, umm, it would be kind of hard for me to hit them.

Re:Some points aren't valid

[Rob the Bold]

If I punch a punching bag, the bag moves but I don't. That is because my fist has the energy which transfers to the bag. I don't go flying backwards as the article suggests.

Friction, dude. Try the experiment again on roller skates.

#4 and #5

[MeanderingMind]

I've got two complaints about #4.

1) The point of the Matrix was to bend the laws of physics. It was rather explicit.

2) The author obviously never watched Bruce Lee in action. If you plant yourself correctly you can send people flying across the room without moving an inch yourself. However, if you're in midair you certainly can't without the mentioned conversion of momentum.

Also concerning #5.

1) If it's a hole with level ends on both sides, it is entirely impossible to jump it on car without a ramp or other device to add a vertical component to velocity. However, in the event of a bridge being raised for a boat, the angle can potentially allow a vehicle to "jump" the gap. Is it likely or feasible? Not particularly, but it is possible.

2) This could have been expanded to include the "Bombs do not drop straight down" category of gravitational violation. A plane flying at high horizontal velocity v over a stationary target is not capable of dropping a bomb without horizontal velocity. Unless it fires the bomb backwards at a relative velocity -v, in which case we can have a semantic argument over whether the bomb is being dropped or fired.

Other laws

[91degrees]

Fast paced music doesn't really play when something exciting happens. Not everyone in real life looks like a hollywood actor. If people speak in a foreign language, you don't actually see an English language translation at the bottom of the screen. I tend to be pretty easy going on most non-realism since it is just there to tell a story. If the plot relies on a complete failure to grasp some basic fundamental of physics, (e.g. The Day After Tomorrow), I tend to be a lot more critical.

Re:Outerspace is Cold

[i_should_be_working]

So, like you and the two responses above me, I was really skeptical of this "freezing in space" idea. I even told a student that a reference they had cited was wrong in claiming that you would freeze to death in the Sun's corona, the argument being that you wouldn't freeze for the same reason you wouldn't burn: no particles to transport heat.

But I recently found out, from a colleague over beer, that loss of heat from blackbody radiation is actually much faster than I thought. In the old days, in non-cold places, some people (ancient Egyptions among others) would actually make ice, basically by letting water in a deep, dark place radiate it's heat away. Sure it took hours, and it had to be already pretty cold outside, but considering that the water was also being continually warmed by all the air around it, that's pretty impressive for "only" blackbody radiation.

It's pretty easy to calculate heat loss. According to this, in our 293K atmosphere we lose 95W. In a 2.7K vaccuum this translates to 640W, due to us not getting any energy back from the atmosphere. With an average human body heat capacity of 3470 Joules per Kelvin per Kilo, a 70Kg person will drop to the freezing point from 305K in less than 3 and a half hours.

Ok, so that's pretty slow. Damn those movies suck.

Re:Some points aren't valid

[joto]

Nope. It's because:

1. The punching bag is much lighter than you, so the force in the punch will move it forward much faster than it will move you backwards.
2. • In a correctly done punch you will start the movement at your feet and accelerate your hips/body as well as your fist toward the target. This means that instead of you being moved backwards by the impact, the impact will stop (some of) your forward movement.
   • In an incorrectly done punch, it will be only your fist and the punching ball that collides (not you or your body weight behind it). This is insufficient force/momentum to move your body in any significant way (or do any damage to an opponent in a fight)

Re:9 Bad Excuses for a Fluff Piece

[ceoyoyo]

Um... recall Galileo... the back of the bus being heavier will not cause it to fall any faster than the lighter front. Neglecting air resistance, but with something the mass of a bus that's not so bad an assumption.

You're right, they DID jump a bus. BUT, they had a special kicker on the end of the ramp that dropped after the front wheels went over. Watch the scene again... see how the front wheels seem to leap up? There's a documentary around somewhere showing how everything worked and the actual bus jump, but I can't remember where I saw it or what it was called.

Even a car will always land hard on its front wheels (if you're lucky) or its nose or roof (if you're not) after going off a static ramp.