Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Impossible Movie Stunts? 258

Posted by Cliff from the someone-better-mention-that-bike-scene-from-MI2 dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Impossible Movie Stunts? More

Impossible Movie Stunts?

Comments Filter:

  • It not the bad science so much as . . . (Score:4, Funny)

    by alnapp ( 321260 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2002 @07:00AM (#3476082) Homepage
    the need to explain everything with fake science.
    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)

    by Bazzargh ( 39195 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2002 @07:01AM (#3476083)
    The Open University in the UK had a series of short programmes called "Hollywood Science", which checks out the scientific credibility of scenes from films, presented by Robert Llewelyn (of "Scrapheap Challenge" aka "Junkyard Wars" fame).

    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

  • Real Genius (Score:4, Funny)

    by linzeal ( 197905 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2002 @07:01AM (#3476084) Journal
    Geeks throwing a party and getting laid.

  • Mission Impossible 2 (Score:3, Funny)

    by reaper20 ( 23396 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2002 @07:02AM (#3476088) Homepage
    Anything in this movie .... Total disregard for the laws of physics - that motorcyle scene was ridiculous.

    Favorite generic one: Explosions have no shrapnel, they only hurl the hero to where he needs to be.
    • My favorite was Tom Cruises ability to keep the bike uupright with the rear wheel fully locked.

      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 ).
    • I always liked how any person that needed to do something sneaky had a perfectly made, totally lifelike mask of whatever other person they needed. It's especially good how at the end, while being shot at and with glass and whatnot flying all over the place, Tom Cruise manages to apply a mask to himself such that it fools the bad guys. I mean, it's not like it's just some halloween mask here.

      I felt like the movie hated me.

      mark
    • Damn it, where's that link...

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Uber-geeks all use macs...
    • Hmm, that was not the case in Swordfish, the last major movie I remember that featured uber-geeks. That was definitively some sort of a "movie" *nix that was shown. Of course, let's not even go into all the other horribly stupid problems that movie had.

  • don't forget friction (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2002 @07:15AM (#3476112)
    If you drop a hammer and a feather in an atmosphere, the hammer will win. Also note in the movie, when Spider-Man (don't forget the dash (tm)!) dove after Mary Jane, he did so in a nice Olympic-approved diving form - Mary Jane was falling in a nice frat-party-got-her-drunk type crouch. He probably had a much lower coefficient of drag. Plus, didn't he shoot her with webbing and pull her to him, then shoot webbing above to divert their fall? I can't remember if he did both web shots or just the latter one. Too fast, too many action scenes for me to remember the picky details of each one. And I missed Lucy Lawless in the movie - but didn't know she was in it until afterwards, so wasn't looking. *shrug*

    Still, much more realistic than M&M's floating in a nice double helix! :) Plus, let's face it, Kirsten Dunst has it all over realistic physics, any day of the week.

  • Defending The Wall Crawler (Score:3, Informative)

    by Alexius ( 148791 ) <alexius@@@nauticom...net> on Tuesday May 07, 2002 @07:32AM (#3476148) Homepage
    He falls faster than MJ because she's laying flat, and he's in a diving posture, causing less air resistance. Also, if neither had hit terminal velocity, and when he jumped he did something to push himself downwards, he could be able to move downwards faster than her, initially, until they both reached terminal velocity and stopped accellerating. Like if I were to drop a call and fire a gun into the ground. The bullet would reach first, because it started moving downwards faster.

    At least that's how I want to think of it, I liked the movie.
    • If you took a bullet and droped it at the exact same time you shot another bullet, given perfectly flat terrain for the area neded to conduct said experiement, both bullets would hit the ground at exactly the same time.

  • Timecop made me hurl (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ringbarer ( 545020 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2002 @07:33AM (#3476151) Homepage Journal
    And not just because it was a dodgy film, either. There was one sequence where they had brought some freshly-cast gold bars from the 1800's into the generic-near-future era where all the time travelling was taking place from.

    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.
    • Electric Boogaloo?

      Speaking of which, dancing on the walls is impossible, let alone the ceiling.

    • For pure speculation purposes....

      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
    • And I'm prepared to accept Time Travel paradoxes at face value, as long as they're consistent.
      O.T., I know, but I love Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure because it's the first/only movie where the characters make intellegent use of a time machine. "Geeze, we need the keys" "OK, later we'll go back to the past and hide them here" "There they are! Cool!"

  • I must turn against ST ... (sadly) (Score:4, Funny)

    by CyberQ ( 304799 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2002 @07:41AM (#3476171)
    You are asking for impossible, maybe even obscure scientific inventions in movies or TV? Well, you may find some, but my beloved favoured show, Star Trek (all incarnations without female vulcan science officers), has none of them. Everything shown on Star Trek is a possible future invention ...

    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 ...

    • If you want to rip on star trek, just come out with spock saving kirk from a fall by stopping him 3 foot above the ground.

      Or VOYL Parallax: With the hole in the event horizon and being able to punch your way though
    • The simple fact that they've always refered to it as "warp" speed and not "light" speed is testamount to a potential loophole in general relativity, that a bubble of space could potentially move faster than light, even though no object in that space can, relative to the bubble itself.

      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
  • Like, nobody who knew both of them could figure out that Clark Kent and Superman are the same guy?

    That's not bad science - that's totally re-inventing human powers of observation!
  • If you noticed, spidey had his arms pulled in and his legs straight to achieve a low drag coefficient. MJ was flailing about with her extremedies all over the place. Spidey would fall faster. Skydivers use this to make formations. Now would spider-man have fallen fast enough to catch her? No. Would the plot have sucked if she died? Probably.
    • Now would spider-man have fallen fast enough to catch her? No. Would the plot have sucked if she died? Probably

      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.

      • So, your wife and my girlfriend are they same person, eh? =)

        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.
        • The mysterious part is that my wife has problems opening the jelly jars that closes tightly, yet can crush my arm, hand or knee with no trouble during a movie. Almost makes me wonder...
  • Large parts of the story. I realised this was going to be a "switch your brain off and enjoy" type of flick when the helicopter was in exactly the right place to catch the ejecting pair from a Jumbo jet flying at mumble miles per hour. After that, I quit analysing science and stuck to analysing the angels in order to be able to enjoy the film.
  • Cool film, but anyone remember the intro sequence? How Bond escapes from the base?

    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 :-)
    • The bus jumping over the gap in the freeway? Bucking up like that from a flat piece of road?

      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 ;-) it would have dropped 7-8m in that gap.
      • My biggest gripe with that movie's logic, wasn't the silly physics. It was that the bad guy wants about 2.7 million dollars, and rather than give it to him, they let him destroy about $500 million dollars worth of equipment (airplanes, subways, etc.). The sequal should have been about the insurance companies getting revenge on the police department.
    • Something in that doesn't seem quite right :-)

      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.

      • But Bond and the plane falling at the same trajectory to allow him to fall straight into the cockpit? Even assuming that drag from the wings means that a plane under power could be outdived by am unpropelled human?

        Cliff height does seem to be the more significant problem, I agree, but the whole scene was pretty dodgy :-)
        • But Bond and the plane falling at the same trajectory to allow him to fall straight into the cockpit?

          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.

    • Well, IIRC there was this guy a few years ago who proved that it CAN be done, and he proved it by actually doing it.
    • The flaw in this argument is that the stunt was actually done, the full thing, for the long shots. The stuntman really did get into the plane from the motorcycle.

      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

      • You're kidding me? Really? If so, wow.

        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.

  • Armaggeddon (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hard_Code ( 49548 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2002 @08:20AM (#3476270)
    ...has to be the single most atrocious movie in this respect. (Not to mention the completely farcical characters in the first place)
    • I agree.

      And for light reading, here is a Science Review [darylscience.com].

    • Re:Armaggeddon (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jayhawk88 ( 160512 )
      Thank you.

      "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)

    by peteshaw ( 99766 ) <slashdot@peteshaw.fastmail.fm> on Tuesday May 07, 2002 @08:34AM (#3476325) Homepage
    So now we are wondering which parts of movies fail to reflect reality in some meaningful way? The question is moot, it doesn't make sense, and it can't be made to make sense. Let me explain.


    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)

      by mcelrath ( 8027 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2002 @11:26AM (#3477401) Homepage
      Movies aren't supposed to be real.

      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

    • 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?

      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).

  • Deep space = No air -> No sound (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geirt ( 55254 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2002 @08:46AM (#3476365)

    Deep space = No air -> No sound

    .... so all sound effects in Star Wars are fake ....



    ( in case you didn't know :-)

    • Not true, these movies took place a "long long time ago" when all of the hydrogen in between the planets and such had not completely dispersed. It's why you can see the laser blasts too.
    • It is somewhat plausible though that the amount of energy that the engines on the various craft had was enough to perhaps vibrate the craft that is hearing the noise in some way, right? I mean, why go so far as to having problems with the sound, when we can't yet approach engineering a craft that can: land on planet, take off from planet, fly faster than light, land on new planet... Or maybe each craft has a little speaker in it that helps the pilots fly by making noises that represent other craft and thier laser fire. The sound is easy to account for, the physics ain't so.
  • Enemy of the State. 'nuff said.

  • Official Bad Astronomy Site (Score:5, Informative)

    by Domini ( 103836 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2002 @08:57AM (#3476432) Journal
    This [badastronomy.com] site is dedicaterd to the topic of infamously bad science in movies.

    Look no further for humorous reading.

    Me.
  • My favorite Hollywood cliche is the huge Nixie tube countdown clock, usually on a bomb so we can have the tension as the hero does whatever he has to do before the clock hits 00:00.

    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)

    by uslinux.net ( 152591 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2002 @09:10AM (#3476487) Homepage
    If you're *really* interested in this, go out and buy a copy of The Physics of Star Trek from your local bookstore. The best $10 I ever spent.
  • Just how fast would his webs have to fire to catch the top of New York's tallest buildings while he is falling and only ~40 feet from the ground?
  • O.K., so not a movie, but a TV series. Well, there was a pilot, but the non-science occured in a TV series episode.

    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.

    • If you were fast/strong enough, you could pull down a helicopter using only your own mass. You'd have to be moving "a little" faster than 60mph though...

      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.

      .
      • I see what you mean, but...

        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.

  • So, let me get this straight. (Score:4, Funny)

    by watchmaker1 ( 540289 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2002 @09:53AM (#3476802)
    You're perfectly alright with the fact that a wimpy kid can get bitten by a "genetically engineered" spider, and miraculously overnight gain incredible muscle mass, strength, agility, the ability to stick to walls or ceilings, glandular "web shooters" which mystically appear in each wrist which can shoot a volume of web "substance" greater than the volume of his body, and an innate ESP-like "Spider Sense" (Did they do that in the movie?).

    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.

    • You're perfectly alright with the fact that a wimpy kid can get bitten by a "genetically engineered" spider

      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"?

  • Where I learned that light flows like water....

  • Uh, hello???!! anybody here ever see The Matrix?
  • I also noticed the gravity issue, but I think we're supposed to assume that she was presenting more surface area and thus fell more slowly due to resistance from the air. She is light and dainty, while Spidey is more dense and (thanks to his cool costume) more aerodynamic.

    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.

  • I liked the scene in I think Tommorrow Never Dies when Bond is being chased down a road by a helicopter. The kicker is that the helicopter is pitched about 45 degrees forward, so its blades are tearing up the little market stands lining the road, and yet the helicopter is going about 10 mph. No broken blades, no acceleration, weird.
  • Despite being a bad movie, I was shocked to see a blatant disregard for even basic physics in that scene where the double helix of M&M's is spinning in a circle. (I guess if the M&M's had sufficient gravity then such motion is possible....) Anyway, nice "science" fiction guys.

    -Derek

  • Some of my favorites... (Score:3, Funny)

    by bje2 ( 533276 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2002 @11:12AM (#3477292)
    Some of my favorite movies moments that defy Physics/Science...

    Independence Day
    • Who knew alien technology was compatibile with a Mac laptop?
    • Will Smith's wife would not have survived the fireball through the tunnel scene by hididng in the little side closet...at the very least, the fire ball would have sucked all the oxegyn out of there....

    Hackers
    • So many bad computer things in this movie...my favorite though...how do you stop the cookie monster virus? type "Cookie"...yeah, okay, right...

    Tomb Raider
    • How in the name of physics did Angelina Jolie's chest stay so upright and perky during that movie???
    • Apple gains another 5% of the market share as Jupiter begins the switch from oeø?® to OS XVI, galacticaly this puts Apple at roughly 45%, with Linux holding another 45% and Windows holding only 10%. Odly enough, Windows remains dominant on earth.

      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.
    • Smith's wife hid in a side closet which had a storm drain or vent or something in it, if memory serves. She had access to more air than was in the little closet.

      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)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2002 @11:24AM (#3477383) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • When the Bluesmobile does a backflip towards the end of the movie, the car can been seen traveling upside-down and backwards. Yet the car clearly lands on its tires. There must have been a 180 degree twist midflight, but it is never shown twisting.

    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.

    • Actually, this is in line with the laws of physics. For an object that is shaped roughly like a rectangular block or ellipsoid (e.g., something that is skinnier than it is wide, and again as it is long (such as a book, a blackboard eraser, or a car)), rotation on the body is stable about the principle axes that have the largest and smallest moment of inertia. Rotation about the other axis (in this case, the axis that passes through the car doors) is unstable and results in an induced rotation about one of the other principle axes. For an object like a book or a piece of 2x4, you cannot flip it without it doing a half twist.

  • In one of the James bond (sorry, don't recall which one), James has a watch with a "magnetic beam" which he uses to move a car, and to undress a woman :) The first time is the more difficult to pass by, as he holds his watch with only 2 fingers and is still able to move (at distance) a car.

  • Nitpickers [nitpickers.com]. More than enough nitpicking for all of you.

    (spider-man [nitpickers.com])

  • I've always wondered about Terminator 2 - ok, accepting all the time-travel-is-possible stuff: at the point right at the end where the original Terminator arm was dropped in the molten steel (or whatever), shouldn't Arnie have disappeared right then? Since he wouldn't have been possible to "invent"?

    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?
    • "The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves"

      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
    • I watched the first 16 episodes or so of "24", but lately haven't bothered except to tune in occasionally as I channel surf. Kind of went to crap in my opinion. How many times does his family have to be kidnapped. Also, there are way too many characters that are just plain annoying. Good ides, poor execution.

  • Twister (Score:4, Funny)

    by sharkey ( 16670 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2002 @02:34PM (#3478690)
    The tornadoes could suck up fences, cars, semis, houses and trees, but couldn't suck the tank-top off of Helen Hunt. WTF?
  • Look, the people that write screenplays got their jobs because, more than anything else, they want to be storytellers. Not physicists, not programmers, nor most any other field of expertise that you can think of. This should be intuitively obvious.

    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.... :)

  • An annoying and ever-present piece of bad science is seeing a person out-run a large explosion. Jerry Pournelle pointed this out in one of his columns not long ago, but spend some time reading a DOD explosives manual and you'll see that explosions travel VERY fast, and you can't out-run them or drive faster than them.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close