It is impossible for a man to be invisible. I find it hard to get past that.
The whole movie is ruined.
The real plot hole with all movies featuring invisibility is the clothes issue: why would the clothes an invisible person is wearing also be invisible? Our clothes are just on top of us, not a part of us.
The stock explanation, "They're invisible because they are touching the invisible person", also doesn't make sense. If an invisible person's feet were touching the floor, wouldn't that make the entire floor invisible also? How far does the field of invisibility extend?
I realize the OP was just kidding, but as to your point, stevewzard, a more basic flaw with invisible people is this:
They are invisible, presumably, because light rays pass right through their bodies, right? Then it would stand to reason that the light rays also pass right through the cornea and are not "stopped" by retina, but freely travel "through" it. The retina, then, wouldn't send signals to the nerve endings, and the brain wouldn't "see" anything. An Invisible Man WOULD BE BLIND! (This would, in fact, be a fun Twilight Zone surprise ending type story!)
Of course, I haven't seen this movie yet (;P), so it's possible the writers created some other cockamamie "scientific" theory of invisibility.
I think if invisibility is ever a real possibility, it would have to involve light rays being bent around some object as opposed to passing through.
shareI'm a bit confused. While there are films/tv shows that ignore this, it is addressed in many. In the original Invisible Man Jack Griffin had to remove his clothes. As far as I recall, all of the rest of the Universal Studios Invisible Man films required nudity. In the Hollow Man, an invisible man film, Sebastian Crane also had to be nude to be completely invisible. Nudity was also required for Grove Dunn in the Invisible Kid.
I think most films do note that wearing clothes reveals the invisible person's presence. The TV shows that have had an invisible character don't to avoid the need for the character to dress and undress all the time.
I'm sure there are films that ignore it. Some do come up with interesting reasons why the clothes become invisible as well. But a lot, if not most, recognize the issue and clothes don't become invisible with the person.
Just wear invisible clothes.
shareYou know that actually was a plot point in "Memoirs of an Invisible Man" (1992) which I recall as not bad... In that film the invisibility was caused by some sort of lab accident, which caused a guy and his surroundings to all become invisible to the limit of the effect, which was something like 30 yards (ish). Point being, the guy had some invisible clothes but would not be able to get more... So he tended to use makeup to render face and hands visible and normal(ish) looking so he could move about visibly.
I do not recall the story explaining how the invisible man could see since his retinas were also invisible, meaning that whether light passed through them or went around them, they would still not function.
If you want a non-blind invisible man, he either has a pair of visible eyes floating somewhat obtrusively in mid-air or you have to say he's only invisible in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum AND his eyes now are able to see in the infrared.... or something.
I agree the eye issue is the biggest problem with invisibility. Whether light passes through or around the invisible person, how do they see?
For this type of film I am willing to suspend disbelief for the sake of the story.
the original Invisible Man doesn't have this problem - at the beginning, he's even wearing clothes (including a hat, sunglasses and a scarf around his face) to mask the fact that he's invisible.
shareHear is via cameraz ala mysterio
shareThats an excellent point
share