What is your biggest science pet peeve in movies?

[sevenperforce]

13 hours ago, Jeb1969 said:

The movie San Andreas with Dwayne Johnson everything about that movie seemed scientifically inaccurate especially the tsunami. It felt like the directors flunked out of any sensible Geology, and or Seismology class. 

The Winnebago outrunning the supersonic seismic wave...

...or was that 2012?

[magnemoe]

Generally aiming, no not stormtroppers, its surprisingly hard to hit an target during an firefight and the soldiers on the death star did not have much realistic close combat training. 

But ship mounted weapons who is unable to hit targets who ship is either chaising or getting chaised by at 100 meter range over time. Anybody would be able to hit this with an machine-gun
more fun in that the weapons are often computer controlled. 

Star Wars has WW2 dogfights and engagements and it works well as WW2 dogfights. Only issue is why not use bombers or bombs then hitting heavy armored stationary target like in the last movie.
Saw an video of US fighters attacking an Japanese cruiser and my first thought was Star Wars, however they was engaging and taking out the unarmored AAA guns so the bombers should get an easier work 

[razark]

26 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Saw an video of US fighters attacking an Japanese cruiser and my first thought was Star Wars

Star Wars was a WWII movie.  Go watch the attack scene of The Dam Busters.

 

Edited May 14, 2016 by razark

[magnemoe]

6 hours ago, razark said:

7 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Saw an video of US fighters attacking an Japanese cruiser and my first thought was Star Wars

Star Wars was a WWII movie.  Go watch the attack scene of The Dam Busters.

LOL, Lucas admitted that WW2 war movies was the inspiration but did not know it was so close or the dambuster / death star similarity. 
And no star wars is not the real bad guy here, shooting is fair with no automated targeting others movies are far worse.

[todofwar]

11 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Generally aiming, no not stormtroppers, its surprisingly hard to hit an target during an firefight and the soldiers on the death star did not have much realistic close combat training. 

I read an interesting article talking about how the storm troopers helmets made them at a serious disadvantage. We have an innate desire to not kill people, so seeing your enemy's face makes it harder to aim at them. The storm troopers dehumanized themselves, so it was easier for rebels to shoot at them then vice versa.

[Andem]

1 hour ago, todofwar said:

I read an interesting article talking about how the storm troopers helmets made them at a serious disadvantage. We have an innate desire to not kill people, so seeing your enemy's face makes it harder to aim at them. The storm troopers dehumanized themselves, so it was easier for rebels to shoot at them then vice versa.

Yeah, I can say that's true enough. Also, Stormtroopers went through only rudementary training, mostly involving marching and basic firearm practice. Most stormtroopers didn't even know how to properly clean there weapons, and this lead to less efficiency, greater recoil, and general discomfort.

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, todofwar said:

I read an interesting article talking about how the storm troopers helmets made them at a serious disadvantage. We have an innate desire to not kill people, so seeing your enemy's face makes it harder to aim at them. The storm troopers dehumanized themselves, so it was easier for rebels to shoot at them then vice versa.

Old story, do not remember the name of the book, mostly rejected, yes most people does not want to kill an none threatening enemy as in sniping while unaware, in the heat of battle however they kill without morale as they know its kill or be killed. 
In real world police often use face covering masks in swat raids. Soldiers too but mostly for environment protection or camouflage. 
On the gripping hand it probably help lowering the rating of the movie. 

1 hour ago, Andem said:

Yeah, I can say that's true enough. Also, Stormtroopers went through only rudementary training, mostly involving marching and basic firearm practice. Most stormtroopers didn't even know how to properly clean there weapons, and this lead to less efficiency, greater recoil, and general discomfort.

To defend the empire here, most soldiers far from infantry combat are not good in firefights. Sailors and ground crew on air bases are the best example here. 
US marines is an exception because of philosophy, also that they tend to operate far out in small units so everybody should know how to defend the base. 

[Mitchz95]

7 hours ago, todofwar said:

I read an interesting article talking about how the storm troopers helmets made them at a serious disadvantage. We have an innate desire to not kill people, so seeing your enemy's face makes it harder to aim at them. The storm troopers dehumanized themselves, so it was easier for rebels to shoot at them then vice versa.

It also works in reverse, though. Stormtroopers are supposed to dismiss casualties and focus only on securing their objective. It's easier to abandon an armor-clad corpse than the broken body of your best friend.

[DDE]

Uh, OP, could you please start a poll? I'm most peeved by Archidemian physics in space dogfights. A missed opportunity for some spectacular maneuvering, and it wouldn't cost as much, as, say, depicting combined arms land warfare.

[p1t1o]

OMG gotta give a special shout out to new blockbuster XMEN Apocalypse.

Spoilers I guess:

Spoiler

Wherein Apocalypse causes all nuclear ICBMs to launch *stright the heck upwards* and on reaching "space" just...sorta...stop. Cos you know, now they are in spaaaaaaaace where everything juuuust floooaaaats.

I faceplamed so hard everyone thought I was applauding. (not really but omg)

Edited June 10, 2016 by p1t1o

[DDE]

2 hours ago, p1t1o said:

OMG gotta give a special shout out to new blockbuster XMEN Apocalypse.

Spoilers I guess:

  Hide contents

Wherein Apocalypse causes all nuclear ICBMs to launch *stright the heck upwards* and on reaching "space" just...sorta...stop. Cos you know, now they are in spaaaaaaaace where everything juuuust floooaaaats.

I faceplamed so hard everyone thought I was applauding. (not really but omg)

I guess both Halo: Reach and CoD: Infinite Warfare both fall into the "orbit is when you go high enough and gravity stops" trap too.

[KerbalKid]

That one scene in interstellar when he falls into the blackhole. You're dead you can't survive falling into a black hole

[DDE]

1 hour ago, KerbalKid said:

That one scene in interstellar when he falls into the blackhole. You're dead you can't survive falling into a black hole

[citation needed]

There's a paper that suggests entire civilizations can settle inside the event horizon.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.6140v4.pdf

[cantab]

1 hour ago, KerbalKid said:

That one scene in interstellar when he falls into the blackhole. You're dead you can't survive falling into a black hole

On the contrary, for some types of black hole you wouldn't even notice crossing the event horizon. You just aren't coming back out, based on known physics. But the whole point of the ending of Interstellar is the same as the ending of 2001 - it's unknown physics beyond what 20th/21st century humanity has developed.

[p1t1o]

5 hours ago, cantab said:

On the contrary, for some types of black hole you wouldn't even notice crossing the event horizon. You just aren't coming back out, based on known physics. But the whole point of the ending of Interstellar is the same as the ending of 2001 - it's unknown physics beyond what 20th/21st century humanity has developed.

Yeah, I know that current physics doesn't cover what happens at the singularity, if there is one, and that you can cross the event horizon of sufficiently large BHs without too much fuss.

But its not like "Oh we don't know so ANYthing could happen, even fairlytails and princess castles!!!" Its more like "We aren't quite sure what happens to the infinitesimal chunk of degenerate matter you will be crushed into."

 

Edited June 10, 2016 by p1t1o
mood cue

[KerbalKid]

7 hours ago, DDE said:

[citation needed]

There's a paper that suggests entire civilizations can settle inside the event horizon.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.6140v4.pdf

But probably not humans, I Mean they had a giant clock FTL spacecraft but still...

You're dead

[Just Jim]

OK... This morning I'm watching old old Irwin Allen movie called "The Lost World".  Movie is from 1960, and the story looks to be taking place in the same year.  Typical cheesy sci-fi movie: Helicopter crashes on a hidden plateau in Brazil full of dinosaurs, scientific expedition is trapped, etc, etc...   Plus some really campy looking giant lizard dinosaurs.

OK, all this I expect.  But what really killed me is when a couple scientists are watching giant lizard dinosaur, and one scientist looked at the other and asked, "Shouldn't we get some some evidence?"
And the other scientist answered, "Evidence?  What, do you expect to drag that thing down the plateau?"
And then the dino tried to eat them, so they ran away... lol....

That's when I realized that not one of these scientists, on a scientific expedition no less, thought to bring along a simple camera!!!   

I face palmed so hard I nearly knocked myself out.....   

 

Edited June 11, 2016 by Just Jim

[vger]

I like Star Wars as much as the next guy, but seeing Space Shuttles maneuver like that in Armageddon drove me absolutely crazy. I gave it a bit of a pass because "Alright, maybe they're implying that there's a bit of atmosphere around the asteroid. " But the part where they were docking with the spinning space station was one of the most chalk-board-scratching things I have ever seen.

11 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

OK... This morning I'm watching old old Irwin Allen movie called "The Lost World".  Movie is from 1960, and the story looks to be taking place in the same year.  Typical cheesy sci-fi movie: Helicopter crashes on a hidden plateau in Brazil full of dinosaurs, scientific expedition is trapped, etc, etc...   Plus some really campy looking giant lizard dinosaurs.  

As a little aside, what really disturbed me about that film, is that in order to get the dino scenes, they essentially glued armor bits to live animals and then let them try to kill each other.

9 hours ago, KerbalKid said:

That one scene in interstellar when he falls into the blackhole. You're dead you can't survive falling into a black hole

I though the implication was that wasn't a naturally-occurring black hole, and so it had some odd... quirks.

Edited June 11, 2016 by vger

[DDE]

9 hours ago, Just Jim said:

OK... This morning I'm watching old old Irwin Allen movie called "The Lost World".  Movie is from 1960, and the story looks to be taking place in the same year.  Typical cheesy sci-fi movie: Helicopter crashes on a hidden plateau in Brazil full of dinosaurs, scientific expedition is trapped, etc, etc...   Plus some really campy looking giant lizard dinosaurs.

OK, all this I expect.  But what really killed me is when a couple scientists are watching giant lizard dinosaur, and one scientist looked at the other and asked, "Shouldn't we get some some evidence?"
And the other scientist answered, "Evidence?  What, do you expect to drag that thing down the plateau?"
And then the dino tried to eat them, so they ran away... lol....

That's when I realized that not one of these scientists, on a scientific expedition no less, thought to bring along a simple camera!!!   

I face palmed so hard I nearly knocked myself out..... 

Well, if we go back to the original Conan Doyle novel, Professor Challenger tried to defy that trope and had a camera, back in the day when they were a lot less portable...

Naturally, a boating accident on the way back left him with one severely damaged negative, producing a single conspiracy theorist-quality image. His predecessor escaped with a small pterodactyl bone.

Of course, the canonical ending is the team dragging a pterodactyl all the way to London.

9 hours ago, vger said:

I like Star Wars as much as the next guy, but seeing Space Shuttles maneuver like that in Armageddon drove me absolutely crazy. I gave it a bit of a pass because "Alright, maybe they're implying that there's a bit of atmosphere around the asteroid. " But the part where they were docking with the spinning space station was one of the most chalk-board-scratching things I have ever seen.

Armageddon is pretty funny. It's clear that they initially listened to NASA advisors - for instance, the overall mission sequence is quite correct, as it compensates for the asteroid's relative velocity, something I wouldn't expect Hollywood to think about - but then they stopped listening and went full science-fantasy.

Edited June 11, 2016 by DDE

[Mitchz95]

On 2016-06-10 at 8:01 AM, p1t1o said:

OMG gotta give a special shout out to new blockbuster XMEN Apocalypse.

Spoilers I guess:

  Hide contents

Wherein Apocalypse causes all nuclear ICBMs to launch *stright the heck upwards* and on reaching "space" just...sorta...stop. Cos you know, now they are in spaaaaaaaace where everything juuuust floooaaaats.

I faceplamed so hard everyone thought I was applauding. (not really but omg)

I think the ICBMs were just launched away from Earth at escape velocity. So now they're just orbiting the Sun.

[Omegagoldfish]

1 hour ago, Mitchz95 said:

I think the ICBMs were just launched away from Earth at escape velocity. So now they're just orbiting the Sun.

But that's something that makes ME mad. ICBM's do not have the capacity to REACH escape velocity.

 

[p1t1o]

3 hours ago, Mitchz95 said:

I think the ICBMs were just launched away from Earth at escape velocity. So now they're just orbiting the Sun.

I dunno, in the movie they do kinda stop.

[DDE]

10 hours ago, p1t1o said:

I dunno, in the movie they do kinda stop.

Then they are not in a hyperbolic escape trajectory, are they?

It's simple, here's some Hollywood science: beyond 100 km, the gravity is so low, you're technically in space, but unless you're a space station, you still have to constantly fire your engines, or you'll fall back to the planet.

Good luck rationalizing it. At this point it's easier to just call Them stupid, and try to chain them to a computer and make them play KSP.

12 hours ago, Omegagoldfish said:

But that's something that makes ME mad. ICBM's do not have the capacity to REACH escape velocity.

There is one historic, and one possible future ICBM that are equipped for sending nukes into orbit as part of the illegal Fractional Orbital Bombardment scheme. But escape trajectories would be a step up from that; no ICBM-based booster was used for interplanetary flight either, AFAIK.

Edited June 12, 2016 by DDE

[WinkAllKerb'']

"lost in translation" as a wwwhole because well local caracter set, grammar, orthograph, ponctuation, disambiguation, evolution are not a science usefull for anyone ... *grumpf*

 

BB heLLOne rdy for launch ... kunt dawn ... not sure if cold or hot ... cal'horific

Edited June 12, 2016 by WinkAllKerb''

[Omegagoldfish]

Another thing the gets me angry is if someone falls from a great height, and are caught by someone, they don't just slip out of their grasp/break their arms/instantly die due to deceleration.