Don't you just hate when films aren't scientifically accurate?

[Fred Castellum]

damn this is the first time I've seen you mad Freddy.

I don't get mad often because its too tiring... however there are still times...

 

[Askew]

I don't get mad often because its too tiring... however there are still times...

 

 

Any way we can 'enhance' your mood?

[Fred Castellum]

Any way we can 'enhance' your mood?

Making the bacteria infection I've got go away would be a start...

 

[helping]

Nope, if it's entertaining who the fuck cares.

 

Also, if all movies would have to be 100% scientifically accurate, we would have a lot less movies and those would be boring

Really? I think we'd have a lot less movies but much more interesting ones (and a loooot less shit movies)

 

Movies like Lucy based on psuedoscience need to go, movies like Inception are passable because that's not really central to the plot as only a catalyst for the actual story.

 

Fiction from science is fine, fiction from fiction is fine, science from fiction is a no.

[Askew]

Making the bacteria infection I've got go away would be a start...

 

 

Overseas antibiotics up in this ho!! but srs I can't help with that man best see a doctor.

[EmotionalSloth]

Really? I think we'd have a lot less movies but much more interesting ones (and a loooot less shit movies)

 

Movies like Lucy based on psuedoscience need to go, movies like Inception are passable because that's not really central to the plot as only a catalyst for the actual story.

 

Fiction from science is fine, fiction from fiction is fine, science from fiction is a no.

I dont really get what you are saying. So movies that you would like, you dont just because they aren't scientfically realistic or proven? Seems a bit silly to me

[Fred Castellum]

Overseas antibiotics up in this ho!! but srs I can't help with that man best see a doctor.

I can't afford to spend money right now. Works been bad. 

 

I'm trying to do self treatment but I can't diagnose myself accurately...

 

[helping]

I dont really get what you are saying. So movies that you would like, you dont just because they aren't scientfically realistic or proven? Seems a bit silly to me

 

Fiction from science is fine, fiction from fiction is fine, science from fiction is a no.

 

Sci-Fi is fiction based from science, a story (fictional) based on something scientific.

 

You can trace the movie back to something scientific, or at least a scientific concept.

Some movies don't have that, they're based on fallacy. They have a scientific nature that a standard SF film might have, but at the same time don't have a source that holds a shred of truth (or even worse, a misconception)

 

You make SF out of something already fiction, then where does the "science" come from. It doesn't belong there, especially in a movie where science is a pretty big role. There's a critical flaw when an SF film has no science in it.

 

It's like Dexter's lab without a lab, how can you have a sci-fi film that is all FI without sci? You can't go about making up science based on a fallacy, it goes the other way around, you make fallacies based on science.

 

It's not a two way road.

[Askew]

I can't afford to spend money right now. Works been bad. 

 

I'm trying to do self treatment but I can't diagnose myself accurately...

 

 

Antiobiotics can't cost that much?

 

Here healthcare is free, I can go to the doctor and be examined, get prescribed medication and it costs £7 flat rate whatever the medication costs, seeing a doctor is free all the time, and if you have no job/disabled the medication is also free.

 

UK is an incredible place in some regards, weak in others (not allowed to shoot people who break into your house)

[EmotionalSloth]

Sci-Fi is fiction based from science, a story (fictional) based on something scientific.

 

You can trace the movie back to something scientific, or at least a scientific concept.

Some movies don't have that, they're based on fallacy. They have a scientific nature that a standard SF film might have, but at the same time don't have a source that holds a shred of truth (or even worse, a misconception)

 

You make SF out of something already fiction, then where does the "science" come from. It doesn't belong there, especially in a movie where science is a pretty big role. There's a critical flaw when an SF film has no science in it.

 

It's like Dexter's lab without a lab, how can you have a sci-fi film that is all FI without sci? You can't go about making up science based on a fallacy, it goes the other way around, you make fallacies based on science.

 

It's not a two way road.

So lets say you think a movie has awesome characters, awesome directing, awesome visuals, but if its sci-fi you wont like it anyways?

[EmotionalSloth]

 

 

Whoever made hyouka should pay you for advertising

[helping]

So lets say you think a movie has awesome characters, awesome directing, awesome visuals, but if its sci-fi you wont like it anyways?

Are you even reading my posts?

 

This is an oreo, it is Sci-Fi, it has both science and fiction. It has cream and cookie.

 

This is "Sci-Fi" with a slight issue, what the hell m8

 

[Askew]

Are you even reading my posts?

 

definition and judgement are definitely different if I remember the last time I did one of them after the other.

 

hue

[helping]

definition and judgement are definitely different if I remember the last time I did one of them after the other.

 

hue

wait what, that flew over me.

[Askew]

wait what, that flew over me.

 

You said that sci fi is different from straight up fiction, he responded by asking if you were sure you don't like sci fi.

 

I was concurring with what you said basically sorry for confusion.

[Fred Castellum]

Antiobiotics can't cost that much?

 

Here healthcare is free, I can go to the doctor and be examined, get prescribed medication and it costs £7 flat rate whatever the medication costs, seeing a doctor is free all the time, and if you have no job/disabled the medication is also free.

 

UK is an incredible place in some regards, weak in others (not allowed to shoot people who break into your house)

Uhh not sure should be fairly low in price. 

 

Believe it or not my ass never signed up for health insurance. I've always been fairly healthy except for being underweight.... *sigh*

 

I always thought your ass was in the US lol. 

 

Whoever made hyouka should pay you for advertising

If only.... 

 

 

Be back in a couple of hours. 

[P e r s e p h o n e]

This is something that bugs me quite a bit - when film makers don't bother to research things when doing special effects or writing scripts.

 

One slightly unrelated example (which got me thinking about it) is a film that's about to come out soon, called Lucy. I saw a trailer for it in the cinema and I was generally interested in watching it... Until they went along with the whole "the brain only uses 10% of it's total capacity" thing. While I think that statement is complete BS, I get it's a film and things aren't real in films, and it's simply exploring an idea, but there were other things that bugged me. Scarlet Johansen is the lead btw. She takes a pill or something that starts increasing her brain capacity. And suddenly, because her brain function is increased, she's developed super strength and can take down a man twice her size? It would have been a much cooler film if it was more about out-thinking the enemy than developing badass superpowers.

 

I wonder if people would watch a "your eyes can only see 30fps" film... Someone takes a pill that lets them "see" at 60fps and weird things start happening to them. /facepalm

 

Anyway, I just think I needed a rant. Is there any film you can think of where you saw it and thought "that really shouldn't have happened like that/isn't accurate", specifically in the science aspect of things? Usually for me it's things that happen in space, like decompression and explosions. That's why I loved Gravity, because they made the film completely scientifically accurate.

 

I can't think of any others off the top of my head.

You should see Neil Degrasse Tyson tear gravity apart. Your understanding of the fact that this is still fiction and purely for entertainment value yet refusal to not rant about is funny to me. I think a more sensible complaint would be the fact that people have actually believed the 10% of your brain capacity thing or perhaps poorly made movies, Limitless was a good version of that. Now this is just me being picky but you can't just state things are complete BS, even though they are, without explaining why; we're talking about mother lovin science here.

[spwath]

I thought by now directors and the audience would know there would be no sound in space.

Er... On the poster hear is spelled wrong

[chilicheeseburger]

I don't know much about science and thus it doesn't really bother me if a movie gets something wrong scientifically.

But what I always laugh at are "hacking" scenes in movies. They always depict is as if anyone could hack whatever they want as long as they have enough monitors and the room they're in is dark enough.

[killers993]

I thought by now directors and the audience would know there would be no sound in space.

 

 

If I remember correctly, Gravity didn't have any sounds when they were outside the shuttle.

[MrTomnus]

There's a few things, including the fact that tears don't really float out of your face when you're in space.

 

 

The debris field simply doesn't work like that because everything in the same orbit in space has to be travelling at more or less the same speed in order to maintain orbit, including the astronauts, so they would always have been on the other side of the planet to it. Also, the space stations are in wildly different orbits, so even if you could use a fire extinguisher (iirc) to get around in space (you realistically can't), you would never manage to swap between the different stations.

 

 

Are you sure ?

 

 

Okay, maybe I missed a few things... The film was so pretty I didn't notice. I have been shamed 

 

Wait, about the debris field, doesn't it make sense that it's moving faster? If centripetal force = mv^2/r, then for the tiny individual chunks of debris to be in the same orbit as the station then they must need to move faster, no?

 

You should see Neil Degrasse Tyson tear gravity apart. Your understanding of the fact that this is still fiction and purely for entertainment value yet refusal to not rant about is funny to me. I think a more sensible complaint would be the fact that people have actually believed the 10% of your brain capacity thing or perhaps poorly made movies, Limitless was a good version of that. Now this is just me being picky but you can't just state things are complete BS, even though they are, without explaining why; we're talking about mother lovin science here.

 

My dad believes the 10% thing... and he's a maths teacher and the most rational person I know. So yeah.

 

I would love to explain in here why it's BS, and how much of an evolutionary fudge up it would be if it were true, but that isn't what this thread is about.

[MrTomnus]

Speed is the same for objects in the same orbit. Doesn't depend on object's mass (on Energy it does)

Centripetal Force= mass*centripetal acceleration (I suppose that's how it's said in English)

C. Force=(G*Planet's mass*Object's mass)/(distance²)

C. Force=(object's mass*speed²)/distance

so: (G*Planet's mass*Object's mass)/(distance²)=(object's mass*speed²)/distance

Then do some maths and...

Orbit speed= sqrt((G*Planet's mass)/distance)

 

G=gravitational constant

distance=planet's radius+height

mass in KG

 

Haha, thanks. It's been three months since I've done physics so I'd forgotten a bit...

[Nuluvius]

Something recently, not a film but a series: The Following.

 

Amongst a whole range of things which I have since managed to purge from my brain there were some specific gems that went something like: "dammit he's encrypted his IP Address with a virus", "He's scrambling you with the virus!" Needless to say I had to turn it off, desist watching it all together, proceed to the corner, sit down and weep.

[Chris is awesome]

Gravity

[Tacitus]

It's annoying yeah... But it doesn't bug me as much as historical inaccuracy...