Just Jack Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 http://io9.com/5952209/7-scientific-facts-that-will-ruin-movies-for-you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I wish the real world had the same Laws of Physics as a Looney Tunes cartoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 That's why I don't do movies anymore. I just can't suspend disbelief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 http://io9.com/59522...-movies-for-you And most of those are inaccurate, at the very least for being absolutist (and one - for Volcano - just incorrect. Although a volcano in LA is unlikely, it's not impossible. And volcanos don't REQUIRE subduction zones). Except for "The Core". That was the most scientifically asinine movie ever. Flying along the "surface" of the earth's core, skip-bombing it with nuclear weapons. Then they go for walks outside their underground ship....uh, people, you're walking through solid rock? Hello? Mammothly stupid movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 That's why I don't do movies anymore. I just can't suspend disbelief. Thats whyI stopped being smart, so the world still seems interesting to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) And most of those are inaccurate, at the very least for being absolutist (and one - for Volcano - just incorrect. Although a volcano in LA is unlikely, it's not impossible. And volcanos don't REQUIRE subduction zones). Except for "The Core". That was the most scientifically asinine movie ever. Flying along the "surface" of the earth's core, skip-bombing it with nuclear weapons. Then they go for walks outside their underground ship....uh, people, you're walking through solid rock? Hello? Mammothly stupid movie. That article was stupidly inaccurate. Almost as inaccurate as the movies. First off, in Armageddon, the premise is that a comet shoots through the asteroid belt, sending chunks of rocks towards Earth. This could happen, and we wouldn't notice until they were hurtling towards us. The problem is that it'd take about 5-6 months for the asteroid to get here, not 18 days. (Based on the approximate speed of the asteroid in the movie) My biggest beef with Armageddon isn't that they only have to drill 800 feet to hit the fault line. Its the fact that they drill 50 feet in 2 hours, lose the Armadillo, and when Ben Affleck shows up, they're all of a sudden at 750 feet depth. That's what really bothers me. Otherwise, its one of my favorite movies. And in outbreak, it IS perfectly feasible to whip up an anti-viral inoculation in a few days. It won't be mass produced, and it won't necessarily be safe for those taking it, but it is feasible. Virii are simple. Pieces of DNA or RNA in a protein coat. Nothing more. Mass producing a safe inoculation for the virus is what would take months to years. But this does remind me of a peeve with asteroid movies. You wouldn't see a streaking rock through the sky if a big one hit Earth. The dot would get brighter and brighter and there'd be a split second flash right before impact. No trails or anything. Edited October 17, 2012 by Ramius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) Except for "The Core". That was the most scientifically asinine movie ever. One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Bottom 5 at least. My biggest beef with Armageddon isn't that they only have to drill 800 feet to hit the fault line. Its the fact that they drill 50 feet in 2 hours, lose the Armadillo, and when Ben Affleck shows up, they're all of a sudden at 750 feet depth. That's what really bothers me. Otherwise, its one of my favorite movies. I thought the point was that there was a top layer that was harder than what was beneath it, so once they got through it was easier going? And as for the article, the last two weren't even attempts at facts. Should have been "5 made up facts and two opinions..." Edited October 17, 2012 by Faustus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 That article was stupidly inaccurate. Almost as inaccurate as the movies. First off, in Armageddon, the premise is that a comet shoots through the asteroid belt, sending chunks of rocks towards Earth. This could happen, and we wouldn't notice until they were hurtling towards us. The problem is that it'd take about 5-6 months for the asteroid to get here, not 18 days. (Based on the approximate speed of the asteroid in the movie) My biggest beef with Armageddon isn't that they only have to drill 800 feet to hit the fault line. Its the fact that they drill 50 feet in 2 hours, lose the Armadillo, and when Ben Affleck shows up, they're all of a sudden at 750 feet depth. That's what really bothers me. Otherwise, its one of my favorite movies. It's a highly entertaining movie. But so woefully, pitifully inaccurate... And the thing I hate the most is best expressed by a single line "He's got space dementia." What? What the !@#$ is space dementia? Oh, it's when Steve Buscemi goes nuts and starts wailing away on the asteroid with the gatling gun mounted on the Armadillo. Wait...what? Why the !@#$ does a slapdash drilling space rover have a !@#$ing gatling gun on it? So Steve Buscemi can go nuts, and we can introduce the concept of "space dementia," which serves absolutely no purpose other than to give Steve Buscemi the opportunity to say "This is so much fun it's freaky" when he's firing a gatling gun that has no business being in the movie...? But this does remind me of a peeve with asteroid movies. You wouldn't see a streaking rock through the sky if a big one hit Earth. The dot would get brighter and brighter and there'd be a split second flash right before impact. No trails or anything. It depends on the angle at which it hits the atmosphere. And actually, it wouldn't even get "brighter and brighter". Above a certain size, at some distance a big rock (e.g. mountain-sized, say three miles across) gets bigger and bigger. And considering meteors start to burn up at about 40-70 miles, and travel at maybe 30-45 miles per second...you wouldn't see one coming head-on, but at a shallow angle (such as in Deep Impact)...yeah, you could see a trail. A very big and very bright one... Theoretically. If you saw it...well, a rock that size doesn't "burn up", it pushes the atmosphere out of the way. Forcefully. You'd "see" the trail, in the same sense that you'd "see" the flash from a bomb exploding right next to you - i.e., you wouldn't, the shock wave would get you before you knew what was happening. Tea Leoni and Maximillian Schell never would have felt the tidal wave, they'd have been vaporized by the meteorite's shock wave as it passed over.But it would still leave a trail. One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Bottom 5 at least. Yes...but I wanted to distinguish it from truly decrepit pieces of **** like 10,000 BC and !@#$ing March of the Mother!@#$ing Ice Rats. Though I'm not sure why I did that, since it was equally decrepit as 10,000 BC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 This is the all time scientifically correct movie, I love the giant turtle and iguana, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts