Movies that do not attach to scientific laws

Three films that would make Einstein blush

Quote:

---

An American physicist is calling for Hollywood producers to tone down the fanciful science in movies - and restrict themselves to just one scientific flaw per film. But which are the worst offenders when it comes to bad science films?

---

Hollywood seens to show off with scientific ignorance, Star Wars physics and other impossibles.
If we talk about ignorance, Hollywood is a great place to find the most uneducated movie makers and producers.
Hollywood also is very historically inaccurate.

So what you are saying is that Avatar isnt a documentary?

Ah guess that's why they wouldn't give me college credits for going to the movies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spawnie

So what you are saying is that Avatar isnt a documentary?

---

Fantasy. Fantasy is about the realm of impossible, like Harry Potter.

So our entertainment should only be factual? Is that the point of this?

Every time I hear that a reactor is "going critical" I facepalm.

I wouldn't mind fantasy making sense when its trying to imitate reality. Can't remember how many times I LOL'd and WTF'd when I first watched Swordfish.

Those damn prawns aint real?

The thing that bothers me in movies isn't when they aren't real, but when they violate their own internal rules. Like when superman stops a plummeting airplane with a single hand placed on its nose. Fine, superman exists in the film and has amazing strength, can fly, etc. That's part of the film's internal rules. But that airplane isn't made to be decelerated that quickly and sure isn't meant to bear its entire weight on its nose like that... And the aircraft being "super" is not part of the film's rules.

Or when King Kong falls off the Empire State Building. Ok, I'll accept that there's a giant monkey that falls in love with a human woman and climbs to the top of the (then) tallest building in New York. But given how heavy he is, when he falls there should be a tidal wave of viscera running through the streets. He should splash when he hits hard pavement from that height. But no, he doesn't.

I could probably come up with some better examples than these, since they all rely on a bit of physics intuition and this isn't limited just to that, but you get the general idea.

Or the all-time classic physics violation, perpetuated by 90% of sci-fi films out there; sound in space.

~

A couple of ones that have annoyed me over the years.

- Independence Day. Goldblum knocking up a wonderful bit of alien viral code in an hour or two, then infecting the alien mothership's computers with it. Alien code must be wonderfully simple for Goldblum to learn it inside out in a couple of hours, write a virus that transfers from one ship to another, specifically takes out shields, and flashes up an animated laughing skull as an added bonus. Oh and he used a regular PC to write the code, and interface it from there to the captured ship. Somehow. :rolleyes:

- The Abyss. Filling up a diver's lungs with a special oxygenated fluid that purportedly allows him to 'breathe', "Just like when you were in your mother's womb". Firstly, you don't 'breathe' amniotic fluid whilst in the womb - a baby receives oxygen in the form of oxygenated blood from the mother via the umbilical cord. Secondly, lungs are not gills, they simply to not have the ability to absorb oxygen from liquid.

When I hear science fiction, I imagine a bit of science there.
But it seems they call it "science fiction" if there are elements like space, future, aliens, technological worlds, etc.
I can count with my finger the truly consistent scifi movies that indeed seem to be coherent with the laws of physics.

Sometimes it seems that movie makers compete to prove they are more and more ignorant and annoying.

Stargate? It is about US marines dealing with alien egyptians.
Star Wars? It is WWII in space. Humans with make up are the aliens. Star Wars physics.
Solar babies? Worst movie ever, kids using skateboards on an alien planet.
Armageddon? This is the end of times, when science exists no more in the head of a movie maker. Gets an F in basic physics. Asking someone at NASA shouldn't be so hard.
Moonraker? Star Wars physics with James Bond involved.
Wing commander? Star Wars rerun that tells the story of an american aircraft carrier in space.
Battlestar Galactica (the new series)? Another US carrier in space filled with space marines and they are immersed in drama queen political earthling plots most of times, instead of having a classic dogfight with cylons in every episode.
Independence day? A race comes to destroy an insignificant planet.
V (new series)? Democrat reptiles invade Earth. They implement universal health coverage and they favor "change", but they have hidden intentions.

And they call it "science fiction"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolo Mark 33

The thing that bothers me in movies isn't when they aren't real, but when they violate their own internal rules. Like when superman stops a plummeting airplane with a single hand placed on its nose. Fine, superman exists in the film and has amazing strength, can fly, etc. That's part of the film's internal rules. But that airplane isn't made to be decelerated that quickly and sure isn't meant to bear its entire weight on its nose like that... And the aircraft being "super" is not part of the film's rules.

Or when King Kong falls off the Empire State Building. Ok, I'll accept that there's a giant monkey that falls in love with a human woman and climbs to the top of the (then) tallest building in New York. But given how heavy he is, when he falls there should be a tidal wave of viscera running through the streets. He should splash when he hits hard pavement from that height. But no, he doesn't.

I could probably come up with some better examples than these, since they all rely on a bit of physics intuition and this isn't limited just to that, but you get the general idea.

---

Yeah, I generally agree with you, but your examples aren't too great. The narrative demands some playing with reality; the plane might not be super, but it's boring to safe it in a realistic way and what the heck, superman is super already so reality may be bent.

What's more annoying is ordinary people outrunning pyroclastic clouds (2012) and the likes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ar81

Stargate? It is about US marines dealing with alien egyptian
[buncha crap I've never seen and a couple I've never even heard of omitted]
Battlestar Galactica (the new series)? Another US carrier in space filled with space marines and they are immersed in drama queen political earthling plots most of times, instead of having a classic dogfight with cylons in every episode.

---

Perhaps before you start complaining about the lack of science in science fiction you should work on your ability to comprehend the plots, or even the cast of characters, in what you are watching.

Quote:

---

Independence day? A race comes to destroy an insignificant planet.

---

You managed to get that one right, at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlelolligagged

Perhaps before you start complaining about the lack of science in science fiction you should work on your ability to comprehend the plots, or even the cast of characters, in what you are watching.



You managed to get that one right, at least.

---

Well, for some people SF = dogfights in space, which of course is nonsense. For me BSG was never more boring than during its big space battles. I love how there are hardly any space ships in Caprica at all so far.

Worst science scifi ever: 2001: A Space Odyssey. You couldn't even hear the space ship's engines. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timbuk2

Secondly, lungs are not gills, they simply to not have the ability to absorb oxygen from liquid.

---

We can do it, we partially have the technology...

I don't agree with the article, but I do agree with the notion that a movie should stick to its own internal logic. For instance, laser beams that have been shown to instantly incapacitate or kill anyone they hit, but for dramatic effect someone will survive long enough to return fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlelolligagged

Perhaps before you start complaining about the lack of science in science fiction you should work on your ability to comprehend the plots, or even the cast of characters, in what you are watching.

---

"Plot" is never an excuse for ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ar81

"Plot" is never an excuse for ignorance.

---

You're showing your ignorance without even a plot as an excuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

We can do it, we partially have the technology...

---

Yars, but all that link shows is ingenious ways of incorporating a membrane oxygenator within the body. A small artificial lung that works using an oxygenated liquid in other words.

There is nothing there that implies that alveoli can or ever will be able to directly absorb oxygen from liquid (and dispense with CO2 which is equally important for aerobic respiration). Alveoli are simply not capable, they haven't evolved that way.

In other words doing nothing other than pouring oxygenated liquid directly into a lung (as shown in the movie) can not and never will be a functioning oxygen/carbon-dioxide exchange system. The subject in question would drown.


EDIT: Hang about. A special suit is used in the movie isn't it? I guess a membrane oxygenator could be incorporated into the suit ... but then blood would need to pass intravenously from the suit into the body, so certainly not as described in the movie where the implication given is that the lung itself 'breathes' the liquid. Hm.

Here's one of my favourites...

The helicopter scene in 007: Tomorrow Never Dies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8BHhH_70Pg <<-- skip to 6.12 mins.

At that angle there is no way the aircraft could stay in that position. My tilting rotors generate lift - so being at that angle would cause the aircraft to accelerate forwards.


Another...

Lord of the Rings - Legolas getting on a horse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGH8Ft04t7I

I'm not sure how the f**k the CGI director thought that would look good. It's just rubbish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timbuk2

- Independence Day. Goldblum knocking up a wonderful bit of alien viral code in an hour or two, then infecting the alien mothership's computers with it. Alien code must be wonderfully simple for Goldblum to learn it inside out in a couple of hours, write a virus that transfers from one ship to another, specifically takes out shields, and flashes up an animated laughing skull as an added bonus. Oh and he used a regular PC to write the code, and interface it from there to the captured ship. Somehow. :rolleyes:

---

And that's not even the stupidest thing about that movie.

Quote:

---

- The Abyss. Filling up a diver's lungs with a special oxygenated fluid that purportedly allows him to 'breathe', "Just like when you were in your mother's womb". Firstly, you don't 'breathe' amniotic fluid whilst in the womb - a baby receives oxygen in the form of oxygenated blood from the mother via the umbilical cord. Secondly, lungs are not gills, they simply to not have the ability to absorb oxygen from liquid.

---

I may be wrong but I think this is real science. Hyper oxygenated water is breathable. If they were going to flub the science, they would have ignored pressure affects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xaero1

Another...

Lord of the Rings - Legolas getting on a horse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGH8Ft04t7I

I'm not sure how the f**k the CGI director thought that would look good. It's just rubbish.

---

Its magic dude.

Hell on earth, you fucking kill joys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Its magic dude.

---

What, did Gandalf enchant Legolas with the "reverse swing horse mounting potion" or something? I must have missed that bit. :S

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlelolligagged

You're showing your ignorance without even a plot as an excuse.

---

You are using an excuse as a plot for your ignorance...:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xaero1

Lord of the Rings - Legolas getting on a horse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGH8Ft04t7I

I'm not sure how the f**k the CGI director thought that would look good. It's just rubbish.

---

If Tolkien can get away with writing about the Leap of Beren, a man, I don't see a problem with showing the agility of an elf getting on a horse or walking without leaving prints in the snow.

I'm surprised noone's mentioned http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/ yet.

It's almost my Bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

If Tolkien can get away with writing about the Leap of Beren, a man, I don't see a problem with showing the agility of an elf getting on a horse or walking without leaving prints in the snow.

---

And walking on the snow when everyone else is waist deep... Tolkien wrote the elves as having these extraordinary abilities, so I have no problem with the movies showing that elves can move in ways that no human can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xaero1

What, did Gandalf enchant Legolas with the "reverse swing horse mounting potion" or something? I must have missed that bit. :S

---

No, but elves are magical creatures, akin to wingless angels or something. Do you recall the scene where he walked on the snow drift while everyone else had to trudge through?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by evenstar

And walking on the snow when everyone else is waist deep... Tolkien wrote the elves as having these extraordinary abilities, so I have no problem with the movies showing that elves can move in ways that no human can.

---

Scooped me. Anyway, we are of one mind on it.

Yeah, thats what I meant :p can't really be waste deep and still manage to not leave prints.

The problem of movie makers is that they are illiterates in science and history and many other fields of knowledge.
If they create a plot, at least try to attach to reality where it applies.
If Harry Potter has to fly, that's fine, because it was fantasy and breaking the rules is intentional.

But if you see 10000BC, you will see rasta europeans walking from Europe to Egypt, passing through South America where there were some big birds. Also you have mammuths in the desert... imagine how much vegetation they need to be fed, how much water, and how hot it should be under the fur. The irony is that the tribe had a settlement in a time when there was no agriculture, so they basically waited for food to come, instead of looking for it. It is the equivalent of ignorance of having US independence being signed by Stalin and having Fidel Castro as the current US president.

It would be a plot, but a very idiotic one.

Historical Fiction movies are almost always horrible at history. Its happens 9 times out of 10, but my recent example would be A Knights Tale. All the armor they used, it spanned a time frame of hundreds of years.

A Knight's Tale was shit anyway.

Fifth Element (one of my favorites)

LOTR - Return of the King (my very favorite, when's the blueray version coming out?, "Fool, no man can kill me.", "I am no man !") Oooooh, lots of camel squashing in this one.

Total Recall

Red Planet

Crap, the list could go on forever.

You liked Red Planet? Ick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

You liked Red Planet? Ick.

---

I thought we were rating on anti-physics.

Its funny. I thought i was a bad person to go to a movie with. But now, seeing what you guys are like, i feel much better about myself.

Thanks all. :up:

Ignoring physics in movies is only bad if its done badly enough that you cringe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

I thought we were rating on anti-physics.

---

Oh. Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spawnie

Its funny. I thought i was a bad person to go to a movie with. But now, seeing what you guys are like, i feel much better about myself.

Thanks all. :up:

Ignoring physics in movies is only bad if its done badly enough that you cringe.

---

I agree. I go to movies for entertainment and as long as the corners cut won't prevent me from suspending my disbelief, I don't care. I would have liked Phantom Menace if it wasn't such a boring piece of shit. I so wanted Star Wars to take the next step. Alas Lucas was too confident in himself. Fool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

I thought we were rating on anti-physics.

---

I just saw a snippet of some disaster movie where they were planning on closing a fault line using nuclear bombs. I love the magical properties the word "nuclear" has.

Oh.

Something else just occurred to me after reading about your fault line disaster movie.

In Superman II, or is it III, Lois Lane is in a car which is crushed during some earthquake or summink caused be Lex Luthor. She dies. In a fit of emotion on discovering her dead body, Superman flies faster and faster and faster round the earth, until time starts going backwards, back to point before Lois gets crushed so that Superman can save her.

By current understanding, travelling backward in time is an impossibility ness pah. Time can only be slowed down as the speed of light is approached. And the speed of light is the universe's speed limit.

But I guess any limits imposed on us by our physical universe are mere hurdles to overcome for our Superhero. Cos he's Super. :rolleyes: