TerraFirma69:
No, not because they can, but(-t) because they're severely limited by time, money, & manpower/ resources in order to make entertaining films that Hollywood studios will even produce in order to stay in business.
Have you ever stopped to consider exactly what ALL is REQ'D to make any movie of any type - not just sci-fi based?
To do so w/ extreme (not even 100%) scientific (& historical!) accuracy would require a GREAT DEAL of time and esp. money for full-sized, fully-working sets/ props, salaries for actors & crew, & req'd filming locations e.g., actually being in outer space w/ a fully-operational (non-nuclear) rocket-based satellite and an actual space shuttle or two (one to be damaged per storyline + another for actual transport of movie personnel/ equipment to/ from earth - just to mention a few.
If you truly want near-100% scientifically accurate movies, then they'll have to be filmed under actual physical conditions e.g., outer space.
Yes, they often violate the laws of physics to make a point about a character's strength, talent, etc. ESPECIALLY to make the movie more entertaining and to keep the storyline/ plot intact.
Otherwise films would be very boring if directors were limited to making films with a very high degree of scientific accuracy even if otherwise fictional in nature.
Yes, it can be difficult to effect the "willing suspension of disbelief" esp. for us engineers, scientists, & other scientific-minded persons.
In other words, don't try to notice the scientific details too much (they only really matter in documentaries, science papers, studies & research, etc.): just sit back w/ some popcorn, a few beers, and enjoy watching 5 awesome actors in a feel-good movie and "go with the flow" :-)
Otherwise, it's pointless to watch ANY action/ scientifically-based movie because they ***ALL*** employ examples of the violation of the laws of physics.... :-(
For example, did you like Star Wars and The Terminator even though they were not entirely scientifically accurate - where possible?
P.S. The only person in the family of my best friend from high school onward (who actually designed hand tools in Texas used on the shuttles) whom I've never met: his sister who died aboard the Columbia space shuttle....
It's ALL about perspective & what really matters.
reply
share
TerraFirma69
10 years ago
Star Wars, for instance, is pure fantasy and gets a pass. I don't even consider it science fiction.
The impossibilities in Terminator are essential to the story (ie no story without it) and get a pass.
I, and the OP I think, are not referring to things that are core to the plot (time travel, superpowers etc).
I mean things that could have been done correctly and not have any affect on the story, just a tiny bit of research, or asking 'that friend who knows about this stuff' during writing. Just to put a bit more polish on your product. Pride in your work.
...then whoa, differences...
reply
share
jbuckets
10 years ago
Per Star Wars & The Terminator, were the laws of physics always properly observed with respect to those actions that occur now on earth w/ present day technology?
No, I don't believe that a tanker can actually slide slideways - and remain as such/ intact - along the pavement on a multiple-lane bridge much more than 1/10 of the distance portrayed in the movie.
For example, when the fighters flying about the death star were shooting at each other, were the laws of physics properly observed per collisions, explosions, etc?
reply
share
TerraFirma69
10 years ago
The tanker sliding sideways in Terminator is the sort of thing I respect people's right to comment on. Could it have been done differently and not detracted from the action? Maybe.
In Terminator 3 for instance, the she-bot couldn't possibly have controlled the vehicles remotely, but without that a major sequence of the movie would have been lost.
If one is going to pick at physical inaccuracies in Star Wars one's going to be very, very busy, but hey, I don't have a problem with that either.
Personally I consider that universe to be essentially a cartoon so I'll let pretty much anything pass.
...then whoa, differences...
reply
share
jbuckets
10 years ago
I mean things that could have been done correctly and not have any affect on the story, just a tiny bit of research, or asking 'that friend who knows about this stuff' during writing. Just to put a bit more polish on your product. Pride in your work
Taking that extra time cost $$$ and time you probably don't have anyway due to scheduling restrictions.
reply
share
TerraFirma69
10 years ago
let me give you an example that sticks out in my mind:
In 2010 (the sequel), they got their artificial gravity mixed up at one point, when Roy Scheider's demonstrating the escape sequence to try to get away from Jupiter. He is in the rotating section of the craft, which is providing them with artificial gravity, yet the pen he's using to simulate the spacecraft is somehow immune to it.
To do that, special effects wise, would have cost a lot more than not doing it, and also insulted the audience in the bargain.
Things like that have no bearing on the story and after the effort to keep true to physics in that movie, that is just laziness on the part of makers and pulls the viewer out of the story (I'm sure there were other inaccuracies in it but that's one that stuck with me).
...then whoa, differences...
reply
share
jbuckets
10 years ago
To do that, special effects wise, would have cost a lot more than not doing it, and also insulted the audience in the bargain.
So you agree with me: not every violation of the laws of physics will be corrected in a movie due to add'l cost AND time to do so.
Q1.) What is the point of correcting this violation if it has no effect on the storyline?
Q2.) So why are you so concerned/ annoyed with it that you remember it?
Q3.) Why would the viewer be insulted if the special effect was added? It would be for their - and your - benefit. No?
Q4.) How do you enjoy ANY movie containing an obvious (to you)/ annoying violation? (Sounds like an OCD issue almost....)
There were so many violations with regard to the Ikon satellite e.g., deploying its solar panel wings, rotating about its cylindrical axis, and sudden acceleration of its 50-ton mass during rocket ignition, as well as all of the items moving about during the accident w/ the shuttle that I simply laughed at all of it 'cuz it wasn't worthwhile to get upset over plus why even start watching a movie if you ALREADY KNOW that you're going to get annoyed about (nearly) every violation since you'll never enjoy the viewing experience. :-)
reply
share
TerraFirma69
10 years ago
So you agree with me: not every violation of the laws of physics will be corrected in a movie due to add'l cost AND time to do so.
You may have misinterpreted what I said.
Adding the erroneous floating pen would have cost special effects time and money, he could have simply held it in his hand to make the same point. In other words, cheaper and quicker to do it right and the scene would have lost nothing.
Q2.) How do you enjoy ANY movie containing an obvious (to you)/ annoying violation? (Sounds like an OCD issue almost....)
No need to make condescending assumptions. I do enjoy movies, but I like to discuss the silly things that happen in them too. Sometimes it helps you learn things.
'cuz it wasn't worthwhile to get upset over plus why even start watching a movie if you're going to get annoyed about every violation since you'll never enjoy the viewing experience. :-)
Again, don't assume I'm getting upset over, or not enjoying, anything.
I
could say that if
you're going to get annoyed and upset at every thread on IMDB that picks at technical errors, you may as well stop coming here.
But I won't because we were having a discussion, not making assumptions about one another's state of mind.
...then whoa, differences...
reply
share
jbuckets
10 years ago
Yes, you are correct: I wasn't aware of the easily-implemented pen-related special effect of simply holding said pen in the req'd way as to effect the illusion of zero g. My bad!
As for you possibly having OCD/ always being annoyed by inaccurate minor details, I apologize.
As an engineer myself who's also (!) afflicted with OCD --> heightened sense of achieving perfectionism, it's a job hazard always being on the outlook for even the smallest things that are incorrect that can affect a design/ technical solution and for determining/ compensating for all possible options in a given situation i.e., making a design as impervious/ robust as possible to handle all (known) failure modes.
Thus, when I note violations of the rules of physics, etc. when watching a movie, I first react via (even for a movie - by defn not a documentary - requiring the willing suspension of disbelief to enjoy) "that's so, so incredibly unreasonably, incorrectly displayed (over-the-top)" or "technically and/or physically impossible" followed by "yea, I know it's only a movie; just try to enjoy it nonetheless" (via the overall premise of whatever occurs) e.g., getaway car jumps squad car w/ seemingly no ramp in between them. LOL!
As for martial arts, fights, and gunplay, I skip right to the "ooh, that's gotta hurt!" or "awesome!" conveyance of force/ ammo/ etc. directed towards the bad guys.
Normally, I don't reply to remarks about historical/ scientific accuracy, etc. because every msg board has a plethora of those, but for some reason, this time I chose to reply thinking that only one such reply would be enough. Silly me!!!
Again, my apologies! :-)
You're gonna need a bigger boat.
reply
share
TerraFirma69
10 years ago
Yes, you are correct: I wasn't aware of the easily-implemented pen-related special effect of simply holding said pen in the req'd way as to effect the illusion of zero g. My bad!
You're still not getting what I'm saying there (If you ever see the movie, keep an eye out for the scene and it should be clear), nor on the other points, so I think I'll just leave it. Have a good one.
...then whoa, differences...
reply
share
jbuckets
10 years ago
Yes, after further review, I did mis-read/ -remember your (original) post(s) about the space-pen, etc. :-(
Every movie consists of a plethora of compromises in order to film it. Thus, due to our own interests, experiences, etc., each viewer will notice some compromises more-so than others.
I actually was trying to come across as respectful as possible - not condescending - earlier; obviously, I failed. I don't know if inserting "With respect" (or equiv.) would have helped convey that attitude, but like you wrote, it's time to "stop beating this already-badly-beaten, dead-for-quite-a-while horse."
Thanks for your patience & taking the effort to reply each time :-)
Wishing you an early Happy Easter!
You're gonna need a bigger boat.
reply
share
TerraFirma69
10 years ago
Oh, and I remember that incident because 1)I like that movie, and 2) while even unexplained artificial gravity gets a pass in most movies, to mix rational artificial gravity and inexplicable zero gravity in the same place at the same time in a relatively 'realistic' type movie is a standout.
...then whoa, differences...
reply
share
TerraFirma69
10 years ago
To be clear, I'm aware that realism in many cases may cost more, but to give another example of the opposite:
Moon, which is an excellent film, in my opinion would have greatly benefited, in it's viewer immersion, from environmental silence in the external shots.
The music in it was more than enough to carry those scenes.
And they would have saved quite a bit of money and time in the sound effects area.
...then whoa, differences...
reply
share