Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Today on the Arxiv

Today I came across this very entertaining paper
    Hollywood Blockbusters: Unlimited Fun but Limited Science Literacy
    By C.J. Efthimiou, R.A. Llewellyn

    Abstract: In this article, we examine specific scenes from popular action and sci-fi movies and show how they blatantly break the laws of physics, all in the name of entertainment, but coincidentally contributing to science illiteracy.

I didn't even know there is an arxiv for Physics and Society. The authors conclude with
    "Hollywood is reinforcing (or even creating) incorrect scientific attitudes that can have negative results for the society. This is a good reason to recommend that all citizens be taught critical thinking and be required to develop basic science and quantitative literacy."

It's hard to disagree with that recommendation, even without reading the paper. Though I have to say if somebody has the scientific attitude he might survive a jump from the 15th floor, I guess natural selection will take care of that. For most cases I think we've all been taught from earliest childhood on not to mix up fiction with reality... That is, except for those of us who end up in theoretical physics, involuntarily or on purpose bending and breaking the laws of nature on our notebooks.

Update: See also The Physics of Nonphysical Systems.


  1. Interesting! Physics World has been on this topic of incorrect physics in movies and the like for the past few months. The movie Sunshine gets a bit of a going over if i remember correctly ...



  2. As a kid I was seeing Star Trek regulary on German tv. I knew, that most of it was not feasible in the real world, however it was inspireing for a boy who had physics and mechanics as one of his keenest hobbies.

    Beam me up Scottie...




  3. I like oriental hero, they keep linear momentum in the air, while western superhero do not.

  4. I went to see Live Free or Die Hard today with my son. I calculated that the lead character broke his back 6 times (I broke my back in a car wreck, so I'm sensitive to broken backs). In fact, he probably died at least 3 times. Of course, he started walking (and sometimes running)after each disaster. It was more like a Roadrunner cartoon than reality. I've used this site before: http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/ Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics

  5. I actually have to say I can accept laws of nature being bend and broken, but it upsets me if it's not logically consistent. E.g. if the cartoon character falls down only after three steps in mid air and always survives, I want that to happen all the time, not just for the guy with the big feet or whatever. I would be willing to just build a SciFi or Fantasy world on other rules, but not on completely arbitrary events, just because the author/scriptwriter likes it.

    A big problem in this regard seems to be invisibility. Take Harry Potter's invisibility cloak. You'll see his feet if they are not covered, but why do you see the ground under the cloak to begin with? There are these older movies where people gain invisibility by drinking a potion - but what happens to their clothes, or, well teeth fillings or the BicMac they had for lunch? The most sensible invisibility device I still find a shield that bends photons around - nevermind that we don't know how to do that.



  6. There's a scene in the Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex cartoon in which a character wears "thermoptic camouflage" (cyberpunk version of the invisibility cloak) which makes him effectively invisible — but he can't get rid of the dog which keeps barking at him.

    Thanks for the link, by the way!

  7. :-) I recall in one of the later battleship galactica movies they 'parked' a space-shuttle with an invisibility shield on a meadow, and all through the movie you'd occasionally see dogs running into it.

  8. Yeah, I find myself getting annoyed watching some movies with totally unrealistic "science." But then I try to remind myself that they are fiction and supposed to entertain. What really bothers me more is when the Science Channel has shows that are *supposed* to reflect real science but don't. Just the other night there was a show about a comet hitting the Earth and there was some real stupid characterization and plotting in it. The standards for such "docudramas" should be much higher than for pure fiction.


COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG ARE PERMANENTLY CLOSED. You can join the discussion on Patreon.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.