Slashdot Mirror


Programmer Debunks Source Code Shown In Movies and TV Shows

rjmarvin writes "Someone is finally pausing TV shows and movies to figure out if the code shown on screen is accurate or not. British programmer and writer John Graham-Cumming started taking screenshots of source code from movies such as Elysium, Swordfish and Doctor Who, and when it became popular turned the concept into a blog. Source Code in TV and Films posts a new screenshot daily, proving that, for example, Tony Stark's first Iron Man suit was running code from a 1998 programmable Lego brick."

25 of 301 comments (clear)

  1. common and fun by Speare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Doesn't everyone who can proram do this? Just like gun fans identify and count shots for each weapon they see?

    From the (mistaken? wise?) use of a .300 in an IPv4 address in The Net, to the identification of some kind of 6502 assembly code in the Terminator's red overlay, it's always been something to try to do in the theater without freeze-frame available.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
    1. Re:common and fun by TooTechy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Watching 'Castle' the other night. Enjoying it for the accurate, serious show that it is. Beckett indicated the entry wound was too big for a 9mm round. Had to be something bigger. They later found a .357 which was the right size.

      25.4*.357 = 9.07mm She has a good eye. Actually she has great looking eyes.

    2. Re:common and fun by ledow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, yes, but the point is that there's no need to do this.

      If you're making a film about cars, get someone who knows about cars to help produce/edit it, at least for glaring inaccuracies. If you're making a film about guns, the same. If you're making a film about computers, the same.

      To be honest, even the "555" phone number is enough to jolt me out of a movie I'm into - you instantly are reminded that it's fake things you are watching (which is not what a film director should be doing to their captivated audience).

      I've always had this annoyance, too. I have it about computer movies, mathematics and science. A geneticist I live with has it about science and genetics in general (do not let her watch Gattaca or Jurassic Park!). My ex and her father (both black belts) have it about anything martial-arty. My dad (a mechanic) has it about cars and mechanics.

      I just don't see how hard it is to get someone who vaguely knows what they are doing to actually step back and say "hold on, that wouldn't happen". I don't expect perfection but at least if you're qualified enough to teach, say, a film star kung fu over a year of filming, have the decency to make sure that the moves you teach are realistic and there's no "queue of baddies waiting to be beaten up, because they're too stupid to attack simulatenously" elements. Same for computer graphics - SOMEONE with computer knowledge had to make them and display them, just ask them what it would look like if they REALLY did what the actors are being asked to do.

      Same for cars, guns, planes, stunts, etc. You have an expert on the movie, ask them if it's at all realistic and, if not, change it. Artistic licence is fine so long as you KNOW that's why you're doing it but too often directors go OUT OF THEIR WAY to make things "pretty" when actually the real thing would be a lot more realistic, useful, interesting, less jarring, etc. (e.g. who the hell uses text-based displays nowadays, and why do you need to "fake" loading screens or password decryptions or whatever - everyone KNOWS what a computer looks like and how display windows work).

      You don't get this in theatre, except by accident. You don't get it in novels, because the amount of detail required means you can hide all the potential pitfalls behind the line "He logged on..." or similar.

      You only get it in Hollywood, and you must only get it through directors who think they know what LOOKS better. While a certain percentage of the audience can't stop laughing at the ridiculous methods used, or just screen "NO! That's NOT how it works" at the screen.

      I don't get why annoying your audience is a good thing, at the expense of listening to the people you hired to be experts anyway.

    3. Re:common and fun by rts008 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A .357 magnum may have a bigger exit wound under rare circumstances, but under similar conditions, the .357 magnum and 9mm will have essentially equal size entrance wound characteristics.

      One doesn't even need to be hit by a bullet to be killed by it - high speed ammunition can tear tissue apart by the pressure differentials.

      The only part of that statement that is even remotely true is the second part:
      yes, frequently high velocity projectiles do damage soft tissue from tearing and rupturing...but there are a lot of variables that affect this, so it cannot be ruled as absolute.(pro tip: the bullet has to hit the soft tissue before this can even be considered--all the bullets whizzing past cause no physical harm)

      But that statement that "One doesn't even need to be hit by a bullet to be killed by it -..." is so full of crap that it's ludicrous!
      I'll even give you the possibility that in extremely rare (so rare as to be unheard of for all practical purposes) that some few individuals have 'died from fright' from being shot at...but [citation needed].

      I have personally been shot three times:
      twice with 9mm ammunition (one pistol:Soviet made Makerov, and one sub-machine gun), and once with 7.62x39 ammo (AK-47--which has a MUCH higher velocity and kinetic energy than either 9mm or .357 hand guns).

      I can assure you that I am not a ghost/dead. And having witnessed hundreds of combat deaths, none happened from near misses but bullets!

      I think your highest priority at this stage should be to finally stop putting off that education you should have received as a child..it's for your own good, really.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    4. Re:common and fun by Quietust · · Score: 4, Informative
      If you really want to insert an IP address without it pointing to a real computer, you have a bunch of choices:

      Including numbers greater than 255 just makes it look obviously fake.

      --
      * Q
      P.S. If you don't get this note, let me know and I'll write you another.
  2. Re:Oh My God! by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Funny

    Next they'll tell me that "hackers" don't get a nice big screen that says "Access Granted" or that "Swordfish" isn't a common password.

  3. Comments here are overreacting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think this was meant as a fun and interesting kind of thing, not as some kind of whistle-blowing on how "OH MY GOD TV ISN'T REEEEAAAAAL!" Lighten up.

    1. Re:Comments here are overreacting by terevos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, they're responding appropriately to how the story was posted. The original article is supposed to be fun. But the post says "Programmer Debunks Source Code Shown In Movies and TV Shows" and "Someone is finally pausing TV shows and movies to figure out if the code shown on screen is accurate or not." as if it's something new.

      It's not new, but it is cool how deeply they investigated this stuff.

  4. Re:oh duh by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, I'd have been a lot more impressed if he'd concentrated on code that was closer to right, on examples that were more realistic.

    For examples, in two different films with Matthew Broderick, his modifying school records, assuming that he does indeed have credentials, is not implausible. In The Matrix Reloaded Trinity's hack is more realistic that most other movies.

    Sounds to me like this guy is bitter that he can't suspend his disbelief to just enjoy the movie, and he feels a need to drag the rest of us down with him. If the movie isn't specifically about computer hacking or computer security then I'm willing to give a fair amount of silliness a pass.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  5. Copyright implications? by Bradmont · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So if the code is taken, used, and redistributed without acknowledgement, is that copyright abuse? I imagine tiny snippets would fall under fair use, but if a substantial block of code from, say, a GPLed project is reproduced without acknowledgement or attaching the license, what are the chances the filmmakers could be held liable?

  6. Re:oh duh by CamelTrader · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is cool because he isn't just calling out as bogus, but identifying the source, such as python julian calendar library, or C image library. It's pretty nerdy to know that the scene in the matrix where he's scrolling through code is the source for netstat.

    --
    Your .sig is important to us. Please hold.
  7. Re:Oh My God! by fisted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Only by stupid programs which don't follow the golden rule of shutting the hell up as long as nothing goes wrong.
    Therefore you're much more likely to see a message reading "Permission denied", if anything

  8. Re:oh duh by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh shit, when I saw The Matrix I assumed it was nethack :-/

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  9. Debunk? by JohnGrahamCumming · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hmm. I am the person who created that Tumblr. I'm not trying to "debunk" anything. Just showing what it really is: sometimes it's nonsense, sometimes it's there's an amusing juxtaposition, sometimes it's a fun Easter Egg.

    1. Re:Debunk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sorry, the Slashdot editor staff has decided you are debunking. Therefore you have been debunked.

  10. Re:oh duh by aitikin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For examples, in two different films with Matthew Broderick, his modifying school records, assuming that he does indeed have credentials, is not implausible..

    Interesting factoid about those, as I recall, Broderick actually learned to code the 8080 for his role in Wargames and saved some time in filming because of it.

    --
    "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
  11. Unless they used a special compiler by StripedCow · · Score: 5, Funny

    But what if they used a special compiler that works roughly as follows:

    if(code == "insert code from programmable lego brick")
      return "insert binary for iron-man suit";
    else
      return compile_ansi_c_code_as_usual();

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  12. Re:thats crazy by game+kid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Speaking of spaceships, I found it fun to contrast these fake code uses with one in the game Starbound (got it a day or few after it hit Steam as an Early Access game). When you obtain enough fuel (like coal) from your current planet there and send it back to your spaceborne ship, you can take it to another planet and enjoy a flashy warp sequence with code that scrolls on a screen. The code shown is that of...the warp sequence. (Starbound is a C++ game, and you'll notice fun things in the display like uint64_t and class names.)

    Granted, it's almost certainly not a true quine, as it uses only a portion of the code; said code is in PNG form, not text; and I doubt the display will be updated for each patch, especially this early in development.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  13. Re:oh duh by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Funny

    Perhaps we can write a GUI in VisualBasic to help angry literalist programmers get into the spirit of technical scenes in films.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  14. Re:oh duh by TWiTfan · · Score: 4, Informative

    One of the many things that impressed me about Wargames (aside from showing social engineering and the actual hard work and research going into a serious hack) was that David could type fast, as you would expect from someone who spends all his time on a command-line computer. It's just one of those many little details that made that movie so impressive, and still makes it fun to watch even 30 years later.

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
  15. Re:oh duh by hubie · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think the fast typing has less to do with attention to detail and more to do with not wanting to break the flow of the movie so that we can watch him painfully hunt-and-peck commands.

  16. Re:oh duh by Si · · Score: 5, Informative

    As is usual with /., ignore the written-by-illiterate-simians summary and click through to the article/ website (I know, I know) and your concerns will be put to rest. The blog is less about 'code in movies is wrong' and more (and more interestingly) where did the code shown come from? Knowing that Iron Man's suit is powered by code written for a lego brick gives the concept more verisimilitude - at least if you've played been playing Lego Marvel Superheroes as much I as I have recently.

    --


    Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
  17. Tony Stark is a genius! by doggo · · Score: 4, Funny

    No wonder Stark Industries is so successful. If Tony can modify Lego code to control an armored flying suit, imagine what he could do with... I dunno, the source code for... Emacs!

  18. Re:oh duh by c0lo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why would anyone go to the trouble to even think that analyzing "source code" posted in movies is a useful endeavor? YAWN.

    On the same line of rationing (not that I agree with it): why would anyone think posting on /. is a useful endeavor?

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  19. Re:oh duh by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just like when an actor is playing a piano on-screen, you can tell the difference between real typing and fake typing when you watch it.

    There is a middle ground where the timing of the keystrokes is used for the display of the keystrokes. They don't have to hit the right keys, but it still helps. And you can do it after the fact with timecodes, or you can code it into the demo. The fact that so many movies fail at it even though they have two perfectly good options for implementing it is particularly pathetic.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"