open

Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Forums

You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

Random quote: "A bookstore is one of the only pieces of evidence we have that people are still thinking." - Jerry Seinfeld
- (Added by: Administrator)


Movies and Physics, from my blog.
Moderators: Admin

Jump to page : 1
Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page]		View previous thread :: View next thread
   General Discussion -> Film & TelevisionMessage format
 
Deven Science
Posted 2008-03-20 1:35 PM (#1339)
Subject: Movies and Physics, from my blog.



Uber User

Posts: 202
100
Location: Sacramento, California		 First, a link to a post I found through Whedonesque, discussing bad movie physics, and what movies violate what laws. Read it over if it pleases. It's inspired me to discuss each law or violation mentioned. Whether it be one that's a pet peeve of mine, to the other end of the spectrum, one I believe necessary to violate in order to have a movie worth watching.

Read over the article? Good, let's discuss:

There's no sound in space.

This one, is a toss up. While it doesn't ruin the movie for me when movies violate this law, I very much praise those that follow it. In truth it does irk me some, as I don't feel that a bunch of sound effects in space is necessary to move the plot, or keep things interesting. Firefly/Serenity and 2001 proved that you don't need it. In both of those cases, music was used to good effect, to fill in the void. But one thing that I have yet to see, and that I very much think would work well, is for someone to finally use the silence in an effective way. Dead silence could be more frightening than a bunch of scary noises. It's one less sense that you would have in a situation, and that could be very horrifying. 

Not all planets have Earth gravity.

This is one that I don't normally think about, to be honest with you. Now that it's on the table, though, I can see a lot of potentially cool plot devices using a heavier than Earth or lighter than Earth gravity in a movie. In another coincidence, I happen right now to be reading a book called Mission of Gravity by Hal Clement. In it, a man and a native work together on a planet that spins so quickly, that it's very disc-shaped, and it's day is only a few minutes long. Because the planet is squished, so that the poles are closer to the center of the planet than the equator, you have a major plot point, in that at the equator, the gravity is about three times Earth normal, but the closer to the poles you travel, the heavier you become, so that life has adapted to several hundred times Earth normal gravity at the poles. It's a great book, so far. 

Planets should have diverse climates, instead of one unified climate across a "desert planet" or "forest planet." 

Most notable in the Star Wars series, though Star Trek and others have used it as well. Again, not one I put too much thought on. I could see that there would be occasions where a planet might be all desert, or all ocean, etc. I mean, the Earth has several factors that lead to it's diverseness. It's tilt, which brings about the seasons, it's tectonic activity, it's elemental make up. Still, while "forest moons" are possible, scientists tend to think of Earth as the norm, and not the exception, so that you would more often see a planet with the diversity of our own.

It shouldn't be too easy to communicate with alien creatures, without some kind of high-technology "translator" explanation.

Greatest example: The Babel Fish. Or one of my favorite scenes using translators, the scene near the beginning of Lynch's Dune, wherein you have two peoples communicating by use of these 1940s-ish giant microphones that translate as they speak, with some marked delay. That's one of my favorite scenes in that movie. Star Trek also addresses this, with their Universal Translator, though it seems to work a little too perfectly, leaving you with Klingons who's lips are moving very much like they are in fact speaking English. 

It definitely shouldn't be too easy for humans to interbreed with aliens.

Star Trek is the biggest violator of this rule. Even if an alien species looked like us, if they breathed oxygen, as we do, and if they lived in a world similar in temperature and climate to ours, still doesn't mean that they're DNA based, and compatibly DNA based no less. The chances of that are basically zero, in reality. As an example, all other animals on Earth are DNA based, but we cannot interbread with them, and we all evolved on the same planet. Some mixture might be possible through genetic engineering, but again, the rule states that it shouldn't be easy, not that it should be impossible.

Humans exposed to vacuum without a spacesuit shouldn't explode or shatter. And a "hull breach" where the ship's crew is exposed to vacuum should kill everyone instantly. 

I'm kind of whatever about this one. I prefer it when filmmakers get it right, but if they don't, it doesn't ruin my movie experience.

You can't have fires in space, unless there's oxygen leaking out somehow.

This one bugs me. Their is no oxygen in space, morons, so how can that exploding ship/probe/planet possibly lead to such a huge (albeit beautiful) cloud of flame. And of course, with that explosion, is the obligatory loud boom that you wouldn't actually hear.

Asteroids or other objects shouldn't be able to float close together without falling into each other's gravity.

The major violator is once again Star Wars, but whatever, they violate every rule/law/theory, so meh.

People shouldn't be able to dodge lasers and other speed-of-light weapons.

This one I laugh at. Someone shoots a laser beam, which wouldn't hurt someone anyways, and they dodge out of the way. Really? Light (yes, even lasers) travels at about 186 thousand miles per second. The hundred miles to travel from their ship to yours would take nano-seconds, so I'm sorry, but you won't be dodging anything. If such a weapon could be made to hurt you, then it would do so before you even knew it was happening.

There's no reason why someone would move in slow-motion in zero gravity. 

A lack of gravity means no weight, but mass, inertia, these things are still there. It would still be difficult to push a massive object, just as it would be difficult to stop said object. I can see the need to move slowly in zero G though, as that very lack of gravity mixed with the ever presence of mass and inertia would make one want to be more careful. Objects seem light and easy to handle, but their still massive, and they would still crush your leg, or bash in your brains. Yes, you would want to move cautiously. 

Faster-than-light travel is probably not ever going to be possible. 

And here's where I diverge from the author of this report card. to be clear, he's most likely correct, but I think that some kind of faster-than-light drive can be necessary for a movie, to keep it moving along. No one wants to drop a movie just as it's getting exciting, and pick up the story ten years later, after they've finally reached the stellar system that they've been moving towards. It slows down the pace of the flick. It's a McGuffin. A necessary evil, to be used as a plot device. I even prefer films that give some technical explanation of said drive. It's usually bogus, but at least it lets the viewer know that they're putting effort into it. Wormholes, warp drives, hyperspace, Ludicrous Speed, all of these things are there as an admittance that a ship is not going to just fly casually from one star to another, unless it's a space colony prepared for generations to pass before the destination is reached. That's common in science fiction books, but I can't think of a single case like that in film. Movies are faster moving in plot, and so I generally approve of the faster-than-light drive.

Top of the page Bottom of the page
Jump to page : 1
Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page]
Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

(Delete all cookies set by this site)