digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Nine Laws of Physics That Don't Apply in Hollywood

neatorama.com — In general, Hollywood filmmakers follow the laws of physics because they have no other choice. It ’s just when they cheat with special effects that we seem to forget how the world really works.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • bombayterror, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5already down?
  • V1be, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10http://www.neatorama.com.nyud.net:8080/2007/03/06/9-laws-of-physics-that-dont-apply-in-hollywood/

    Loads hella slow, but it loads.

    It's not even that interesting.
    • Cougaboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9While it sounded like it would be cool, I have to agree, it's pretty boring. Some of these don't even make sense as arguments against movie physics.

      For instance, number 3 points out two things about radioactivity: radioactive elements don't glow and radioactivity is not contagious. First of all, the only place radioactive elements glow is in cartoons and bad movies from the 50's. Radioactivity is not contagious, but the author's understanding of radioactivity seems faulty. He say that someone could become radioactive if the radioactive particles "stick on" that person, which is true to an extent, but then later he says that a person can become radioactive if she is "exposed to the radioactive neutrons from a nuclear reactor." First of all, the neutrons themselves aren't radioactive - the element that released those neutrons was radioactive. Second of all, the release of neutrons is only one form of radioactive decay (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactivity ). And third, a person would become radioactive if the original radioactive particles "stuck on" the individual, which is an exchange that has quite little to do with the "radioactive neutrons."

      Also, number 4 says that if a shotgun blast or a kung-fu kick were to launch their victims across a room, the attacker would also fly across the room. They defend this by saying that every action creates an equal and opposite reaction, but I think the point in movies is that the attacker is prepared, while the victim is not. The attacker can brace himself, while the victim is helpless to resist. I agree that these sorts of attacks shouldn't necessarily launch people across rooms, but the equal and opposite defense is just retarded in this case.

      The last point that bothered me was the 5th, in which the author argues that a person couldn't jump a gap with a car. I think we can all agree that it would indeed be difficult to jump a large gap (as many stunt drivers have shown), but making a blanket statement that it is impossible is completely ludicrous. To back up such a point, the author cites a specific instance where a man couldn't jump a gap in a bridge. Maybe he just wasn't going fast enough?

      There are a few others, such as 2 and 6, which I believe are acceptable concessions by the movie industry because what happens on screen needs to reflect what people expect to happen, even if only on an unconscious level.
    • AReallyGoodName, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Point 3 is also false for another reason.

      Radioactive materials can glow on their own if they are active enough.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
  • Caiman, on 10/12/2007, -26/+3cant believe a site goes down after less than 50 diggs.
    • oracleofmist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31diggs!=site views

      I don't know how many times this has to be repeated on digg but understand that!!
  • mattmy, on 10/12/2007, -14/+1how did this get on the front page with 44 diggs and being down
    • frisbeeman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2yea I tried reading this earlier this morning when it was posted on slashdot and it was down then. I think some shenanigan are afoot.
    • Ellsass, on 11/05/2008, -1/+9Read the comments above you, namely:
      1. Diggs != site views
      2. It was on Slashdot this morning
  • thenoise, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4not the same site but:

    http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/

    is also about hollywood ignoring physics when it comes to special effects. it's a fun read
    • listrophy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Taking a class in Astrodynamics (usually required for undergrad-level aerospace engineers) has ruined nearly every space-based movie for me. Any time I see a "space ship" docking, orbiting, or... pretty much doing anything but gliding, I think "That's not how it's done." The problem is that stuff like rendezvous maneuvers are just too boring for film. They take forever.

      It's really quite frustrating at times. The only solution is suspension of disbelief.
  • teamparadox, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Since when did /.'s sloppy seconds get posted here? They should be here 1st and there second!

    I kid I kid...This is an ok article but the author seems to forget that MOVIES ARE FANTASY. If they always mimicked real life they would be boring.
  • metalbabble, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4cars blowing up... gravity... sound traveling as fast as light... and in space...

    good thing i read it when it was on slashdot earlier today ;)
  • sugarrae, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Damn it... I want to read this - no mirror, dead site... :-(
  • Anigav, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Hey, McFly, you bojo! Those boards don't work on water!
  • bIuebonics, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1well, without reading the site i'll have to comment anyways... are we talking about LAWS of physics (as in newton's, thermodynamics etc...) or are we talking about theories and holywood's application of principles and physical constants?
  • mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17It's really too bad most film makers ignore physics. But it takes imagination to do things with silence in space, for example. I've always thought you could make space movies a lot cooler with creative use of realistic sounds, including silence in space. Kubrick did it with 2001. Imagine being inside of a small spacecraft, hearing whatever sounds are going on inside of the craft as you chase the bad guy. Cut to an external view, and it's silent, cut back and you hear the spacecraft's own sounds. Then you score a hit on the bad guy's ship, it explodes silently in a perfect sphere, but in a little bit you hear the "thump, thump, ping" of parts hitting your outer hull. Cut to external view, and again there's silence.

    Another disappointing one is sound at the speed of light. A nuclear blast seems so much more powerful when there is a seconds-long delay between the initial light and the roaring explosion.

    The car explosion thing bugs me a lot, but recently I saw a movie that had a pickup's gas tank explode because someone lit it with a rag fuse. It was actually accurate, the rear end of the truck leaped up, but the truck wasn't blown to bits, it just landed back down, and then it didn't burn much afterwards, its fuel having already been spent.
    • chocobomog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Firefly did this as well and it seemed more "realistic" because of it.
    • zonk3r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'm surprised nobody mentioned the most ignored law of physics in Hollywood: Gravity. Ever wonder how those faces, boobs and asses don't droop over the years? It ain't technical VFX wizardry I can tell you that much...
  • andrew15, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2LAME LAME LAME. THIS WAS ON SLASHDOT HOURS AGO
  • nevetando, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3to which I say, who give a crap? movies.. are after all, fiction.
    • captjc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It is a valid point.

      Who cares if movies and TV shows are are completely accurate to the real universe. I watch to be entertained. Unless I am watching the News or a Science / documentary-type show, I could care less if every frame is meticulously checked to make sure it corresponds to every known continuity and law of nature. Television is a passive medium about story telling and getting a message across. If small inconsistencies like sound in space or radioactive glow really ruin the experience then perhaps you are missing the point of watching.
  • nevetando, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0disregard.
  • dpcdomino, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3I think this goes to show that a lot of Diggers do not actually read the article they just Dugg...how can they? The website was down before hitting the front page!
  • copeland3300, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5He's mostly right about #3, except for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

    Also, low energy electrons, like those found in your TV and aren't considered to be a radioactive particle, will cause phosphor to glow. Like in your TV.
    • SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Right, I was a little confused when he said that about TVs and radiation. My concern is that someone will believe their TV causes cancer or radiation poisoning if they see that, not understanding how the EM spectrum works.
  • Alphateam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What about dog fights in space?
  • noclips, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1they should try some of these on MythBusters
    • jchalmer85, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@noclips -
      They've definitely tried a number of them - They did an entire 2 hour special, and a couple of separate episodes about busting Hollywood myths. The jumping cars, the exploding cars, the sparking bullets, the flying impact from guns, as well as things like meat and ice bullets, breaking into a secure location and stealing things out of a safe have all been busted by them. That's not even a full list of them. Those were really awesome episodes, I have to say.
  • Silencer7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The other thing (and this is a big one) is making it look like big, slow fireballs are more 'powerful' explosions than fast ones. The faster the explosion, the more powerful, destructive and deadly the shock wave becomes.
    But with movies, instead, we have action heroes going all goggle-eyed at the flame ball coming towards them, but they still have time to jump away from it before it flips over cars and downs helicopters.
    • BrewBeau, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You're right. I also love that hand grenades have a big, fiery explosion instead of a dusty-looking blast. And the reaction of the actors is always to jump through the air away from it when your best chance of not getting hit by the shrapnel would be to hit the floor.
  • Aerik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Alot of this stuff is already dealt with at http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/ . "Stupidly Insulting Movie Physics" -- it even predates the Mythbusters episodes on movie myths by years.
  • futility, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2When did people ever begin to equate any sort of entertaining medium with reality. It's an educational standard in kindergarten to be able to tell the difference between fantasy and what is real.
    • Zera, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Because alot of shows and movies are realistic portrayals of one thing or another. There are cases where everything in the show is realistic, except the physics, and then some people begin to believe that is true. That's where the article comes in.
  • blakholephysics, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I don't agree with using The Matrix as an example of Kung Fu done wrong. The Matrix is meant to be stylized.
    • washcapsfan37, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah, really. The rules of physics don't apply to Neo. That was the point of him being "The One".

      This must be a pretty old post (or a blatant ripoff of an older post) ... "With the string of new kung fu films out (they run the gamut from The Matrix to Charlie’s Angels)". Yeah, I hope to catch The Matrix next weekend in the theaters!

      Personally, I've never seen a movie that actually broke the rule of "no sound in space" (outside of being able to hear space ships exploding). It's not like people are taking off their helmets and holding conversations in space...
    • nbulp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree. After all, it's all happening -in- the Matrix - where laws obey you ;)
  • sonaboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1i HATE HATE HATE the stupid "shotgun blast from 10 feet away throws the 200 lb. man across the room" gaff.
    that's supposed to be dramatic?
    show us what really happens, as their flesh scatters in a mist of red and white.
  • MindTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Oh the space / sound one, wouldn't we assume a person is in space with a space suit on? One that is, perhaps, equipped with a communication device, and has air inside it to breath? I don't remember any space movies where someone was talking while floating weightless in space. I'm sure there are some out there, but I don't think this is something we see regularly as the article says.
    • Gizza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How bout superman IV. That takes it to the next level.
  • figec, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I was a fireman for 11 years. I can tell you that burning cars can explode, though not in the Hollywood fasion. If a car does not have a gas tank with a cap that can relieve pressure, and the car catches fire, the tank can become over-pressured by the boiling gasoline and the tank can burst. Under these conditions, the fumes will likely eventually dispurse to the right air mixture and ignite.

    If there is enough manpower and the situation warrants it, you'll see one team attack the fire and another cool the tank down until the fire is out. We'll do this with tankers.


  • analogking, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Something about alternative fuel comes to mind. I recall a Police officer being severely burned when a vehicle rear-ended his alternative fuel cruiser.

    http://www.crownvictoriasafetyalert.com/timeline.html
  • BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0On number one...if you ever watch one of the "making of" shows, they use gasoline to produce those big explosions. The fake part is the sound effects that make them sound like high velocity explosions when they're really slower "whoosh" sounding fireballs.
  • darkecho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4They missed one. The fact that in some movies people tend to have "unlimited" ammo in their guns. We have all seen those movies where the guys have machine guns and constantly spray for like 10 minutes and never run out of ammo in the clip they had in the gun.
    • Habemus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Did you ever see Desperado? They kept running out of ammo in the gunfight in the bar.
  • Spektr4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0#5 is wrong. In Speed, the bus was actually driven across the gap in the highway by a stunt driver, and filmed from numerous angles. There was no movie magic to help it make the leap.
    • clinefx1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2From Wikipedia-
      Twelve buses were used, including two which exploded; one for the freeway jump; one for high-speed scenes; and one used solely for 'under bus' shots.The bus jump scene was done twice, as the bus landed too smoothly the first time. The bridge was actually there, but erased digitally.
    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think I read somewhere that the bus really only jumped about 11 feet. Maybe I saw it in the "Making of Speed" documentary.
  • nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7How about there being an up and down in space? In shows like Star Trek and pretty much any space show or movie, when space ships meet in space, they are always similarly oriented with respect to the tops and bottoms of the ships. When the Romulan Warbird appears, it's never upside down.
    • Zera, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Correct, space has no up or down. Up and Down on earth are merely dictated by gravity in that area. (Down direction on one side of the earth is up on the other side) In star trek, each ship has its own means of creating artificial gravity. That gravity in essence creates a ship wide relative 'up and down'

      Star Trek aligns ships for ease of viewing for the average viewer (not to waste time with the viewer wondering why the other ship is upside down) The fact that Star Trek is based in space isn't so much to be space science fiction, but science fiction with other civilizations. The point of Star Trek is the exploration of human issues, shortcomings, struggles, etc and done in such a way that the viewer is disconnected from his worldly biases, and is allowed to look at the given social issue from a disconnected viewpoint.
    • da_bradler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1what about the fact that the ships don't have to turn around to slow down(excluding warp because the agrument can be made that there not really moving in the traditional sense) but why are all the impluse engines on the rear yet they never spin the ship around to slow themselfs back down.

      also it makes no sence to have the main weapons of a space ship mounted on the front everything should be mounted port and starboard since you for one have more room broadside and second would need to turn the ship around alot to slow down and such
    • mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The best space travel scene ever was on SCTV with John Candy as Dr. Tongue, Eugene Levy as Woody Tobias Jr., and Dave Thomas as Red Rooster. They blast off into orbit with a 1957 Chevy station wagon, taking turns driving. Red Rooster installs a scrambler on the SCTV satellite to keep the Ruskies from stealing their air waves. The best part is when Dr. Tongue is driving, throws the spacecraft into reverse to get back to Earth, and turns around dutifully to look out the rear windshield as he's backing up.
  • Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1One that always gets me is that magazines in movies seem to spawn ammunition. Most movies, when a gun is fired, far more rounds are allowed to be fired than what the gun has a capacity for. The 5 shot revolver squeezing off a dozen rounds, or the 1911 with a 7 round mag firing 20rounds.
  • RTourn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Digg, maybe they will learn, it pulls me right out of a movie when I see this crap.
  • IllBeBack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0In space, no one can smell your stanky-ass farts.
  • abasher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What ***** is that about lead bullets? First of all, I've never seen the effect he's talking about - "Sparkling bullets". Secondly modern bullets are not made out of lead - apart for shotgun pellets and slugs and in The Old West. They are made of copper(-alloys), either Full metal Jacket, Hollow-pointed or with a Lead Core. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullets#The_modern_bullet
  • DforSpiD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Women will sound like men, and men will sound like Henry Kissinger."
    What will Henry Kissinger sound like then?
    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1James Earl Jones
    • DforSpiD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I guess his voice will be too low for our pathetic human ears to comprehend
  • stez18, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0On number 9. Space isnt an complete vaccum, there's about 6 atoms in every matchbox sized piece of space. So sound can travel through space, but not very effectively.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.