Those damn scientists are at it again.
I’m proposing that we go back and edit every film with elements that defy the laws of science. Let’s start by removing the sound from any scene in the Star Wars trilogy that is set in the vacuum of space, that part in The Exorcist where Linda Blair’s head does a 180 spin on her body, the scene in Spiderman when Peter Parker gains super powers after being bitten by a radioactive spider, and any shot in Touch of Evil where Orson Welles fits into a single frame.
same day payday loans
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/feb/21/hollywood-films-obey-laws-science
Categories: Uncategorized Guardian, Linda Blair, Orson Welles, Science, Sidney Perkowitz, Star Wars, The Exorcist, Touch of Evil
This might be the single dumbest idea I have ever heard, period. I’m pretty sure Starship Troopers is science ‘fiction’.
fiction- n. invention or fabrication as opposed to fact
Seriously, I don’t understand why smart people take up such dumb pursuits.
I think the debate at heart is that the scientific mind is not easily fooled into believing things that certain film makers don’t spend a lot of time thinking about. These things can be distracting from the rest of the movie to a person that pays close attention to realism.
I think these people are just asking for a higher level of realism which I have no problem with.
It’s an interesting issue – on one hand you have people that don’t really care while there are others that are missing that little extra from a film.
Remember the 80′s action films with Arnie in which he would shoot and shoot and shoot and never reload? I don’t remember the title but there was one where he shot a 4 barreled rocket launcher and the rockets always came out from the same tube. Not to mention he never used any cover. In reality he would be dead long before the end of the movie. How can I take this movie as anything but a comedy? It’s bad or comical or both. Not a serious action movie that draws you in and takes you in the shoes of a character. Instead it takes me to a behind the scenes look at the inner workings of a film studio.
Realism is very important, if you want you movie to be taken seriously. The amount of realism required to keep the audience involved (in the right movie) is directly proportional to the intelligence of the audience.
Note that I said in the right movie. The Exorcist would probably not be one where I would hold it to any sort of expectancy. The head turning is what is unnatural and I assume is what makes the movie scary. But there are certain instances most notably in science fiction where they get even the stupid simple things wrong.
Sound is space is one that I think could be implemented. If I’m not mistaken the new Star Trek did it well – you can hear sounds of objects hitting the spaceship from inside but not outside; Scientifically correct while still awe inspiring.
Movies are directed at a certain general public and those on the fringes of that spectrum will not find the product (movies) as appealing as the ones in the middle. It seems that the people behind this list didn’t take this into consideration when making it. Although I doubt the seriousness of such demands, I think it goes to show some problems that could be addressed.
If someone made a movie that paid close attention to science as well as fiction and fool me into belief then I would certainly enjoy it more and I think it would generally appeal to both parties. It just has to be done right.
Anyways this topic is highly debatable and maybe inconclusive. Some people like their steak medium and some like it medium rare. Which one is better?
I agree with you, Paul. The type of film and the intent of the filmmaker is very important. Some films require faithful adherence to scientific laws to be taken seriously, much like certain films require fidelity to social environments, political structures, linguistics, etc, to be successful. I just feel like the manifesto issued by Perkowitz is ultimately fruitless — directors who want scientific accuracy will shoot for that goal, directors who don’t care will continue not to care.
His criticism of Starship Troopers is what got to me. The bugs are large for dramatic effect. we’re already suspending disbelief, so why worry about whether the aliens’ physiology is possible within the laws of physics?
Being slightly facetious here, but I’d prefer a set of guidelines against poor characterizations and scripting. I think that would’ve helped the problems with The Core and Angels and Demons more than fixing their faulty science, which is admittedly quite terrible. But like you said, I feel like those films weren’t targeted at audiences’ who really care about scientific accuracy anyways
I would like to see more intelligent sci-fi though. I agree that many sci fi movies are more concerned with spectacle than sound science (among many other things). I also agree that glaring errors can make the films seem shallow and poorly thought out. But once again, it all comes down to context and some of Perkowitz gripes come across as petty and his guidelines needlessly stringent.
I’m just tossing this idea out there, but maybe you’d like to write an article on films that did an exceptionally sound job in adhering to scientific principles or a list of abortions that massacred the laws of science. I think that you’d be able to write both kind of articles pretty well and they could be pretty entertaining.