Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics

[filkertom]

janet_coburn aimed me to this site, which is for everyone who ever rolled their eyes and called No way at something in a movie that simply should not have happened.

Comments

[trdsf.livejournal.com]

That goes up there with Bad Astronomy. :D

I'm still fuming

[capplor.livejournal.com]

about the absolute total lack of hurricanes in WaterWorld.

Re: I'm still fuming

[capplor.livejournal.com]

And the "upside-down" cup being used as a diving bell.

Re: I'm still fuming

[kengr]

That's how the earliest diving bells were built. Over a thousand years ago.

Of course unless you can pressurize the air inside you run into trouble at less than 100 feet.

[partiallyclips.livejournal.com]

If I may add this comment from my archives:

[oceansedge.livejournal.com]

Ooooooooooooooo love it!
*snag*

[palenoue.livejournal.com]

Well, on the one hand, it would be nice if (writers/directors/anybody in the entertainment industry) made at least a little effort to research physics for important scenes. On the other hand, the entertainment industry is about _entertainment_, not science accuracy. If a story is well told then I don't give a damn if they got the physics right (i.e.: King Kong, if you gripe about the "giant body mass" thing then you really shouldn't be allowed to see any form of entertainment, ever, because you miss the point entirely). However, if the movie is just a flimsy excuse to slap together a "Summer Blockbuster©" then the lack of even basic physics/science is as glaring as the enormous plot holes and as annoying as the shallow writing. In the other extreme, I've read far too many short science fiction stories that put so much emphasis on accurate physics that they as dry and lifeless as chalk, although chalk was more entertaining because you could draw fanciful things with it.

Having known a good number of people in the movie/TV biz I can say that they don't purposely seek to undermine the laws of physics. They just want it to look good and have an impact, so they focus on that. Had they a physics consultant on staff I'm sure a lot of the more glaring errors would have been presented differently.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Giant monsters notwithstanding (and me being a big fan of Kong and other giant monsters, I know exactly what you mean), I appreciate the balance you refer to, and the dull-ass stories that are technically correct and utterly worthless.

To me, the idea is the really dumb stuff. Vivica Fox outrunning an alien fireball in ID4... in heels. James Bond falling faster than someone else so he could catch them. That sorta thing.

Storytelling is all; verisimilitude is right behind, if it's appropriate. And, actually, the best example that leaps to mind is to compare and contrast Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon with Fight Club. Both have insane, unrealistic levels of violence -- albeit different flavors of violence -- that are completely necessary to the story. No way you could have those movies without the fight scenes, no way you could have those movies without the fight scenes being done as they are.

Compare them to most Jackie Chan films (understanding that I do like Jackie Chan films), which are so freakin' over-the-top that it's like the martial-arts version of Lucasfilms: How can we blow you away?

Nobody goes to a Jackie Chan film for the story. Less so if it's got Owen Wilson in it.

[palenoue.livejournal.com]

Excellent use of examples like Crouching Tiger and Fight Club. I'll keep that in mind for future discussions about realism vs. entertainment (which I seem to get embroiled into once a month) and violence as part of storytelling.

Also good point about Jackie Chan films. Although he does have a good enough personality that it makes the simple, superficial stories bearable (speaking of which, ever see "God of Cookery" or any of Stephen Chow's movies? I'd like to see him make a movie with Jackie Chan someday)

ID4, and practically all Summer Blockbusters® I put in the category of "Don't Even Try To Think While Watching, Because They Certainly Didn't Think When They Made It." A few friends and I usually compare notes after watching these and try to figure out which category has the highest number of errors: physics/science, plot holes, continuity, production, and really stupid dialogue.

Ooo, wait, that could be fun game show, "Blockbuster Autopsy!" Contestants are forced to watch a big box office movie (with robots seated nearby to keep them sane) then they have to try to come up with the most flaws (with instant replay of the scene in question to confirm their claim), with serious points withdrawn for their mistakes (for instance, I remember a friend ranting and raving about a few scenes in "Twister" that he believed was outragiously wrong, until we met someone who worked as a meteorologist and she explained, in detail, how those scenes were exactly right, evidently the CGI people did their homework). The winner would get a huge gift certificate for a DVD store, the losers would get lifetime tickets to summer blockbusters... mandatory tickets!

Could be as much fun as MST3k ;-)

[trdsf.livejournal.com]

Welll... yes and no, for Twister. They got some of the CGI right, but from weather folk I know, they consider that to be by accident more than anything else. Serious storm chasers consider Twister to be a handbook of things NOT to do--the meteorology is just flat awful, but the graphics are pretty good.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Not to mention the entire concept of the Evil Meteorologist....

[palenoue.livejournal.com]

Oh, she had a _lot_ to complain about the movie, but it was just the specific things my friend ranted about that they got right (he was confusing tornadoes with hurricanes).

As for evil meteorologists, why not? I've encountered evil fast food managers, evil office supply stockroom staff, evil ladies auxillery bake sales organizers, and evil kittens (anyone remember Sir Pounce? ;-) Personally, I couldn't stop laughing at the notion of an evil meteorologist, but now you can find them easily, just google for meteorologists who are hired by Exxon to fabricate FUD and claim global warming is a myth.

[trdsf.livejournal.com]

That more than anything else was my biggest complaint about Twister--killing off the Evil Meteorologist was just gratuitous. The whole movie would've worked better if he'd lived to see himself scooped. And what did his driver do to deserve a (wildly improbable) antenna tower through the face?

[kayshapero]

Link bookmarked! Thanks! (I'm currently reading "The Core" review. Looks like my decision to skip that one was correct.)

[scott644.livejournal.com]

Ever watched Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children? Looks like they could take a page from this. *Looks* is the key word however. I've watched their special features and they actually paid close attention to phsyics - they just made the deliberate choice to ignore physics when the alternative looked cool. Another clear example or realism versus entertainment.