Vision requires light to strike the back of the eye to be detected by rods and cones and processed by the brain.
If the light passes through the eyes -- which would be the case here -- then it means that the Invisible Man would also be blind. That would even up the odds between him and his enemies, and would make for a more interesting movie I think.
H.G. Wells was apparently aware of this plot flaw, but ignored it in favour of a good read.
No one truly knows if invisibility would make you go blind. It makes sense it would but no one has experienced real invisiblity so far.
shareLol this just struck me as funny. Dude JUST explained how its scientifically impossible, and you're like, "well we'll never really know though!"
I don't know if science and anatomy are two separate subjects in this regard, but since both of them are proving the point here, I think its pretty safe to say that its true. You wouldn't be able to see while being wholly transparent.
Pretty safe, yes, not guaranteed.
shareYup, and the whole "serum" angle was a little weird too. A serum that turns you invisible...I'm not much of a scientist, but I can't imagine how that'd even start to be possible. Now an invisibility suit...something you put on? Much more feasible IMO.
shareThere are spectrums of light that are invisible. Wouldn't the simplest explanation be that the invisible person now sees in one of those spectrums?
shareThat's pretty creative! I always challenge people: If you were a scriptwriter, how would you solve this problem?
Two complications:
i. Our visual acuity is what it is because our eyes are sized to detect wavelengths in the visible spectrum. To see in other wavelengths with the same degree of precision would require huge dinner plate size eyes, or eyes the size of peas.
ii. Our brains aren't wired to interpret light from a different spectrum. It would be the visual equivalent of a radio tuned to a different frequency than the broadcasting channel... just 'white noise' of some sort.
Any serum that operates using strict biology wouldn't work. A suit would be a better way to explain away these issues.
But as an off-the-cuff, throwaway explanation, your suggestion would probably work within the movie.
Mine was just off the cuff. I see you've thought this through.
I tip my hat to you.
Something I've always thought kind of interesting? If you want to gauge someone's creativity, have them view a movie with multiple plot holes and ask them afterward how they justified them at the time to make sense of the movie. Know what I mean?
There was this really small-budget, independent zombie movie I was watching with a buddy where, towards the end, the protagonist ended up inside of some hatchback car, surrounded by zombies and armed only with the baseball he carried around.
The scene suddenly ends and the next one begins with him having somehow made it out alive. I couldn't figure it out myself, but buddy was like, "well he must have unraveled the baseball, used the string inside to fabricate a make-shift net to string across the backseat, lured the zombies to the hatchback, popped it open and then crawled out the driver/passenger door while they tried fumbling their way through it"
Which, after looking up the comments on the film, made more sense than the filmmakers had intended, since they couldn't figure out a way for him to escape so just cut to the next scene instead.
I don't know, plot holes are a great means to bring about fluid creativity, it seems like. As Paladin here just demonstrated.
You've inspired me to start a thread...
https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/5e6abf6b50ed4165928d24e2/Think-like-a-scriptwriter?reply=5e6ac07150ed4165928d24f1&animate=false
Goddang genious thread idea. I'll post to it tomorrow...well done!
shareFirst we should talk about the death rate situation.
share