Movies are dumbing down science, along with everything else

swokm · Aug 17, 2007

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fulgan:<BR>The worse offender I remember was actually a french comic called "Yoko Tsuno". Here is a translation of a dialog I found hilarious when I read it... when I was 13 year old:<BR><BR>"You can't go faster than light: any object going faster would leave it's energy behind it and disintegrate!"<BR>"That's true, except if you travel in a medium where light doesn't exists. That's why the station traveled slowly through space in between our two system and weaved a <B>tube of opaque waves</B> that prevents the light from entering"<BR>"Aha!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Teh Intarwebs?

Macwarrior · Aug 17, 2007

I recall seeing an episode of CSI or Law & Order or something recently. The lab tech put a test tube full of blood into a centrifuge, hit "on", and as soon as it started spinning, DNA showed up on the computer screen.<BR><BR>1. Centrifuges don't read data (ever tried to make a wire connection to a spinning object?)<BR>2. Even if they did, even a small centrifuge takes several minutes to spin up to full speed.<BR>3. (and the most important) Red blood cells don't contain DNA. Come ON!

Fulgan · Aug 17, 2007

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ASMatic:<BR>And a watertank full of hydrogen (and bubbling water...) exploding with the force of a tactical nuke is also quite funny. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Actually, the number of common objects that turn into very respectable military grade explosive (or incendiary devices) is astonishing:<BR><BR>- Microwaves.<BR>- Cars (for some reason, they often explode in mid-air even before hitting the bottom of a cliff).<BR>- Any computer keyboard.<BR>- Falling lifts.<BR>- etc.

byosys · Aug 17, 2007

IMO, the most frequent offenders are just about all the crime shows on TV. The most egregious that I recall off the top of my head was in Numb3rs when a lab tech ran a pen sized "magnet" over a bare hard drive platter and "degaussed" the hard drive to not only recover the binary data, but magically found a hidden, encrypted file.<BR><BR>And the worst part is that I've heard (forget from where, so don't quote me) is that real criminal juries are expecting the same level of evidence presented in CSI/L&O/<insert crime show here> when in reality you can't enlarge a cheap security camera to 800% and get crystal clear quality.

Macwarrior · Aug 17, 2007

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Interactive Civilian:<BR>Now, just out of curiosity, assuming that the dogfight was moving in that direction at pretty good speed (as was indicated in the radar room on the Aircraft carrier), how long would it take to cover 200 miles? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>If Maverick's F-14 was travelling at its maximum speed of mach 2.3, or roughly 1500 mph, it would take (200/1500)60 minutes -- roughly 8 minutes. That's in full afterburner, where a fully fueled plane only has enough fuel for about 10-20 minutes of flying in the first place.<BR><BR>And I liked chain reaction. It wasn't an oxygen-hydrogen explosion, it was a runaway acoustic bubble implosion fusion reactor. It was dramatized for hollywood for sure, but they got the basic idea right.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">when a lab tech ran a pen sized "magnet" over a bare hard drive platter and "degaussed" the hard drive to not only recover the binary data, but magically found a hidden, encrypted file. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Looks like drivesavers have some competition! Who knew I could duplicate all their dumb laser readers and bit-by-bit recreation of data with a $2 magnet from the hardware store?<BR><BR><BR>The classic "enhance that image" always does it for me. I soooo want that photoshop plugin. Want to see how photo analysis really works? Watch The Good Shepherd, and see the scenes with the CIA photo interpreters. They have a giant mess of grain projected on the screen and spend days trying to figure out what it is.

68K · Aug 17, 2007

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jgk6:<br>One pet peeve: every gun seems to have a huge muzzle flash. It's a wonder that soldiers and policemen in some of these epice can see anything after a two minute gun battle. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>This was actually used to good effect in Equilibrium. From the IMDB:<br><br>"In certain scenes, the muzzle flash of the pistols and rifles fired by the Clerics and guards will reveal the Tetragrammaton insignia."<br><br>Pretty cool. -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --

Bicentennial Douche · Aug 17, 2007

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Interactive Civilian:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rostov:<BR>I vaguely remember the big dogfight scene in Top Gun where Tom Cruise says something like "I have them on radar. 200 miles out. I'll be there in 30 seconds." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>[EDIT]Whoops...nevermind. Though I do believe the quote included something about being supersonic.<BR><BR>"I have them on radar. 200 miles out. Maverick is supersonic, I'll be there in 30 seconds).<BR><BR>Now, just out of curiosity, assuming that the dogfight was moving in that direction at pretty good speed (as was indicated in the radar room on the Aircraft carrier), how long would it take to cover 200 miles? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>There are at least two annoying things in Top Gun:<BR><BR>a) There is no such thing as "Mig-28". Migs were all odd-numbered (Mig-19, 21, 23, 25 etc.)<BR><BR>b) F-14 Tomcats were not supposed to engage in dogfights. They were supposed to shoot their targets down 100 miles away with their Phoenix-missiles. In actual dogfight, I think they wold have lost, since they are not deisgned for dogfighting.

Little-Zen · Aug 17, 2007

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fulgan:<br>Ok, so, how about: if Superman can fly that fast in the first place, why would he NEED to reverse the flow of time since, basically, this was an evil scheme to force him to chose between saving his girl or preventing a nuclear missile to hit a city ? I mean: he could easily have done both thing at the same time and still have plenty of time for a coffee break in Milan. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>http://www.howitshouldhaveended.com/<br><br>Look up Superman. -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --<br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by byosys:<br>I've heard (forget from where, so don't quote me) is that real criminal juries are expecting the same level of evidence presented in CSI/L&O/<insert crime show here> </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>I've heard the same thing. It's sad, but not too surprising, considering the amount of crime shows all over TV.

Fulgan · Aug 17, 2007

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by swokm:<BR>Teh Intarwebs? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>LOL<BR><BR>Really, I didn't mistranslate that: the whole dialog was utterly absurd. It was even more stupid in the sense that nobody was actually bloody ASKING any question.<BR><BR>I mean, I'm good sport with stories: If you need a FTL ship for your plot, then by all mean, go for it! Say it goes faster than light, use "hyperspace" or "wormholes" if you really must, but don't try to justify it to the audience with pseudo-science!<BR><BR>That's why I'm not bothered at all by the various bugs in "The 5th element" movie: it doesn't try to explain, they are just plot element for a situation, some special effect or just for the atmosphere. Don't get me out of immersion by trying to squeeze a stupid explanation that even the writer cannot believe: you're taking your audience for idiots and that's never a good idea.

Evil Peer · Aug 17, 2007

Someone has already pointed out why the Superman scene is not an example of bad science (its just often misinterpreted as such). It should also be pointed out that if he were trying to reverse the turn of the Earth, it would not reverse time, but it probably would end all life as we know it. As quickly as he stopped the Earth, things would have been flying into the air tangentially at about 1000 MPH. Kal-el, destroyer of worlds. -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --<br><br>The Magneto scene is also not really a bad example. As has been previously mentioned.. Super powers, 'nuff said. But even beyond that, the measurement of calories burned would only apply if Magneto were somehow creating the magnetic/gravitic waves himself and applying them to the bridge. More likely, he is merely shaping the fields by the power of thought and suggesting to them to move the bridge. This means you are now dealing with an information measurement as opposed to pure f = ma.

olodumare · Aug 17, 2007

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Janne:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrNSX:<br>Agreed. My favorite was from Jurassic Park as the girl goes flying through a 3D environment:<br><br>"I know this -- it's UNIX!" -- View image here: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/forum/smilies/biggrin.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Actually, the filemanager she was using did actually exist, and it did run on IRIX (the OS she was using in the movie)... </div>
</blockquote>
<br>-- View image here: http://www.nerdgod.com/images/fsn.map2.jpg -- <br>Heyyy. that IS UNIX!

Macwarrior · Aug 17, 2007

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fulgan:<BR>That's why I'm not bothered at all by the various bugs in "The 5th element" movie: it doesn't try to explain, they are just plot element for a situation, some special effect or just for the atmosphere. Don't get me out of immersion by trying to squeeze a stupid explanation that even the writer cannot believe: you're taking your audience for idiots and that's never a good idea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Agreed. The only part of T5E that approached pseudoscience was when the scientists were analyzing Milla Jovovich's DNA and explaining how all these extra "memo groups" gave her superhuman powers...<BR>Since we currently have no idea how to genetically engineer a being with superhuman powers, I think their explanation flies perfectly well.<BR>I liked that movie.

swiftdraw · Aug 17, 2007

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Janne:<BR><BR>b) F-14 Tomcats were not supposed to engage in dogfights. They were supposed to shoot their targets down 100 miles away with their Phoenix-missiles. In actual dogfight, I think they wold have lost, since they are not deisgned for dogfighting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Actually, for it's size, the F-14 was a highly maneuverable aircraft and could hold it's own in a dogfight. All really comes down to the pilot.<BR><BR>That said, in a hostile engagement, you're right. They'd try to eliminate the threat as far away from the carrier force (and themselves) as possible. Though a 100 mi is a bit much as that was the maximum range of the phoenix. Probably more like 70 if they used the phoenix instead of the cheaper Sparrow or similar AAM.

Fulgan · Aug 17, 2007

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Magneto scene is also not really a bad example. As has been previously mentioned.. Super powers, 'nuff said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>You should have stopped there

<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But even beyond that, the measurement of calories burned would only apply if Magneto were somehow creating the magnetic/gravitic waves himself and applying them to the bridge. More likely, he is merely shaping the fields by the power of thought and suggesting to them to move the bridge. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>WHAT field ?

olodumare · Aug 17, 2007

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Macwarrior:<BR>Agreed. The only part of T5E that approached pseudoscience was when the scientists were analyzing Milla Jovovich's DNA and explaining how all these extra "memo groups" gave her superhuman powers...<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Weren't they also bombarding her with "Slightly greasy solar protons" or some such? ...greasy?

polaris20 · Aug 17, 2007

It's true....modern movies have completely corrupted my true understanding of science. For example, I have no idea how a real lightsaber works.<BR><BR>Also, everybody knows real mutates bitten by radioactive spiders have the web shoot out of just above their ass....not their wrists. Silly movies. They get it all wrong.

Deleted member 1 · Aug 17, 2007

August 14th Episode of Eureka. build up of acetylcholine in the CNS does not reveal any relevant toxic effect until death(such as SLUDGE-salivation, Lacrimation, Urination, Diaphoresis, GI motility (diarrhea), and Emesis), and to remove it by filtering it out of the system through the lungs? gimme a break. Has NO genius heard of acetylcholinesterase or atropine?

Bicentennial Douche · Aug 17, 2007

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by swiftdraw:<BR>Actually, for it's size, the F-14 was a highly maneuverable aircraft </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Yes, "for it's size". That's like saying "for it's size, B-52 Stratofortress is highly manouverable aircraft". It still doesn't mean that facing a bunch of nimble dogfighters with one makes much sense.

Fulgan · Aug 17, 2007

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by olodumare:<BR>Weren't they also bombarding her with "Slightly greasy solar protons" or some such? ...greasy? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Where they ? I remember that they where bombarding her with "radiations". That being said, yes, that whole scene is, from a lot of point of views, absurd... And it really doesn't matter: it introduce the character exactly as the director wanted her: sexy, dangerous and alien.

onkeljonas · Aug 17, 2007

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zorneatsham:<br>Aren't there copyrights involved with using existing (commercial) OSes in movies? That wouldn't stop filmmakers from using some tasty shots of a character using a Gnome or KDE desktop, right? </div>
</blockquote>More likely the OS company aren't paying enough, and if there is one thing Hollywood producers hate it is giving anyone free publicity.<br><br>I think it is silly to blame something as fundamentally <i>not</i> real as a superhero movie like Superman for misrepresenting reality. I also doubt that natural science gets the worst treatment – the humans in these kinds of movies rarely act like the real thing.<br>That's not to say it has no merits, and at the very least it is great fun -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif --<br><br>Anyways, the biggest immersion killer to me is when the natural laws of the protayed universe apparently exist solely to provide dramatic effect for random heroes. I can believe that the almost-unlimited-ammunition-weapon runs out, that something otherwise not very explosive (like a car) blows up in a gigantic explosion etc. Â– but when it does so at a time and in a way that is so obviously only for the benefit of the viewer I cringe.<br>It is sort of the same thing when MovieOS can do anything at all fully automatically, unless there is a Countdown of DoomÂ™ Â– in which case even the simplest of tasks require so many obscure commands (and distracting visual effects) that it doesn't finish untill just before the timer hits 0.<br><br>Oh yea... nitpick of the century award goes to:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Though the crew quarters in the spaceship Discovery are arranged in a rotating wheel to simulate gravity, the wheel's short radius would require many RPM (5-10 RPM, depending on the actual radius) to produce Earth-like gravity. In the film, the centrifuge rotates at about 3 RPM (once every 20 seconds). </div>
</blockquote>
-- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif --

stinky93 · Aug 17, 2007

My two all time favorites:<BR><BR>1. Armageddon - They spend the entire movie slingshotting around the moon to land on the backside of the asteroid. Then, towards the end of the movie Bruce Willis remains behind, and the shuttle captain announces, "I'm turning around".<BR><BR>2. Blade 2 - When the bag of light grenades goes off in the sewer system. You can actually see the light coming around the corner and dive out of the way. Um, if you can see the light, it is already there.<BR><BR>/Honorable mention to the Unix girl in Jurassic Park who uses the graphical interface. Every time I play Doom I announce to the world "This is a Windows system. I know this."

Newmanium · Aug 17, 2007

I realize that movies can't <b>always</b> follow the rules of science, otherwise they wouldn't be fun -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --<br><br>BUT, I'm with Kressilac on this one. Why the fuck do computers make so much noise in movies? It's the most glaringly obvious mistake that keeps appearing in films EVERY year. Do they think we're that stupid? (*beep beep bleeeeep* "Let me pull up some more info" *beeeeeeep* *bloop*!)<br><br>And, I'm a meteorologist. I've spent the better part of the last 3 years answering questions from people wondering "Could that REALLY happen like the Day After Tomorrow?" And don't even get me started on how badly I think that SINGLE movie has corrupted the debate on climate change. Complete morons that have no idea what they're talking about point at the ridiculousness of The Day After Tomorrow as proof that climate scientists are crazy.

Fulgan · Aug 17, 2007

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Though the crew quarters in the spaceship Discovery are arranged in a rotating wheel to simulate gravity, the wheel's short radius would require many RPM (5-10 RPM, depending on the actual radius) to produce Earth-like gravity. In the film, the centrifuge rotates at about 3 RPM (once every 20 seconds). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Well, Bowman is actually running, isn't he ? he's adding his own speed to the rotation and therefore adding to the apparent gravity.<BR><BR>Is it enough to add the missing RPMs ? I don't know

BigLan · Aug 17, 2007

I'll vote for pretty much anything by Michael Crichton as having some of the worst science. Yes, they got the unix stuff in Jurassic park right, and I seem to remember Andromeda Strain being semi-alright, but the guy gave us disclosure, timeline and sphere.<BR><BR>Also, Live Free or Die Hard gets an honorable mention, especially in the misrepresentation-of-computers category.

Macwarrior · Aug 17, 2007

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by olodumare:<BR><BR>Weren't they also bombarding her with "Slightly greasy solar protons" or some such? ...greasy? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Kind of weird that I know this, but the quote is "slightly increasing solar atoms". I interpreted that as they were gradually shooting her with more and more UV light and related high-energy particles.<BR>How that makes her grow skin I dunno, but hey -- she's superhuman.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">August 14th Episode of Eureka. build up of acetylcholine in the CNS does not reveal any relevant toxic effect until death(such as SLUDGE-salivation, Lacrimation, Urination, Diaphoresis, GI motility (diarrhea), and Emesis), and to remove it by filtering it out of the system through the lungs? gimme a break. Has NO genius heard of acetylcholinesterase or atropine? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Yeah, I didn't understand at all why they had to (or even could) use fluid breathing to get rid of it. And "there is no way to reduce it"?<BR>Um, all animals that have acetylcholine as a neurotransmitter also have acetylcholine antagonists. Don't tell me that the most advanced research facility in the world doesn't have a supply of those.<BR><BR>Oh, and the idea that "if we get his acetylcholine down to zero, his body will reset itself" it just retahted.

Fulgan · Aug 17, 2007

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Newmanium:<br>BUT, I'm with Kressilac on this one. Why the fuck do computers make so much noise in movies? It's the most glaringly obvious mistake that keeps appearing in films EVERY year. Do they think we're that stupid? (*beep beep bleeeeep* "Let me pull up some more info" *beeeeeeep* *bloop*!) </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Well, the general answer is: because they are not computers but plot devices and that they have a limited amount of time to carry the necessary information to the audience. You can't "train" the viewer to recognize the various way a real computer uses to communicate with his user nore can you render what's happening on a computer screen over the course of several minutes in 5 seconds.<br><br>Therefore, the director sometime have to add more noises, flashes and stupid voice synthesizer in the movie that a real system would need.<br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And, I'm a meteorologist. I've spent the better part of the last 3 years answering questions from people wondering "Could that REALLY happen like the Day After Tomorrow?" </div>
</blockquote> <br><br>I feel for you there. Really. An I imagine that being a scientific forensic expert working for the police would be even worse.<br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And don't even get me started on how badly I think that SINGLE movie has corrupted the debate on climate change. Complete morons that have no idea what they're talking about point at the ridiculousness of The Day After Tomorrow as proof that climate scientists are crazy. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Aren't they ? I'm still surprise you took the time off building your doomsday weather control system to write this message: thank you for your effort -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --

dedsmith · Aug 17, 2007

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fluppeteer:<br>The more tech-savvy the world gets, the more chance there is that the big guys in the film industry will notice that a lot of the audience is being distracted by stupidity. Surely ILM et al. must be full of people with some tech savvy - maybe they could be persuaded to overrule their artistic director occasionally? </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>ROFL!<br><br>That's priceless! I can just see it now...<br><br>Director: "So the opening scene of this 100 Mill film is our hero jumping from the top of a six story building...backwards...shooting both his pistols and killing the bad guys with SMGs...he lands on the roof of his girlfriends speeding car..but he slips and is falling off...but manages to catch his foot on the roof rack, his face just inches from the speeding pavement...he then somersaults over the car, through the sunroof and lands in the passenger seat! Whadda ya think?"<br><br>VFX: "That could never happen."<br><br>Director: "What do you mean? What couldn't?"<br><br>VFX: "Everything. The impact would kill him and everything else is physically implausible"<br><br>Director: "So what"<br><br>VFX: "It would be more realistic if he was on the second floor and her car was parked."<br><br>Director: "But that's not very exciting"<br><br>VFX: "I insist"<br><br>Director: "You're fired."<br><br>-- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --<br><br>If you don't like the recycled crap Hollywood shovels at you, then DON'T WATCH IT! They'll never change their ways if we continue to reward them by making "BigDumbActionMovie IX" just as profitable as "BigDumbActionMovie VIII".

Salvasian · Aug 17, 2007

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by vertgo:<BR>This just in:<BR>Porn does a really bad job of teaching kids about love, marriage, and fidelity.<BR><BR>That said, I sure learned a lot about double penetration from it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>LOL, that comment wins for making me snarf my water!

Tyberius · Aug 17, 2007

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bag:<BR><BR>I can't remember which episode, but there was one of TNG where some Romulan guy who was "out of phase" was chasing a crewmember all over the ship. I think he ended up passing through a bulkhead into space and floated away. If he could pass through a bulkhead, why was the floor holding him up? I can suspend belief to a point, but when you break your own rules.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The floor had gravity plating. Presumably this had something to do with him not passing through the floor.

shread · Aug 17, 2007

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Note to film and TV producers: science grad students work for peanuts. Buy one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Priceless.<BR><BR>As an organismal biologist, I usually get aggravated when the flora and fauna are wrong, such as a pine forest in the Appalachians and pileated woodpeckers in the Amazon.<BR><BR>And my daughters get aggravated when I start pointing out all the flaws, usually in most any movie I see.

sunlight · Aug 17, 2007

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Janne:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fluppeteer:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Twelve:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Janne:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Superman... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Um, instead of that, how about "progress of time is not tied to the rotation of Earth"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>He flies fast enough to go back in time. The direction of rotation reverses when the flow of time reverses. The direction that he flies doesn't matter; just the speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>*Oh*. That makes much more sense. I'd always assumed that the scene was trying to say that he'd reversed time by spinning the Earth backwards, rather than travelling back through it (which is, I guess, the same thing as reversing time). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Same thing here. The actual scene is quite confusing and I always thought that he was attempting to reverse the rotation of Earth, and therefore reverse the flow of time. And that wouldn't make any sense, even in Superman-universe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Thanks from me too. I know it was silly to get worked up over a scene like that, considering the premise, but it makes the movie *MUCH* more palatable.

Evil Peer · Aug 17, 2007

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fulgan:<BR>WHAT field? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I haven't actually seen the movie in question, so I was writing from what I know of Magneto based on the prior two films and what was described of the scene. If he doesn't have powers and is moving the bridge as an ordinary man, then yeah, its completely bogus. But Magneto doesn't have super-strength, so even if he's grabbing onto the bridge when he moves it, he's still using magnetism to do so (in the comics, even though his powers are supposed to be based on magnetic fields, they sometimes take on gravitic effects, so it may not be "magnetic" per se).

Macwarrior · Aug 17, 2007

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Evil Peer:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fulgan:<BR>WHAT field? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I haven't actually seen the movie in question, so I was writing from what I know of Magneto based on the prior two films and what was described of the scene. If he doesn't have powers and is moving the bridge as an ordinary man, then yeah, its completely bogus. But Magneto doesn't have super-strength, so even if he's grabbing onto the bridge when he moves it, he's still using magnetism to do so (in the comics, even though his powers are supposed to be based on magnetic fields, they sometimes take on gravitic effects, so it may not be magnetic per se). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I think the question he was asking is "if Magneto is just manipulating an existing magnetic field to move the bridge, where is the field coming from?".<BR>Which is a valid question. Fields don't come out of nowhere.

Tyberius · Aug 17, 2007

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jgk6:<BR>One pet peeve: every gun seems to have a huge muzzle flash. It's a wonder that soldiers and policemen in some of these epice can see anything after a two minute gun battle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It is a wonder that they can hear anything as well. A firearms discharge is quite loud.

Evil Peer · Aug 17, 2007

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Macwarrior:<br>I think the question he was asking is "if Magneto is just manipulating an existing magnetic field to move the bridge, where is the field coming from?".<br>Which is a valid question. Fields don't come out of nowhere. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>A <i>very</i> valid question. There's nothing in the human body that can generate magnetic fields in such a manner, which makes it unlikely that Magneto himself is the culprit. So we either go back to "gravitic" or we throw our hands up in the air and say "a wizard did it". -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --<br><br>The whole point I was making is that the calorie burning issue brought up was a completely erroneous approach, which is pretty much true no matter how you look at the situation.

Garfield the Cat · Aug 17, 2007

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by swiftdraw:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Janne:<BR><BR>b) F-14 Tomcats were not supposed to engage in dogfights. They were supposed to shoot their targets down 100 miles away with their Phoenix-missiles. In actual dogfight, I think they wold have lost, since they are not deisgned for dogfighting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Actually, for it's size, the F-14 was a highly maneuverable aircraft and could hold it's own in a dogfight. All really comes down to the pilot.<BR><BR>That said, in a hostile engagement, you're right. They'd try to eliminate the threat as far away from the carrier force (and themselves) as possible. Though a 100 mi is a bit much as that was the maximum range of the phoenix. Probably more like 70 if they used the phoenix instead of the cheaper Sparrow or similar AAM. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The problem with using the phoenix missile is that when you are not at war (or in a free fire zone), you have to usually visually ID the bandit first, or wait for them to shoot at you before you can engage. By that time, you are more likely to use a Sparrow or sidewinder since you are too close for a phoenix. The phoenix was designed more for stopping long-range bombers from getting to the carriers, not for close-in combat with fighters.<BR><BR>As to Top Gun, I always hated how they had 360 degree radar onboard the tomcats. They would show the RIO's screen as a normal rotating radar screen, which it doesn't. And why didn't the carrier have a hawkeye up, providing coverage? That last fight scene, where a fifth "MIG" magically appears behind the tomcats? WTF?<BR><BR>And no mention of the 100mile Exocet range mentioned in the movie?

Kirk Job-Sluder · Aug 17, 2007

Just one quibble, the bus jump in Speed was done as a full-scale vehicle jump. Issues regarding the filmed trajectory are probably due to viewpoint or editing.

the.seneschal · Aug 17, 2007

Am I the only one who watches movies and shows for enjoyment and thus never care if they use the sup3r photoshop plugin, analyze blood and DNA in 2 seconds or use a fake OS? <BR><BR>I am much, much more worried about the alarming rate of wikipedia references in student papers that are supposed to be at an academic level in standards. That really makes me depressed when it comes to future generations.

acadia · Aug 17, 2007

Look, get over it, 500 years ago the world was flat. Sure hollywood defies all laws of physics, I have no excuse for a bus defying gravity and traveling horizontal as opposed to a parabolic curve, but at the end of the day, when we are talking about a guy who shoots laser beams from hi s eyes, how realistic can you expect the movie to be?

Macwarrior · Aug 17, 2007

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Garfield the Cat:<BR>And no mention of the 100mile Exocet range mentioned in the movie? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I think that, in general, getting weapon specifications wrong is less of a deal than violating the laws of physics. In Independence Day, Will Smith looks at a box and says "It's just like the AMRAAM launch pad on a B-2 stealth". The B-2 doesn't carry AMRAAMs, the launcher is integrated into the plane's weapon computer, not a separate pad, etc -- but that kind of fades away in comparison to the drastic issues with the rest of the movie.<BR><BR>For instance, the aliens wouldn't need to have all the assault saucers and little ships. Just parking their mothership where it was ("one quarter the size of the moon", "halfway between the earth and the moon") would cause such massive tidal forces that the entire planet would be ripped to pieces by tidal waves, earthquakes and volcanoes. No need for antimatter death rays.

Movies are dumbing down science, along with everything else

Ars Tribunus Militum

Wise, Aged Ars Veteran

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius

Ars Praefectus

Wise, Aged Ars Veteran

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Praefectus

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Wise, Aged Ars Veteran

Ars Praefectus

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Wise, Aged Ars Veteran

Deleted member 1

Guest

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius

Smack-Fu Master, in training

Smack-Fu Master, in training

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius

Wise, Aged Ars Veteran

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Smack-Fu Master, in training

Seniorius Lurkius

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius

Ars Centurion

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Wise, Aged Ars Veteran

Seniorius Lurkius

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Wise, Aged Ars Veteran

Seniorius Lurkius

Ars Praetorian

Wise, Aged Ars Veteran