What is your biggest science pet peeve in movies?

[lugge]

I have no problem with spacecrafts floating trough space like flying in atmosphere.
"Star Trek - Wrath of Khan" did this intentionally, however, they wanted it to look more like naval ships insteadof aircrafts (how it was done in Star Wars).

Remember the battles in Battlestar Galactica? The battles between the big ships (battlestars, Zylon Base Stars) looked like old naval battles with huge amount of projectiles shot between the ships (scientifically, one hit would be enough for any ship to be destroyed). The small fighter ships (the "Vipers") however looked more like WW-II air battles.
Why there is no zero-g environment abourd the ships is never mentioned, not even artificial gravity due to some magic device is given as solution.

And it is good this way.
We wouldn't have much movies and TV shows in space if all had to be correct from a scientific point of view.
These shows are not about science, they are about entertainment, action, character development...

However, I do enjoy "correct" movies like 2001 or Interstellar. But I don't need all movies this way.

What I really hate is when they are bullexcrementsting the audience, when they do an "asspull" http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AssPull

[Technical Ben]

On 14/11/2016 at 2:16 PM, p1t1o said:

Ah I think I remember that! Wasn't it an outer limits episode?

I feel like there are several other examples of "fighting a war against an enemy always unseen" floating around, but I cant quite put my finger on any of them. "1984" probably counts, but in a different way.

Starship troopers maybe? Didnt that start with rocks coming out of space, and sending rocks right back?

It was Outer Limits.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Light_Brigade_(The_Outer_Limits)

If I ever do a sci fi, the battles will be "WMD" meaning mostly one hit disabled/destroyed type things. Everything else would be the lead up to that, getting "in range" or using chaff/lasers against missile type devices. The main deterrent to making the first shot, would be the enemy having reason to make the second, as they'd near always get that chance... and who would want to guarantee their own demise!

Edited November 15, 2016 by Technical Ben

[Guest]

17 hours ago, wumpus said:

"Airlocks controlled by digital input": just wait until somebody dies in a freezer with a digitally controlled lock.  Never underestimate human stupidity (I swear we beat kerbals somedays).  Bonus if the death is due to IoT insecurity and malware infection.

'rocket engines that make jet noises when "spooling up"': Except that the fuel pumps [turbopumps] (probably the most important bits of a rocket) work the same way.  So they probably do make that sound (except that if you can hear it before a launch, you are almost certainly facing immediate death by being too close to the hot end).  I'm guessing that this will have to be removed in the interest of maintaining "fact free" movie rockets.

Yeah, I know about turbopumps, but when a movie uses the same sound of a 777 turning its engines on (APU included) as a turbopump sound, it's pretty annoying.

[problemecium]

These days I'm gonna have to say my number one peeve in space movies/shows/games is ye olde boat / fighter plane physics. The whole thing where they have the engines blasting constantly whenever the ship is "moving," and as soon as they shut off it "stops."

This is exacerbated by ships almost never having any appreciable-sized fuel tanks. Even Interstellar did that!

Coming in a close second is ships always having parallel decks with voodoo artificial gravity (if we have that, why can't we use it to move the ship? And what benefit are we getting out of it that offsets the cost as opposed to just spinning the thing?).

I used to care a lot more about sound in space, but that part's actually surprisingly easy to "fix" in my headcanon: for one, sound actually does exist in space, albeit in most cases far below human hearing range; and perhaps the ships have radios that pick up the electromagnetic emissions from engines and explosions and they just so happen to resemble the sounds of jet planes xD

[ouion]

1. Engineering Problems with Sci fi ships: They look like a space version of a sea borne battleship

No real artificial gravity generated by centrifugal force or a explanation to gravity plating

2. Aliens don't wear spacesuits

3. How does a 78 km long ship enter the atmosphere and it seems to float in the atmosphere?

4. Disregard for Orbital mechanics

5. Shields: They don't explain them

6. Space battles look like air battles

 

[cantab]

4 hours ago, parameciumkid said:

These days I'm gonna have to say my number one peeve in space movies/shows/games is ye olde boat / fighter plane physics. The whole thing where they have the engines blasting constantly whenever the ship is "moving," and as soon as they shut off it "stops."

This is exacerbated by ships almost never having any appreciable-sized fuel tanks. Even Interstellar did that!

Coming in a close second is ships always having parallel decks with voodoo artificial gravity (if we have that, why can't we use it to move the ship? And what benefit are we getting out of it that offsets the cost as opposed to just spinning the thing?).

I used to care a lot more about sound in space, but that part's actually surprisingly easy to "fix" in my headcanon: for one, sound actually does exist in space, albeit in most cases far below human hearing range; and perhaps the ships have radios that pick up the electromagnetic emissions from engines and explosions and they just so happen to resemble the sounds of jet planes xD

I think in at least some cases the same technology *is* used for artificial gravity and for propulsion, or at least nothing ever says it's not. In even more cases the technology for artificial gravity and for 'inertial dampeners' (to excuse ships pulling crazy gees) is related. Centrifugal gravity imposes significant constraints on ship design that magic artgrav doesn't.

Out of universe, of course it's for filming practicality. Zero gravity is hard to film, even centrifugal gravity is hard to film unless the ship is meant to be really huge.

That said, it would be neat to see accelerational gravity, and spaceships shaped not like ocean liners but like skyscrapers, their engines at the bottom. If your ship is running its engines constantly anyway (which is possible given enough delta-V) it would make sense, and at the very least it could be a striking visual style.

As for sound in space, well I just accept that the microphones I'm hearing aren't in the same place as the camera I'm seeing. There will almost surely be noise on the spaceships themselves.

[todofwar]

2 hours ago, ouion said:

 

5. Shields: They don't explain them

 

Yeah, that one really annoys me. It's a cheap excuse for space battles to not be one hit kill affairs. 

[DDE]

8 hours ago, parameciumkid said:

Coming in a close second is ships always having parallel decks with voodoo artificial gravity (if we have that, why can't we use it to move the ship? And what benefit are we getting out of it that offsets the cost as opposed to just spinning the thing?).

A few franchises (off the top of my head, Mass Effect) have that as a very gimmicky kind of propulsion, but none of them exploit it for a reaction motor. There have been attempts to ensure these systems comply with conservation of momentum.

4 hours ago, ouion said:

Aliens don't wear spacesuits

Javik doesn't need oxygen like the inferior races do!

4 hours ago, ouion said:

Disregard for Orbital mechanics

Most of sci-fi authors failed Physics 101. I think if they tried to comply with orbital mechanics, it would have been worse.

4 hours ago, ouion said:

Space battles look like air battles

You wish. Star Trek battles are more like pre-Roman galley battles in terms of range and intensity of maneuvering.

[lugge]

Doesn't matter for me.

Really annyoing are the stereotype characters in most movies.

Remember that boring 2012 movie ("hey, lets throw a huge amount of money in special effects, story is overrated!")?
It was completely sci-babble repurposed bovine waste.

What has been the worst was the main character.
The family dad, with muscles, could solve any situation, dive for about 5 minutes, hero of the day.
I really hate it when they do this. How is supposed to believe this?!

[p1t1o]

A very important peeve:

This one isnt related to anything wrong that happens in movies.

Its when you recognise something sciency in a movie, perhaps its something that doesnt come up too often or is relatively obscure, but *you* recognise it, in fact, you can talk for quite a while about how interestingand cool it is. But there is no one else around who noticed, or they have never heard of it when you explain it, or they just tell you to shut up because the movie is still playing.

This happened to me recently in Dr. Strange, in one trippy sequence there is a backdrop of cycling 3-D fractal patterns similar to one I have been playing with on my PC. I wanted to shout "Hey HEY! I know what that is! I've made stuff like that! Do you know how much freaking processing power that these smoothly animated high resolution backdrops represent?! An INSANE amount!! Guys? Guuuys?! Come on Im cool I swear!!"

I have a lot of non-sciency friends and this is a constant bother

Also Cumberbatch's accent was a crime against humanity.

[ImmaStegosaurus!]

Hollywood understanding of gravity, orbital mechanics, vacuum and distances.


I'm so happy I found The Expanse. If you don't know what it is, go watch it on Netflix.

 

Spoiler

Just about everything in this scene (and movie) insult my sense of realism.
 

 

 

[cantab]

5 hours ago, lugge said:

Remember that boring 2012 movie ("hey, lets throw a huge amount of money in special effects, story is overrated!")?
It was completely sci-babble repurposed bovine waste

2012 was hilarious. Pure comedy gold. I literally burst out laughing in the theatre when they were flying away from LA.

[problemecium]

Was that the one where the Sun was "microwaving" Earth by way of exploiting how the writers knew nothing about how microwaves work? xD

[RedDwarfIV]

46 minutes ago, parameciumkid said:

Was that the one where the Sun was "microwaving" Earth by way of exploiting how the writers knew nothing about how microwaves work? xD

Supposedly neutrinos had "mutated" into a form that interacts with other forms of matter more often, resulting in the Earth being heated up.

[monstah]

4 hours ago, p1t1o said:

This happened to me recently in Dr. Strange, in one trippy sequence there is a backdrop of cycling 3-D fractal patterns similar to one I have been playing with on my PC. I wanted to shout "Hey HEY! I know what that is! I've made stuff like that! Do you know how much freaking processing power that these smoothly animated high resolution backdrops represent?! An INSANE amount!! Guys? Guuuys?! Come on Im cool I swear!!"

I shared this specific feeling about this specific scene with you!

That movie could have been better  Not bad, but not awesome.

[Guest]

On the subject of air battles:

The maneuver at the end of the video, IT HURTS

[p1t1o]

6 minutes ago, Aperture Science said:

On the subject of air battles:

The maneuver at the end of the video, IT HURTS

You clearly havnt read the Advanced Combat Manouvres manual:

Spoiler

 

22 minutes ago, monstah said:

I shared this specific feeling about this specific scene with you!

That movie could have been better  Not bad, but not awesome.

YES!! and yes

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

You clearly havnt read the Advanced Combat Manouvres manual:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Oh god, the Top Gun one was also terrible.

But in Red Tails, though, there is 0 possibility that that maneuver could happen: he's flying in a propeller plane in the first place, how does one expect super maneuverability from it?

[p1t1o]

30 minutes ago, Aperture Science said:

Oh god, the Top Gun one was also terrible.

But in Red Tails, though, there is 0 possibility that that maneuver could happen: he's flying in a propeller plane in the first place, how does one expect super maneuverability from it?

To be fair, you can throw a light aircraft around in some quite surprising ways, I was able once to fly with the RAF in a light trainer and executed a common aerobatic manouvre "stall turn" which has you change direction 180 degree in about 2 seconds or less.

But these manouvres can only be done at very low speed (50-ish mph regime, give or take, aircraft dependent), which in ACM means "death". May as well be stationary.

Not that the manouvre shown in your clip even looked anything at all like that and did look entirely impossible. 

 

Edited November 16, 2016 by p1t1o

[cantab]

While the movie scene is surely an exaggeration, prop planes can do some pretty cool tight manoeuvres, notably the Lomcovak family of manoeuvres that rely on the gyroscopic effects of the engine and propeller.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skfprThzUq4

 

[DDE]

@p1t1o @Aperture Science I am sincerely shocked.

I have encountered evidence that WWII-era US fighters developed the Frolov chakra:

[ImmaStegosaurus!]

Spoiler

 

Prop planes can do neat moves. Add some luck and a short burst of fire there and you might have to paint one impressive kill mark next to your canopy.

[wumpus]

22 hours ago, ouion said:

5. Shields: They don't explain them

Oddly enough, don't try going at relativistic speed without them.  So explaining shields is pretty much as needed (or not) as explaining how you are getting to another star (well first you take some anti-matter...).

14 hours ago, p1t1o said:

This happened to me recently in Dr. Strange, in one trippy sequence there is a backdrop of cycling 3-D fractal patterns similar to one I have been playing with on my PC. I wanted to shout "Hey HEY! I know what that is! I've made stuff like that! Do you know how much freaking processing power that these smoothly animated high resolution backdrops represent?! An INSANE amount!! Guys? Guuuys?! Come on Im cool I swear!!"

I'd strongly suspect that creating such a trippy cycling fractal bit in realtime takes roughly the computing power of running KSP*.  GPUs are amazing things and most fractal computations fall under "embarrassingly parallel".  Look into OpenCL if you want to go deep into fractals.

* I've been away from so long it was back when fractint used integer math to compute the things.  I'm pretty sure they still have to be "embarrassingly parallel" in which case they are simply no match for even an older GPU (just don't zoom in so far that you need double precision: that will shut down nearly all GPUs).

[todofwar]

On 11/16/2016 at 4:42 AM, p1t1o said:

 

Its when you recognise something sciency in a movie, perhaps its something that doesnt come up too often or is relatively obscure, but *you* recognise it, in fact, you can talk for quite a while about how interestingand cool it is. But there is no one else around who noticed, or they have never heard of it when you explain it, or they just tell you to shut up because the movie is still playing.

 

This is about half the reason every chemist I know loved Breaking Bad. Chemistry is one of those subjects that is just never accurate in movies, but they did a damn good job researching how things work. Hearing the words "chiral centers" used correctly was one of the highlights of that show for me. 

[p1t1o]

21 minutes ago, todofwar said:

This is about half the reason every chemist I know loved Breaking Bad. Chemistry is one of those subjects that is just never accurate in movies, but they did a damn good job researching how things work. Hearing the words "chiral centers" used correctly was one of the highlights of that show for me. 

Aww Jeeze, speaking as a chemist, I couldn't disagree more!

A large proportion of my non-sciency friends advertised it to me in the same way "Its so good, and its full of chemistry Pete! You'd love it!"

Yeah sure, it has *some* chemistry in it, but its not exactly education-grade. I gave it a go, I tried it, watched a handful of episodes. And lo and behold, he picks up a bag of mercury fulminate and throws it at some gangster or other in order to escape a sticky situation.

And yet, the bag of fulminate failed to explode as it was carried around, jostled, kept in pockets, on the seat of a moving car etc. That sh** is sensitive, that was the whole point.

Maybe it has more good chemistry in it than most programs, but this really put me off, especially when the chemistry was so hyped up. I was expected to be impressed, not to spot a glaring error in the first sitting.

 

(And apart from imperfect chemistry, lets say the fulminate issue was fine, it also demonstrates extremely ill-advised behavior when working with explosives, y'know, if you want to live.)

 

PS: I would add though, that as a scientist, it is heartening to see at least some good science used in mainstream media in an entertaining fashion. I dont hold liking breaking bad against anyone, even chemists

Edited November 17, 2016 by p1t1o