Impossible Movie Stunts? 258
ThousandStars asks: "After watching Spider-Man, I noticed some miraculous physics like Spider-Man falling faster than a girl to save her and the girl catching the cable car at the end. It reminded me of a list of 12 problems with the plot and science of Independence Day, which brings me to my question: What are the most implausible, impossible and sheerly rediculous science-related things you have seen in movies?"
It not the bad science so much as . . . (Score:4, Funny)
I'd much rather the quick-and-glib-and-then-ignore it science of how spiderman or the hulk etc got their powers than, for example wait for the fourth movie and then decide that the force is a microbe.
Watch "Hollywood Science" (Score:5, Interesting)
They have a website here [open2.net] with information from the shows.
The simulation of Paul Newmans stomach in "Cool Hand Luke" was particularly gruesome...
-Baz
Re:Watch "Hollywood Science" (Score:2)
Little known fact - actors often do more than one role in their lifetime.
--
Evan "SC, JW and RD fan" E.
Re:Watch "Hollywood Science" (Score:2)
Wow
Real Genius (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Real Genius (Score:2, Funny)
-- Asked as the older guy is cutting a slice of a solid, frozen object
Re:War Games (Score:2)
HI MEL!
Mission Impossible 2 (Score:3, Funny)
Favorite generic one: Explosions have no shrapnel, they only hurl the hero to where he needs to be.
Re:Mission Impossible 2 (Score:2)
Oh, and also the ablility of the bikes to change from road slicks to knoby dirt tires in the middle of a chase ( gotta get me so of those ).
Don't forget the masks! (Score:3, Interesting)
I felt like the movie hated me.
mark
Re:Mission Impossible 2 (Score:2)
Some page with a WTC survivor story where a guy had just walked out of the lobby of the first tower to collapse and as it started to collapse, the fireball that rushed down ahead of it and blew out the lobby apparently hurled him across the street and out of the way of the collapsing building.
Then again, he just got out of the hospital and had burns all over his body as well as numerous fractures and broken bones. I don't think he'd be able to get up and engage in a fight and take a few dozen blows to the head and chest with a blunt instrument, like happens in many movies...
the totally implauseable... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:the totally implauseable... (Score:2)
don't forget friction (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, much more realistic than M&M's floating in a nice double helix!
Re:don't forget friction (Score:2)
Defending The Wall Crawler (Score:3, Informative)
At least that's how I want to think of it, I liked the movie.
Re:Defending The Wall Crawler (Score:2)
Re:Defending The Wall Crawler (Score:2)
It depends on how far away from the ground you are. Neither of the bullets will exceed terminal velocity, the bullet shot from the gun will reach it first, but the thrown bullet will eventually reach it. Since the bullet from the gun will stop accelerating, the other bullet will catch up until both are falling from the same plane.
Timecop made me hurl (Score:3, Interesting)
All very well and good, but during the debriefing sequence, a scientist type person proudly exclaimed that they had determined the age of the bars by carbon dating them.
Ignoring the fact that the gold bars were inorganic, and thus unable to be carbon dated, (I'm not entirely sure about the process, so I'll let them get away with that one), they screwed up big time...
The gold bars DIDN'T AGE when they were brought into the future, so how could it have been dated as 100+ years old when it had technically only existed for a couple of days?
And while I'm at it... Terminator 2. (Electric Boogaloo?) How the HELL did the T-1000, being made of molten metal alloy, get through the time displacement unit, when it was previously established that only organics could pass through? They could at least have had the T-1000 appear in a ball of synthetic flesh, then ooze out to become Robert Patrick. Would have spoilt the 'surprise' that Arnie was the good guy this time, but there's still undiscovered tribes in the Peruvian rainforests that know about THAT clever plotting device.
Disclaimer: Yes, I know they're just movies. And I'm prepared to accept Time Travel paradoxes at face value, as long as they're consistent.
Re:Timecop made me hurl (Score:3, Funny)
Speaking of which, dancing on the walls is impossible, let alone the ceiling.
Re:Timecop made me hurl (Score:2)
All four travellers using the time machine in the terminator movies were naked. Kyle gave the reasoning that nothing non-living can get through, although anything non-living encased in living tissue can.
Although, if this was true, then they should have all come through hairless and without fingernails, since mostly these parts of the human body are dead.
I think the time machine only works with something thats exterior is composed of a cellular structure. Say the time displacement fields cause some degree of matter displacement to the outer centemeter or so of anything passing through it. If it's composed of a cellular structure, which humans and the T1000 are, then it can pass through since while the exterior might be disrupted, it would also be reorganized. A mechanical device however, composed of parts made from solid metal, might be sufficently deformed as to be useless by the time it reaches its destination. It would make it, but would be inoperable. The Arnie Terminator got away with it, since it only affects the outer shell of whatever passes through the machine, and since that part of him IS living tissue, and therefore cellular, he gets away with it.
Ok, there. All explained. Not that it matters.
-Restil
Re:Timecop made me hurl (Score:3)
I must turn against ST ... (sadly) (Score:4, Funny)
On a second thought, there might be a tiny, winy bit of unbelievable things in there, like the Heisenberg compensators making the transporters work. There is your neighbourhood dysons-sphere conveniently built around a sun to harvest energy (Next generation episode: Relics).
We shouldn't really get into discussing warp speed, everybody knows that Stephen Hawking is working on it. There are smaller things in Trek that go by hardly recognized. E.g. the weather control systems that are only mentioned when failing.
Force fields are mentioned so often in Scfi-Fi we just have to believe in the possiblity. There seem to be working experiments with magnetic "shields". Metaphasic shields on the other hand are something completely different, although they have become as common as cloaking devices in the Star Trek universe.
Let's face it, fellow trekkers: Most of this stuff is unreachable and will remain so for a long time, if not forever. ;(
Now off for a cup of tea, Earl Grey, hot, freshly converted from dilithium generated energy to matter by a food replicator ...
Re:I must turn against ST ... (sadly) (Score:2)
Or VOYL Parallax: With the hole in the event horizon and being able to punch your way though
Re:I must turn against ST ... (sadly) (Score:3, Interesting)
The only problem with this is, assuming that its possible, and it might be, the numerous plot elements involved that allow weapons fire, transporting, and other fun activities while in warp.
At least the new Enterprise show has a possibility of correcting some bad errors since most of these magical technologies either don't exist yet, or are in their infant stages. They don't yet have shields, force fields were just introduced last episode and are a buggy contraption at this point. Everyone except Malcolm is too scared to use the transporter, so we don't have any transporter based plot elements to screw up yet. They seem to be spending a lot less time on the technical aspects of interstellar space travel and more on the social and politcal aspects of it. Which really isn't a bad thing. Its a lot harder to screw that up.
Of course, in the pilot they go the Klingon homeworld's location all wrong. But they gotta screw up SOMETHING... hehe
-Restil
Re:you are ignorant of the facts (Score:2)
Technically, Dilithium just focuses the energy from the M/AM reaction chamber. Basically, instead of blowing off a wild range of heat, kinetic, light in various spectrum, etc, Dilithium focuses it into a (afaik, undefined) beam of energy. That's used for various purposes (since it's undefined, that makes it easy).
And you're right - the guy you were quoting was listing a whole bunch of very realistic tech (Dyson sphere, which SETI is searching for), and weather control, that is just way down the road from where we are, but not impossible. After that, there are a series of postulates (subspace, dilithium, the Originators) that build up to rational extensions if you accept the original postulates (warp drive, intelligent life being 99% humanoid). Sure, a massive chunk of it is retcon... but it's good retcon, done by intelligent people who put quite a bit of thought into it.
I told a friend the other day during a non-Trek related conversation: "Well, it all depends on if FTL travel is possible". "I think it is". "Why?" "Because the alternative terrifies the hell out of me".
I don't think we know enough about physics to state anything authoritatively about the future four centuries from now.
--
Evan
Sometimes it's not even science... (Score:2)
That's not bad science - that's totally re-inventing human powers of observation!
Re:Sometimes it's not even science... (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, Clark Kent learned the Reality Distortion Field technique from Steve Jobs.
Re:not to mention.. (Score:2)
I don't no what it's called but it allows you to come through a fight without a hair out of place.
aerodynamic drag (Score:2)
Re:aerodynamic drag (Score:2)
Would my wife have actually removed my arm at this point? Most likely. I think she dislocated my shoulder when Goblin was after Aunt Mae.
Great movie.
Re:aerodynamic drag (Score:2)
I didn't know it was humanly possible for someone to actually claw through an arm, but my girlfriend proves me wrong time and time again.
Superstrong SO's (Score:2, Funny)
Charlie's angels (Score:2)
Goldeneye (Score:2)
Essentially, to get away from a fight, he tries to take off in a light aircraft but has to jump out. Plane keeps on going down the runway and off the end and over a cliff into a pretty fast vertical dive. Meanwhile, Bond has stopped the problem, jumped onto a motorbike, charged down the runway after the plane and gone over the end. He then skydives at the plane, climbs into it, pulls it out of a vertical dive and flys off to safety.
Something in that doesn't seem quite right
Oh, how could I forget Speed? (Score:3, Informative)
Last time I watched that film (good fun, bad science) I did some quick mental maths. Memory says that, assuming no air resistance and no invisible ramp to make it kick up like that
Re:Oh, how could I forget Speed? (Score:2)
Re:Oh, how could I forget Speed? (Score:2)
One day I'll get a DVD player (but, to stick it to the man I'll get it multiregion modded and buy a Macrovision blocker, then only buy import DVDs
Re:Goldeneye (Score:2)
It's a stretch but it's possible. The plane will fall slower than 007 since it's wings will give it some suport and because it drags around alot more air than 007. If that's enough, and if there's any cliff in the world big enough for the whole scene to be possible is a whole diferent story.
Re:Goldeneye (Score:2)
Cliff height does seem to be the more significant problem, I agree, but the whole scene was pretty dodgy
Re:Goldeneye (Score:2)
A person freefalling can maneuver. Sky-divers do this. Bond could too.
Cliff height does seem to be the more significant problem
Yep, with enough height all this would be possible.
I agree, but the whole scene was pretty dodgy :-)
Yes it was.
Re:Goldeneye (Score:2)
Re:Goldeneye (Score:2)
After the film came out the stunt coordinator said in an interview that it was the most disapointing stunt of his career because it was the best and no one believed it was real because it was "obviously" impossible!
TWW
Re:Goldeneye (Score:2)
I'd love to see how hard a time they had finding a stuntman to do it, though... Can't see that being an easy hire.
Re:Somewhat possible (it was done in two parts) (Score:2)
Armaggeddon (Score:3, Insightful)
Armageddon (Score:2)
And for light reading, here is a Science Review [darylscience.com].
Re:Armaggeddon (Score:3, Interesting)
"Oh, hey, this asteroid the size of Texas is less than 8 days from Earth, which in cosmic terms is like saying that a baseball thrown at 90 mph is about 3 cm from hitting your face. But we still believe that a force less than that of a supernova has a hope of detracting it from hitting the Earth. In fact, we think that we can blow it up from the inside and split it in two, and the two halves will just come within 5 miles of the Earth's atmosphere and continue right out into space, no problem whatsoever."
Armageddon makes Isaac Newton cry.
ahem: What is the question exactly? (Score:5, Interesting)
Movies aren't supposed to be real. As someone pointed out allready, "isn't the fact that Peter Parker was bit by a radioactive spider and turned into spider man impossible?"
Movies only attempt to reflect reality when convenient and/or feasible. Lets look at the X-Men. A great film. Are any of the stunts possible if you're not some kind of a mutant?
Now, I get really pissed off every time I see a computer in a hollywood movie and it looks like they just made up some wierdo TV-like screen and pretend its a computer, if only to satisfy some director's need for artistic clarity. I yearn to see real PC's be they linux or windows or whatever, just because it is so easy to represent PC's accurately, and hollywood never does.
But my favorite physics challenged stunt? That would be how they managed to the lovely rewrite Lt. Yar in STTNG back into the script by having her killed, sent back in time through a portal in an alternate universe, and having her half-romulan daughter who some how is in the present time the same age that Yar would have been and looks exactly like Yar even though she is half-romulan. Man, that's a stretch.
But looking for reality amongst the tale-spinners is at best a nebulous task. It is better to look for reasons that a movie makes us want to look the other way at those cheezy comuter screens, the conveniant plot devices, and even something obvious like how fast an object will fall to the groud.
Re:ahem: What is the question exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well no, but there is a literary technique called Suspension of Disbelief. Authors create a self-consistent universe in which we accept the fact that certain things happen. In Star Trek they have transporters, in X-Men they have mutant powers, and in Star Wars Luke can use the Force. But in the case of a good movie/book, these things are clearly delineated, and have limits. Storm cannot, for instance, shoot lasers from her eyeballs because that's not one of her powers. Captain Picard can't transport the entire Enterprise across the galaxy because their transporters just can't do that.
On the other hand, a bad movie will violate their own rules (and/or other accepted rules like physics) when convenient to advance the plot. Tom Cruise jumping off the nose of a helicopter, which happens to be flying in a tunnel, and landing on the nose of a 200MPH train is my favorite example. Prior to this, we are not presented with a self-consistent universe in which Tom Cruise is part superman. He is just a regular guy. We are not told that he has adamantium bones, and therefore will not break every bone in his body when hitting a 200MPH train. We are not told that this is a special magical helicopter that can fly in tunnels without being sucked up to the ceiling. The scene was created solely for the purpose of advancing the plot, and is inconsistent, and sucks.
Many of the greatest novels/movies of all time have created a self-consistent universe, and then explored the limits of that universe. No, it doesn't match with our universe. Yes, they can do things that when taken out of context in and of themselves are incompatible with what we know. But, in general, we know about these "powers" before they are used, and new "powers" are not invented on the spot. When some new "power" is introduced, it is well explained, and becomes part of the universe. For example, using EMP pulses to kill the squiddies in The Matrix. The device has become part of the Matrix universe, and I imagine will be used in future movies with little explanation. Some examples of great universes: Dune, The Matrix, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Asimov's Robot novels (3 laws of robotics).
If you're going to violate laws of physics in particular, authors had better be prepared to create an entire universe with different laws of physics. Because as far as I know, you just can't do it. Physics is an accepted, implied characteristic of a universe, whether the author spells it out or not. There are only a handful of exceptions that we as audiences have come to accept. Namely: faster-than-light-travel and/or wormholes/hyperspace/stargates. But hey, I am a physicist, so maybe I'm biased. ;)
-- Bob
Re:ahem: What is the question exactly? (Score:2)
Yes, but the physics model of a fictional universe has to be internally consistent, and if it's not it's usually a symptom of the writers being lazy, and that shows up in the quality of the rest of the movie, or show. Star Trek is the classical example of this. Some piece of technology which worked one day will not the next - the transporters will always fail (or be repaired) in a situation to advance the story, sometimes the sensors will penetrate enemy shields, sometimes not. That's just sloppy writing, using a Deus Ex Machina to dig the plot out of a hole.
When writers violate the physics model - that they created in the first place, don't forget, so they could have had it any way they wanted - it stops being a story and starts being a CGI showreel, and that is why a bad movie won't be rescued by special effects (Ref: The Phantom Menace).
Re:So let's ask another question... (Score:2)
Deep space = No air -> No sound (Score:4, Insightful)
Deep space = No air -> No sound
( in case you didn't know
Re:Deep space = No air - No sound (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Deep space = No air - No sound (Score:2)
Most implausible point in a movie? (Score:2)
Re:Most implausible point in a movie? (Score:2)
Well, I remember being most annoyed with things like:
* A radio antenna being used for image collection
* Seamless interconnectivity of private security cameras (though, post PATRIOT act, this seems less crazy now)
* Super-hip government workers, talking on cell phones all the time (that computer jockey ending calls with "it's already done.") Trust me. I've worked for the DOD. It's simply not that cool.
* image extrapolation (as you said)
* and even the uber-evil government agents.
Technologically, it was crap, and politically, even worse.
<rant>
One of the reasons I hate movies that portray the government as "big brother" with super-incredible capabilities is that it gets the public used to the idea that, well, they spy on us already (which, no, they don't. It's illegal, and they actually take that pretty seriously). The problem with that is, that when the government actually starts to make inroads into excessive domestic surveilance, information aggregation, etc., nobody will care cause they saw it in a movie 5 years ago and accept it!
Movies like Enemy of the State, or that Bruce Willis movie where he's a general and takes over NYC, to the point of establishing a concentration camp (was it The Seige?), simpy make my blood boil. If you want to make a movie like this, fine, set it in a PARALLEL world (like comics do -- Gotham City instead of NYC does wonders for allowing unbelievable plot twists to be more acceptable).
Or something like that.
</rant>
Re:Most implausible point in a movie? (Score:2, Insightful)
Didn't they say something about having pulled the tapes? After all, they did have agents right in the neighborhood at the right time to have done so...
uber-evil government agents
This was actually one of the well-done points of the movie, I thought. There was no "uber-evil" guy, just this one Jon Voight guy who was , it eventually became clear, in over his head in this affair. His motives were actually understandable, if a despicably ambitious.
<rant>
I thought the whole point of the movie was the exact opposite of your rant, though. We need to keep alert, or this stuff will really start happening. It's the same story with The Siege - it's a cautionary tale. You see it happen in a movie, get your blood boiling, and say "dammit, that's never gonna happen while I'm around to vote!"
Re:Most implausible point in a movie? (Score:2)
Official Bad Astronomy Site (Score:5, Informative)
Look no further for humorous reading.
Me.
The count down where there's nobody to see it (Score:3, Interesting)
In "Daylight" Stallone goes deep into the tunnel ventilation system and through the temporily stopped huge fan to find the clock mounted on the wall ON THE INSIDE telling him how much time he has before the fan starts spinning again. WHO would EVER see that clock where it is?
In "Broken Arrow" and "True Lies" and countless James Bond movies we have the H-bombs which have the clock timer/display and a key pad/key switch to arm/disarm ON THE BOMB which is, of course, usually carried way down in the bomb bay of a bomber. Who is supposed to see the clock, insert the key, and punch in the codes? The crew is some distance away when the bomb is launched and they will want be a LOT further away when the clock hits 00:00.
And the only way you can outrun the blast from a huge explosion is if you can put the blast in slow motion while you're in the foreground running at double speed and even then it's a good idea if you're in a studio far from the blast.
The Physics of Star Trek (Score:3, Insightful)
Light Speed Web Shooters. (Score:2)
$6M Man (Score:2)
Steve Austin (Lee Majors) a.k.a. the $6m man, prevents a helicopter from taking off by pulling it down. It's clear that it isn't his extra weight that's holding the chopper back, because they play the cheesy "using all his bionic strength" music, and show the chopper being pulled down "in the kind of slow motion that we use to suggest, that yes, he is moving at 60 mph".
That was so implausable that I laughed myself silly when I saw that.
He could have... (Score:2)
Of course by jerking downwards so fast you'd also launch yourself. Depending on the mass difference between you and the helicopter, you'd perhaps have to put yourself into orbit.
.
Re:He could have... (Score:2)
No, no! Austin's feet never left the ground! That was the whole idiocy of the thing... he just stood his ground, and pulllllled "real hard" to haul the chopper down.
Heh :-) Strikes me that your brain is so sane that you can't even imagine the non-science in this.
Re:He could have... (Score:2)
Bionic noises (Score:2)
And not only does it have links to the bionic noise, but also to the elusive "bionic eye noise" which you may have forgotten.
.
So, let me get this straight. (Score:4, Funny)
But the fact that he manages to snatch a girl out of the air by falling faster in a nice tuck position in a latex body suit than the girl fully clothed in a spread eagle position, that bothers you.
Just Checking.
As for me, I'd have to go with Harry Potter, because everyone knows that brooms can't fly.
Re:So, let me get this straight. (Score:2)
Or that a research lab in a public university would be trying to create a "super-spider", which coincidentally wears a miniture Spider-Man costume, that would be as venemous as a black widow, be able to change colors like a chameleon and jump like the spiders from Arachnophobia? Can anyone say, "Afrikaanized Honeybees"?
Blade II (Score:2)
Where I learned that light flows like water....
start to finish... (Score:2)
Volume of web goo? (Score:2)
What I found more interesting was that the "web goo" seemed pretty thick and substantive, and it seems pretty clear that Spidey is expelling more than his entire body volume in goo in some scenes. [Insert porn-movie joke here.] Maybe he chugs protein shakes or something? Or maybe the goo expands a LOT as it is expelled from his body (accept, of course, that the goo is super-stong and super-sticky). (And of course, the properties of the web goo change from scene to scene and sometimes even within a single scene.)
Of course, we are supposed to suspend disbelief, and accept that the laws of physics can vary around our super-hero and super-villain.
It's a silly movie. Let's get over it.
Helicopter chase (Score:2)
Mission to Mars - one of the worst.... (Score:2)
-Derek
Re:Mission to Mars - one of the worst.... (Score:2)
Which makes sense, since the entire movie revolved around M&Ms...
Some of my favorites... (Score:3, Funny)
Independence Day
Hackers
Tomb Raider
From you're local LightSpeed Times.... (Score:2)
Apple discovered to have stolen code from Martian OS as well as the old Xerox OS.
Humans gain ability to hold their breath for extended periods of time.
New virus tears through the galactic systems, leaving system admins everywhere baffled. Called the Disk Muncher, the only way to stop it appear to be putting a disk into your computer.
In other news, helium breast implants now availible for those of you with some gravity to contend with.
Not all bunk (Score:2)
As of Jolie's chest, there are any number of bras designed for the express purpose of keeping boobs upright and perky. Not an issue, provided you accept Jolie's character is wearing such a bra.
Barbarella (Score:4, Interesting)
The movie Barbarella is my favorite.
First, of course, it's fun to watch Jane Fonda cavort around in skimpy outfits, especially given how "serious" she got later in life about various causes.
One of the best parts of the entire movie occurs when she's cruising around in some kind of pirate ship that sails across a frozen ocean of ice.
Propped amid cushions and pillows below decks, she questions her lover about how they are going to go anywhere now that the wind has died down. He indicates that he has a solution to that problem: they can make their own wind!
Cut to camera showing the ships sails puffing out and the ship moving forward.
Meanwhile, firmly planted in the stern of the boat is a large fan blowing into the sails and they are moving forward!
I watched this movie with a bunch of nerds who couldn't get into the romanticism of the moment; they were heard muttering something about Newton's 3rd Law.
Watching Jane Fonda is fun, period (Score:2)
Blues Brothers Backflip (Score:2)
Without the twist, the car would have had to have landed either on its roof, or if it completed a 360 degree flip, it would have landed on its tires facing the same direction it had originally been heading.
Which is not what happened.
Somehow without twisting this car is facing one direction, does a backflip and lands on its tires facing the opposite direction. This clearly violates the laws of physics.
For me, this impossibility ruined what was an otherwise well-researched and accurate film.
Re:Blues Brothers Backflip (Score:2)
Some scenes from James Bond (Score:2)
The motherlode (Score:2)
Nitpickers [nitpickers.com]. More than enough nitpicking for all of you.
(spider-man [nitpickers.com])
Terminator 2 (and 24, as a P.S.) (Score:2)
P.S. Oh, and in 24, how is it that a terrorist mastermind can get access to all of the "national security" internal cameras, even with inside help, and no-one noticed? Nothing strange in the logs there? Hmm?
Re:Terminator 2 (and 24, as a P.S.) (Score:2)
Yes, the whole cause and effect problem aside, there was a REASON Arnie had to lower himself into the steel. He ALSO had a chip, and there is a fairly reasonable chance that at some point in the future THAT chip could be captured and analyzed, and since its in perfectly working order, it would take a lot less time for some other Cyberdyne systems to pick up where the original left off, or even start from scratch, in order to hit the 1997 deadline for nuclear war.
And since it was the original Terminator that created the future in the first place, that in and of itself creates an interesting paradox, since without the future already in place, there was no possibility of sending a Terminator back in time. UNLESS of course, the pattern started in the future not ravaged by war, but instead by someone else with other motives, who sent back both the first Terminator and Reese to cause the change in history. What that motive might have been, is difficult to say.
-Restil
Re:Terminator 2 (and 24, as a P.S.) (Score:2)
Twister (Score:4, Funny)
It's *fiction*. Get over it. (Score:2)
So, given that these people are trying to tell stories, and that stories are always About Things, and that the people telling these stories are more interested in Telling than the Getting Details Right, there is always going to be glitches like this.
I would suggest that every movie ever made -- and for that matter, every other work of fiction ever told -- is going to have technical glitches that pisses off some Expert In The Field.
Hell, look hard enough and you can even fine people that think cinematic typography [ms-studio.com] is offensive. :)
Anyway, there are two solutions to this. You can either enforce that storytellers have to get the details right, keeping in mind that this involves myriad areas of learning, that most people won't notice or care, and that hell its can get pretty damned subjective anyway. Not too many stories get told that way -- Kubrick and who else? (And look how long it took him to finish off each film...). The alternative is a little literary device we like to call "suspension of disbelief." The point is, ignore the details, the story isn't about those details, and you're not going to see the forest if you keep focusing on the fact that the trees are just cardboard cutouts. We know that already, please keep moving along with us anyway.
Not that this kind of deconstruction can't be fun or anything -- that fontography site cracks me up, and half the fun in damn near all scifi movies is the fundamental implausibility of it all. As another commenter noted, you don't have a problem with spiders granting superhuman powers, but you want to quibble over aerodynamics? Come on.... :)
Being able to out run an explosion (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Blade II (Score:3, Interesting)
But then again, how possible is it that vampires roam the earth?
Re:Blade II (Score:2)
Re:Blade II (Score:2)
Re:Independence Day (Score:2, Funny)
The fact he gets drunk one morning and then suddenly has the answer is pretty fucking stupid though.
Still, I wonder what kind of licencing deal Apple gave those aliens for their servers to run AppleShare IP
Re:This is UNIX! I know this! (Score:2)
Hell they didn't even bother hiding the progress bar.
Re:swordfish (Score:2)
Everybody knows that you'd need to use ftp to do that. Or scp/sftp if you didn't want random people nicking your cash en route!
Re:1.21 Gigawatts!!! (Score:2)
"You see, Marty, the secret is the Flush Capacitor."
Re:Total Cheezeball (Score:2)
"Hey, Arnold, how was your trip to Mars?"
"I forget."
Re:Biological scale... (Score:2)
Not to mention the problem of conservation of mass in such classics as "Innerspace" [imdb.com] and "Fantastic Voyage" [imdb.com]