Author Topic: Bad Science in Movies  (Read 4100 times)

Bad Science in Movies
« on: February 24, 2013, 01:27:00 AM »

Capac Amaru

  • Hero
  • Posts: 1619
  • ONI Analyst: Section Zero: Xenological Studies
    • Zebra Monkeys - home of Light Echoes
I saw Django Unchained at the movies last night, such a good movie...

But before it started I laughed out loud at the new GI Joe trailer. London gets 'rods from god'ed.

Rods from God are ridiculously expensive to implement, for a relatively small outcome (A 6.1m x 0.3m 8 ton tungsten cylinder impacting at Mach 10 has a kinetic energy equivalent to approximately 11.5 tons of TNT (or 7.2 tons of dynamite).

It would make an effective bunker buster, as its high mass and velocity would allow it to penetrate multiple layers of shielding.

Larger scale projects have been estimated to have power in the small tactical nuke range.


The system in GI Joe launches one rod and destroys the entirety of inner London through some kind of ridiculous seismic activity.

Its hard to get a sense of scale from the trailer, but for a tungsten rod to have the equivalent energy of the Hiroshima nuke it would need to be 11130 tons.

Lets take a very cheap estimation for tons to orbit: 2 million USD per ton.

$22,260,000,000

Does Cobra have $22 billion to spend, and that no one would notice?


Re: Bad Science in Movies
« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2013, 11:59:39 PM »

Tar Alacrin

  • Hero
  • Posts: 1920
  • There has been much talk. And i have listened...
I saw Django Unchained at the movies last night, such a good movie...

But before it started I laughed out loud at the new GI Joe trailer. London gets 'rods from god'ed.

Rods from God are ridiculously expensive to implement, for a relatively small outcome (A 6.1m x 0.3m 8 ton tungsten cylinder impacting at Mach 10 has a kinetic energy equivalent to approximately 11.5 tons of TNT (or 7.2 tons of dynamite).

It would make an effective bunker buster, as its high mass and velocity would allow it to penetrate multiple layers of shielding.

Larger scale projects have been estimated to have power in the small tactical nuke range.


The system in GI Joe launches one rod and destroys the entirety of inner London through some kind of ridiculous seismic activity.

Its hard to get a sense of scale from the trailer, but for a tungsten rod to have the equivalent energy of the Hiroshima nuke it would need to be 11130 tons.

Lets take a very cheap estimation for tons to orbit: 2 million USD per ton.

$22,260,000,000

Does Cobra have $22 billion to spend, and that no one would notice?



Hmm... In the interest of humoring your point and coming up with an explaination, perhaps cobra used nuclear power to get the missiles into space; it would prolly end up being a whole lot cheaper than whatever we use now.

also, the seismic activity could have just been the collapse of the london underground; which is pretty dense near central london
Signature.

Re: Bad Science in Movies
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2013, 03:03:41 AM »

DangerousDave

  • Forward Staff
  • Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 2281
  • You are alive when they eat you.
    • Personal Site
Well, anything with an orbital payload is expensive *now*, but assuming you've got effective space travel rods o' god and a whole manner of "selective deorbiting" of whatever hunk of metal or rock you've grabbed from the stars seems like an effective and cheap weapon.

Avatar, for instance, is of course full of nonsensical science and plot holes galore, but to me one of the more egregious ones is that they don't simply *drop* something on the Hometree thing from space (well, that and the whole deus ex machina, but I digress.) Would have solved their problems quite easily, and considering it would be the same damn thing they were going to do anyhow with less muss and fuss I don't know why they didn't (besides plot.)

Re: Bad Science in Movies
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2013, 03:16:25 AM »

Capac Amaru

  • Hero
  • Posts: 1619
  • ONI Analyst: Section Zero: Xenological Studies
    • Zebra Monkeys - home of Light Echoes
You gotta see the trailer Tar, the ground is bouncing up and down like some scifi channel made for tv earthquake movie (with 100x better graphincs of course).

As for Avatar, the whole clone alien body upload thing has always seemed totally ridiculous to me, not to mention fraught with ethical issues that aren't even mentioned.

Re: Bad Science in Movies
« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2013, 04:05:14 AM »

Postmortem

  • Forward Unto Dawn Writer
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 821
  • No. There is more. But you are not worthy. Not yet
ethical issues that aren't even mentioned.

This was my biggest complaint. Aren't they kind of denying a cloned organism capable of sentience a chance for life?

Re: Bad Science in Movies
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2013, 04:06:39 AM »

Capac Amaru

  • Hero
  • Posts: 1619
  • ONI Analyst: Section Zero: Xenological Studies
    • Zebra Monkeys - home of Light Echoes
ethical issues that aren't even mentioned.

This was my biggest complaint. Aren't they kind of denying a cloned organism capable of sentience a chance for life?

Not to mention how many test subjects did they have to go through to perfect the process...

Re: Bad Science in Movies
« Reply #6 on: February 25, 2013, 02:32:37 PM »

Tar Alacrin

  • Hero
  • Posts: 1920
  • There has been much talk. And i have listened...
Quote from: Post
This was my biggest complaint. Aren't they kind of denying a cloned organism capable of sentience a chance for life?
I mean... Its not really that different from abortion...
Signature.

Re: Bad Science in Movies
« Reply #7 on: February 25, 2013, 04:03:11 PM »

That Gunslinger

  • Veteran
  • Posts: 525
  • Forerunner Tank: Awesomeness would ensue.
Quote from: Post
This was my biggest complaint. Aren't they kind of denying a cloned organism capable of sentience a chance for life?
I mean... Its not really that different from abortion...

James Cameron: "Sh-shut up. EXPLOSIONS! 3D! CGI! YEAH!"

Anyway I loved Avatar. Sokka was my favourite character.
"Life is trial Riser."
"For little Elephants as well."

Re: Bad Science in Movies
« Reply #8 on: February 25, 2013, 04:06:03 PM »

DangerousDave

  • Forward Staff
  • Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 2281
  • You are alive when they eat you.
    • Personal Site
Quote from: Post
This was my biggest complaint. Aren't they kind of denying a cloned organism capable of sentience a chance for life?
I mean... Its not really that different from abortion...

Well that's getting into another issue, but you could argue that deliberately creating an organism true sentience is either worse (in that abortions are usually for unintentional pregnancies), or better (in that if it doesn't have sentience, its not as bad as killing an unborn child who could develop or already has that sentience.) it's definitely a pretty grey area. I think they did an interesting Star Trek Enterprise episode where they basically cloned one of the characters to harvest for parts to save the original. Then there was that really bad "The Island" movie along the same lines... But at least they tried to grapple with the issue rather than ignore it.

Ok, what's y'all's personal pick for worst science ever? I think "Sunshine"'s scene where a guy literally touched the surface of the sun was the benchmark for crazy stupid to me.

Re: Bad Science in Movies
« Reply #9 on: February 25, 2013, 05:20:48 PM »

Postmortem

  • Forward Unto Dawn Writer
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 821
  • No. There is more. But you are not worthy. Not yet
Quote from: Post
This was my biggest complaint. Aren't they kind of denying a cloned organism capable of sentience a chance for life?
I mean... Its not really that different from abortion...

Well that's getting into another issue, but you could argue that deliberately creating an organism true sentience is either worse (in that abortions are usually for unintentional pregnancies), or better (in that if it doesn't have sentience, its not as bad as killing an unborn child who could develop or already has that sentience.) it's definitely a pretty grey area. I think they did an interesting Star Trek Enterprise episode where they basically cloned one of the characters to harvest for parts to save the original. Then there was that really bad "The Island" movie along the same lines... But at least they tried to grapple with the issue rather than ignore it.

Ok, what's y'all's personal pick for worst science ever? I think "Sunshine"'s scene where a guy literally touched the surface of the sun was the benchmark for crazy stupid to me.

Jimmy Neutron. People can't breath on the moon.

Re: Bad Science in Movies
« Reply #10 on: February 25, 2013, 11:25:59 PM »

Capac Amaru

  • Hero
  • Posts: 1619
  • ONI Analyst: Section Zero: Xenological Studies
    • Zebra Monkeys - home of Light Echoes
Sunshine is why I started the thread lol, I'm halfway through it. I just can't make myself watch it all in one sitting.

@Post I'm sure you'll be criticizing the science in Invader Zim next :P

Worst science in a film... I'd say Dune. "For he IS the Qwisatz Haderach!"

Re: Bad Science in Movies
« Reply #11 on: February 27, 2013, 08:19:54 AM »

Capac Amaru

  • Hero
  • Posts: 1619
  • ONI Analyst: Section Zero: Xenological Studies
    • Zebra Monkeys - home of Light Echoes
OMG Sunshine... it keeps getting funnier and funnier. Or worse and worse. Depending how you look at it. 1:47:16... so scary trolololo

Re: Bad Science in Movies
« Reply #12 on: February 27, 2013, 12:58:32 PM »

DangerousDave

  • Forward Staff
  • Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 2281
  • You are alive when they eat you.
    • Personal Site
Sunshine is why I started the thread lol, I'm halfway through it. I just can't make myself watch it all in one sitting.

@Post I'm sure you'll be criticizing the science in Invader Zim next :P

Worst science in a film... I'd say Dune. "For he IS the Qwisatz Haderach!"

Something about Dune just annoys me to know end. I guess it's the swords and sand people stuff, it always just felt so... constructed?

Re: Bad Science in Movies
« Reply #13 on: February 27, 2013, 04:32:26 PM »

Capac Amaru

  • Hero
  • Posts: 1619
  • ONI Analyst: Section Zero: Xenological Studies
    • Zebra Monkeys - home of Light Echoes
Sunshine is why I started the thread lol, I'm halfway through it. I just can't make myself watch it all in one sitting.

@Post I'm sure you'll be criticizing the science in Invader Zim next :P

Worst science in a film... I'd say Dune. "For he IS the Qwisatz Haderach!"

Something about Dune just annoys me to know end. I guess it's the swords and sand people stuff, it always just felt so... constructed?

The movie? Or the books?

Re: Bad Science in Movies
« Reply #14 on: February 27, 2013, 05:20:30 PM »

DangerousDave

  • Forward Staff
  • Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 2281
  • You are alive when they eat you.
    • Personal Site
Sunshine is why I started the thread lol, I'm halfway through it. I just can't make myself watch it all in one sitting.

@Post I'm sure you'll be criticizing the science in Invader Zim next :P

Worst science in a film... I'd say Dune. "For he IS the Qwisatz Haderach!"

Something about Dune just annoys me to know end. I guess it's the swords and sand people stuff, it always just felt so... constructed?

The movie? Or the books?

Both, although yeah the Lynch movie was just terribad.