Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member Thequ1ck
    Fast above
    02 Nov '08 23:18
    Why do practically all American action films ignore Newtons laws?

    examples include but are not limited to :-

    You can kungfu kick someone 50 yards but not budge backwards an inch.
    If you're strong enough, you can stop a helicopter taking off.
    If you're an ex footballer, you can throw a ball into a hovering helicopter
    You can jump from a bridge onto a moving train and land upright
    Space is a noisy place

    Is it too much to ask for just a little bit of real physcis once in a while??
  2. Subscriber joe shmo
    Strange Egg
    02 Nov '08 23:24
    Originally posted by Thequ1ck
    Why do practically all American action films ignore Newtons laws?

    examples include but are not limited to :-

    You can kungfu kick someone 50 yards but not budge backwards an inch.
    If you're strong enough, you can stop a helicopter taking off.
    If you're an ex footballer, you can throw a ball into a hovering helicopter
    You can jump from a bridge onto ...[text shortened]... a noisy place

    Is it too much to ask for just a little bit of real physcis once in a while??
    real physics is to much like real life
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    03 Nov '08 02:54
    Originally posted by Thequ1ck
    Why do practically all American action films ignore Newtons laws?

    examples include but are not limited to :-

    You can kungfu kick someone 50 yards but not budge backwards an inch.
    If you're strong enough, you can stop a helicopter taking off.
    If you're an ex footballer, you can throw a ball into a hovering helicopter
    You can jump from a bridge onto ...[text shortened]... a noisy place

    Is it too much to ask for just a little bit of real physcis once in a while??
    What you don't know is those movies are filmed in an alternate universe where the laws of physics are a lot different than the laws here on this planet. That is the big Hollywood and Bollywood secret, a dimensional portal was discovered about 100 years ago and they have been using it ever since. Fortunately the biosphere in this alternate universe is very benign and there have been no biological disasters so far. As far as our dimension contaminating the other one, that is another story.
  4. Subscriber joe shmo
    Strange Egg
    03 Nov '08 03:24
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    What you don't know is those movies are filmed in an alternate universe where the laws of physics are a lot different than the laws here on this planet. That is the big Hollywood and Bollywood secret, a dimensional portal was discovered about 100 years ago and they have been using it ever since. Fortunately the biosphere in this alternate universe is very b ...[text shortened]... l disasters so far. As far as our dimension contaminating the other one, that is another story.
    crack kills!!
  5. 03 Nov '08 05:44 / 1 edit
    I think George Lucas once was asked why the spaceships in his Star Wars were moving areodynamically and with sound in empty space, and he answered "Beacuse the audience wants it that way."

    What if Star Wars would be filmed with physically correctly? Would it be a good film? Or would we be bored?
  6. Standard member Thequ1ck
    Fast above
    03 Nov '08 08:03
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I think George Lucas once was asked why the spaceships in his Star Wars were moving areodynamically and with sound in empty space, and he answered "Beacuse the audience wants it that way."

    What if Star Wars would be filmed with physically correctly? Would it be a good film? Or would we be bored?
    2001 attempted to do this and it owes a lot of its success to doing so.

    'Because the audience wants it that way' is in essence what is wrong with
    cinema.

    The only difference that some real world physics would have made to star
    wars is in the battle scenes in space. I say that had it been done correctly,
    a true depiction of space could have added another dimension to the film
    and given it more depth.

    Anyway, I'm not asking that ALL films pay attention to the laws of our
    universe, just SOME and if at all possibe, MOST.
  7. 03 Nov '08 08:39
    Originally posted by Thequ1ck
    2001 attempted to do this and it owes a lot of its success to doing so.

    'Because the audience wants it that way' is in essence what is wrong with
    cinema.

    The only difference that some real world physics would have made to star
    wars is in the battle scenes in space. I say that had it been done correctly,
    a true depiction of space could have added a ...[text shortened]... ALL films pay attention to the laws of our
    universe, just SOME and if at all possibe, MOST.
    2001 was a wonderful movie. Even if HAL was a little silly.

    But they didn't have to go outside the solar system. Star Wars went through the whole galaxy. This is not possible to do realistically within the physical laws. Einstein still rules. There is a light barrier.

    Same thing with Star Trek, and a lot of other movies.

    Alien is one exception, with their cryo technique. But still, who wants to wait decades probably centuries, to goet from one star fto another? The love and dear will die before you get home again. Not realistic.

    So if we want realistic movies, they will be quite boring.

    But in essence, I agree totally.
  8. 03 Nov '08 09:01
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I think George Lucas once was asked why the spaceships in his Star Wars were moving areodynamically and with sound in empty space, and he answered "Beacuse the audience wants it that way."

    What if Star Wars would be filmed with physically correctly? Would it be a good film? Or would we be bored?
    …What if Star Wars would be filmed with physically correctly? Would it be a good film? Or would we be bored?
    .…


    With all else being equal -it may have been boring and for a number of possible reasons but not necessarily so! (I think).

    In my opinion, there is no excuse for films to blatantly ignore the laws of physics -they could have modified the story line a bit to get around the various laws of physics or at least minimise the violations of the known laws of physics -that would not necessarily have reduced the entertainment value of the film (and may have actually increased its entertainment value by making it have more “realism” ?).

    I once saw a star-trek film where all the stars had apparently gone missing and there was apparently literally “nothing” outside the spaceship but then the captain said “all stop” and the people at the controls apparently made the ship come to a “stop” -but that makes no physical sense because “all stop” in relation to what?

    I am at a “stop” in relation to the surface of the Earth but I am NOT at a “stop” in relation to the sun because the Earth is spinning on its axis and also rotating around the sun and taking me with me thus I am in motion in relation to the sun.
    But, if you are in a spaceship and there are no stars or external point of reference then it is impossible to define what “stop” is because “stop” is only meaningful in relation to a fixed point of reference (such as one on the surface of the ground) -but the captain of star-trek simply ordered an “all-stop” and they apparently just did that anyway!
  9. 03 Nov '08 09:49
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    [b]…What if Star Wars would be filmed with physically correctly? Would it be a good film? Or would we be bored?
    .…


    With all else being equal -it may have been boring and for a number of possible reasons but not necessarily so! (I think).

    In my opinion, there is no excuse for films to blatantly ignore the laws of physics -they could have m ...[text shortened]... the captain of star-trek simply ordered an “all-stop” and they apparently just did that anyway![/b]
    The full stop command is rediculus, I agree, not in this episode only, but in any episode of Star Trek. If they obay the Newton's action-reaction, and their engines are at the rear, then they have to do a 180 turn of the ship axis before going to a full stop.

    But nevertheless, sometimes they have to brake the rules of physics, in order to succeed in what they're doing.

    In Speed, they make a bus fly over a gap in a bridge, the wasn't even straight. This is impossible if they don't violate the Newton laws. But how would they do it in any other ways? So the only alternative was to avoid this scene alltogether.

    When I see a scene like that I grown a little and continue to view the movie. A period of my life I just groan and stop watching. My cineastic life became much more boring that it was before. So now I can enjoy people "who scream in space", ships who elegantly do an aerodynamicly correct turn in open space, and everything else, not always without a groan though.

    But the silly violations of the Newton laws that can be avoided, should also be avoided.

    When I see bankrobbers handle gold bars that whould be wheiging 20 kilograms or more, as it was aluminum with golden colour, I groan loudly. But even when they find a free parking spot in the center of Manhattan, when they make love with their underware on, or when teenage girls take a shower at Haloween with the front door unlocked and the bathroom door wide open, and when every telephone number starts with 555, I groan, even if they don't violate any physical laws.
  10. 03 Nov '08 10:24 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    The full stop command is rediculus, I agree, not in this episode only, but in any episode of Star Trek. If they obay the Newton's action-reaction, and their engines are at the rear, then they have to do a 180 turn of the ship axis before going to a full stop.

    But nevertheless, sometimes they have to brake the rules of physics, in order to succeed in wh telephone number starts with 555, I groan, even if they don't violate any physical laws.
    …When I see a scene like that I groan a little.…

    What makes me groan the most often by far is when I see a film where a person falls of a tall cliff or falls a long distance down from somewhere but is apparently saved by grabbing onto a ledge or a branch or something just before hitting the hard ground -obviously suddenly decelerating from a high speed from a drop to zero speed like that would have a similar effect to the sudden decelerating from a high speed from a drop to zero speed you would get from hitting the hard ground at high speed straight down -both would result in a violently sudden decelerating that would crush/rip-up your bodily organs (and this is not even to mention the problem of how your hand grip could be so strong that you could do that! -I mean, what about your momentum?).

    I once heard of a man that tried to bungee-jump using an ordinary rope (with little elasticity to make the deceleration less sudden) -he jumped and, as soon as the rope became tight, it pulled off his feet and he just continued falling down (with speed and acceleration unhindered) to his death -not at all like what apparently happens on the films!

    I also groan terribly every time I see the “good guys” firing at the “bad guys” but with the good guys always hiting there target and the bad guys firing a thousand bullets at the good guys at close range and not a single one ever hit’s the good guys -although that doesn’t violate the laws of physics.
  11. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    03 Nov '08 10:29
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    [b]…What if Star Wars would be filmed with physically correctly? Would it be a good film? Or would we be bored?
    .…


    With all else being equal -it may have been boring and for a number of possible reasons but not necessarily so! (I think).

    In my opinion, there is no excuse for films to blatantly ignore the laws of physics -they could have m ...[text shortened]... the captain of star-trek simply ordered an “all-stop” and they apparently just did that anyway![/b]
    Errr... Maybe he was just ordering them to stop the engines? Perhaps? Mmmm?
  12. 03 Nov '08 10:39
    In the litterature there is one author in particular with a very high groan factor: Dan Brown, and one of his book in particular: "Angels and Demons".

    A scientist inventing anti-matter as a method to solve the energy crisis. (*groan*)
  13. 03 Nov '08 10:42
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    In the litterature there is one author in particular with a very high groan factor: Dan Brown, and one of his book in particular: "Angels and Demons".

    A scientist inventing anti-matter as a method to solve the energy crisis. (*groan*)
    Inventing anti-matter? And there I was, thinking it existed all along...
  14. 03 Nov '08 10:46
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Errr... Maybe he was just ordering them to [b]stop the engines? Perhaps? Mmmm?[/b]
    I hadn’t thought of that

    -next time I see that episode I will look and listen more closely to see if I can work out what they really meant by “all stop”.
  15. 03 Nov '08 10:51
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Inventing anti-matter? And there I was, thinking it existed all along...
    I think the point is that, because of the conservation of energy law, you couldn’t get any more energy out of the antimatter than you put into its creation -thus, at best, anti-matter can only be merely used as a useful way of storing energy as opposed to “gaining” useful energy.