Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

9 Laws of Physics That Don't Apply in Hollywood

Posted by Hemos on from the relativity-also-out dept.

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..."

5 of 807 comments (clear)

  1. Same topics all over again by yohanes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    -- tinyhack.com
  2. Re:Some points aren't valid by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  3. #4 and #5 by MeanderingMind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
  4. Other laws by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:9 Bad Excuses for a Fluff Piece by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.