Bad science in fiction Hall of Shame

[cypher_00]

A new movie got released on Netflix a few days ago called Approaching the Unknown.. (spoilers ahead)

I thought for a moment it would be hard sci fi but a few minutes into the film they launch a rocket and the austronaut inside actualy has one hand on some sort of a throttle and the other on a flight stick pulling both back like he is flying the thing into orbit.. I knew it would be bad after that.

The whole premisse of the movie was that the astronaut spend some time in the desert and managed to invent a "water generator" that could extract hydrogen and oxygen from desert soil and produce both power and water from it so they launched a 1 person mission to Mars with this device..

The rest of the movie is so boring i had a hard time staying awake watching it..

Also everytime they showed a outside shot of his spacecraft it was flying through some sort of nebula cloud... Really? Since when do we have nebula's between Earth and Mars?

Really can not recommend this movie it is very very bad...

 

[p1t1o]

Ooh I've got another one:

Alastair Reynold's "Revelation Space" series and universe (which, BTW, are excellent sci-fi, this issue aside - nobody's perfect) has various sci-fi techs in it.

The machine I am referring to is an aircraft. It works by having the underside of its wings completely covered in intense heating elements, in operation hot enough to be dazzlingly bright.

So it has a wing, with a very hot skin on the underside. Which somehow produces lift. Enough lift to fly the thing about like a Harrier jump-jet.

I get that hot air rises, but this cannot possibly be an engine, right?

[KG3]

 

  My pet peeve is the 2009 Star Trek reboot film.   Spock tries to keep the Romulan's sun from blowing up by injecting it with "Red Matter".  Red Matter, really?  I mean, you know there's Matter and Anti-matter.  Also there's Dark Matter (not to be confused with Black Lives Matter).  As well as the matter we don't know about or What's the Matter.  And the stuff we don't care about or Doesn't Matter.  Then there is Space and Counter-Space (counter space is where you are most likely to find your Ant-Pasto).  But Red Matter?  Come on.  

  Then there is the whole traveling back in time thing which doesn't really bother me too much, artistic license and all.  But they expect us to believe that a race of people who have figured out FTL travel haven't figured out stellar evolution?  We figured out which stars go boom decades before we got Sputnik off the ground!  All right, so the Romulans who survive and go back in time in a spaceship large enough to eat entire plants for breakfast do what?  Start rescuing the inhabitants of their home planet now that there is time to get them to safety?  No, instead they declare war on Star Fleet!!

    I can be very forgiving in the sciency department as long as SOMETHING in the movie makes sense.      

[mikegarrison]

Hot air rises because of buoyancy. It actually doesn't rise, per se, so much as the cold air around it falls, thus lifting up the hot air.

If all that these glowing wings do is make heat, then they aren't going to cause the airplane to go anywhere. They might induce some interesting convection turbulence around the airplane, though.

3 minutes ago, KG3 said:

 

  My pet peeve is the 2009 Star Trek reboot film.   Spock tries to keep the Romulan's sun from blowing up by injecting it with "Red Matter".  Red Matter, really?  I mean, you know there's Matter and Anti-matter.  Also there's Dark Matter (not to be confused with Black Lives Matter).  As well as the matter we don't know about or What's the Matter.  And the stuff we don't care about or Doesn't Matter.  Then there is Space and Counter-Space (counter space is where you are most likely to find your Ant-Pasto).  But Red Matter?  Come on.  

  Then there is the whole traveling back in time thing which doesn't really bother me too much, artistic license and all.  But they expect us to believe that a race of people who have figured out FTL travel haven't figured out stellar evolution?  We figured out which stars go boom decades before we got Sputnik off the ground!  All right, so the Romulans who survive and go back in time in a spaceship large enough to eat entire plants for breakfast do what?  Start rescuing the inhabitants of their home planet now that there is time to get them to safety?  No, instead they declare war on Star Fleet!!

    I can be very forgiving in the sciency department as long as SOMETHING in the movie makes sense.      

Star Trek is the champion at technobabble. Any time they need to do anything, they just invent another element or another kind of energy or another type of matter. Why does this one case bother you any more than any of the others?

[PB666]

37 minutes ago, KG3 said:

 

  My pet peeve is the 2009 Star Trek reboot film.   Spock tries to keep the Romulan's sun from blowing up by injecting it with "Red Matter".  Red Matter, really?  I mean, you know there's Matter and Anti-matter.  Also there's Dark Matter (not to be confused with Black Lives Matter).  As well as the matter we don't know about or What's the Matter.  And the stuff we don't care about or Doesn't Matter.  Then there is Space and Counter-Space (counter space is where you are most likely to find your Ant-Pasto).  But Red Matter?  Come on.  

  Then there is the whole traveling back in time thing which doesn't really bother me too much, artistic license and all.  But they expect us to believe that a race of people who have figured out FTL travel haven't figured out stellar evolution?  We figured out which stars go boom decades before we got Sputnik off the ground!  All right, so the Romulans who survive and go back in time in a spaceship large enough to eat entire plants for breakfast do what?  Start rescuing the inhabitants of their home planet now that there is time to get them to safety?  No, instead they declare war on Star Fleet!!

    I can be very forgiving in the sciency department as long as SOMETHING in the movie makes sense.      

If antimatter represents a collection of vectors that are orthogonal  to matter, then red matter's are orthogonal to both, and green matter's is also orthogonal to red matter, antimatter and matter. And then if you combine red matter and green matter you get dark matter. If you combine antimatter and matter you get an explosion (white energy). There I explained it. ROFL

See with quantum mechanics an n-dimensional states you can create any excrement and make it fly the number of possible complex vectors you can use is infinite.  

Here: δ(x-y) = 0 at all values except when x = y and at x=y the [integral of δ(x-y) over x=y] = 1. That means the difference between x-y =0 and the amplitude at x=y is infinity. This idea is the reasoning behind heisenberg uncertainty, the momentum of a particle is a continuous function and the position of a particle is infinitely discrete, bam and you have infinity x zero = 1.

This goes on until someone comes up and tells you something is missing. For example, "Oh Mr. Newton can you explain to me how gravity is pulling that apple to the Earth, what is the description of the demon that is pulling it". And despite all his calculus and math he could not describe the demon. Nor could he describe why light shot strait down at a piece of glass always reflects a tiny bit of light, or the banding pattern when looking. 

So finally you get to the point where you've created a whole new type of math and physics and you can explain everything (i.e. the theory of everything) and if the math allows it, it can happen, and if the math doesn't you create imaginary elements and vectors and matrices, and then if that does not explain it then it cannot exist.

What I found true with modern physics is that you see a behavior and you create something mathematical that explains, and if that doesn't work well enough you create some that violates mathematics. For example you create Zero, then negative numbers, then imaginary numbers. Then imaginary dimensions, and if you create enough of these imaginary things you can explain anything, and then you can say 'we never seen any phenomena that violates it'.

So what they are missing is the description are is a set of imaginary vectors that when added to current QM explains 'red matter'. Thats all  they need. Oh I forgot to add, red matter combined with green matter is always dark. You have to capture dark matter with quantum space time and at certain density red matter and green matter will separate, at which point you can collect the red matter and use it to coerce other forms of matter, like hydrogen in space. How about that psuedoscience technobabble. does it make anyone actually feel better.

Edited January 31, 2018 by PB666

[monstah]

2 hours ago, radonek said:

(BTW I also think third installment is the best. Sue me :-)

I disagree it's the best, to me it's definitely the first (I love the "boring" beginning 45 minutes and ho it builds atmosphere and characters), however after watching 3rd later in my life I've come to appreciate it as a good Alien franchise movie. Not as good as 1, not as fun as 2, but a good one deserving of its title. Everything after is, in my opinion, utter, insulting crap.

 

2 hours ago, tater said:

The largest problem with the Martian science wise was in fact in the source material, the %%@#$!$@ storm. 

Soon after I read the book, before the movie came out, I've read Weir stating that he was fully aware the storm was BS, but he took that license because he wanted a man vs. nature story, and that was his way with it. I'm totally okay with that. Your idea of lava tubes is more grounded in reality, but "lava tubes" aren't as much of an iconic feature of Mars in popular culture as a sand storm.

As for the movie, nothing bothered me. Blinken lights and sound in space are just screenplay aesthetic, I'm fine with it. The Iron Man scene is scientifically ridiculous, I agree, but it's cool and fun and I like it.

Like I said, bad science never irks me if it's on the name of good storytelling. Bad science for nothing annoys me. Bad science and bad storytelling together (Interstellar) seriously infuriate me.

[monstah]

Just remembered one infuriating scene from a non-SF movie. G.I. Joe (which, yeah, is crap in every other aspect, too), they are infiltrating an underwater base in... Antarctica? I don't know, who cares. The thing is under icy water. Good guys are infiltrating. Bad guy activate the self-destruction on the good guys. Self-destruction consists of exploding the base. What, did I say that? Oh, no. It consists of exploding the ice, so it sinks and destroys the station. 

WHY???

[PB666]

51 minutes ago, KG3 said:

All right, so the Romulans who survive and go back in time in a spaceship large enough to eat entire plants for breakfast do what?  Start rescuing the inhabitants of their home planet now that there is time to get them to safety?  No, instead they declare war on Star Fleet!!

Well for that matter if star fleet in the 27th century can go back in time to tell Enterprise how to fight the Zendi, how come they can go back and time and remove all the spatial-distortion orbs from Zendi space that started the whole phenomena.
If you can truly go back in time you say go to Newton and explain to him that the speed of light is constant and the geometry of space and time is not. HHGTTH got it right though, if you have ultimate time travel capability, you go back to the beginning of the Universe, get rid of the quantum space-time instability, and the universe never occurs. The ultimate paradox. If time travel was possible anywhere in the universe, someone nefarious disgruntled postal worker in the time travelers mail room would have already done this, and we wouldn't be here talking about it . . . . .unless we are the first.

Worse than that I don't see any real difference in SG1 between a Zero-point Energy device and Infinite energy density, why shouldn't I be able to create a quantum singularity. I should be able to spawn a universe with the device.

[Just Jim]

1 hour ago, KG3 said:

I can be very forgiving in the sciency department as long as SOMETHING in the movie makes sense.      

20 minutes ago, monstah said:

Like I said, bad science never irks me if it's on the name of good storytelling. Bad science for nothing annoys me. Bad science and bad storytelling together (Interstellar) seriously infuriate me.

YES!!!

I am totally the same way. I can overlook a lot of little goofs, if the story itself is well written. In fact, if I can get really sucked into a good plot, with some decent characters, then I'll toss the science out the window... especially semi-comedic sci-fi (Guardians of the Galaxy). 

Now, having said that... I agree with completely as well:

1 hour ago, KG3 said:

My pet peeve is the 2009 Star Trek reboot film.   Spock tries to keep the Romulan's sun from blowing up by injecting it with "Red Matter". 

Oh, man... I was fairly good with the movie up to this point... and I almost screamed as well. I can forgive a lot, but to me this was just lazy writing. And unfortunately, it was the big reason I held off watching Into Darkness (which I thought was surprisingly good) for the longest time.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Just Jim

[tater]

Bad science in Star Trek is any use of time travel (sorry, City on the Edge of Forever), and any _______-genic field, etc that TNG (et al) make up literally every episode as a plot device, because they don't know how to write. They also apparently don't know how to read/watch their previous shows, since many of those technobabble things obviate entire plots of future episodes.

[monstah]

I watched the Star Trek reboots out of order I think. I think the whole thing about red matter is idiotic (how much of that stuff do they even have? Is it like, "kryptonite-rare"?). I like the time travel shenanigans with a character that's from a timeline that has already been altered (same premise that almost got me into Sarah Connor Chronicles). I hate everything about Beyond.

[kerbiloid]

Not really a fiction, but still can't understand.
When I was assisting Lara Croft in her rush through the Ancient Egyptian tombs, I was at a loss.
WHERE did the Ancient Egyptians take pistols, ammo, aid kit with red cross and other useful things to seal them in amphoras and sarcophaguses?
(Though of course I am grateful for that).

Interstellar for me is a grandiose theatrical concert of Hans Zimmer's genius music.
Actors are great, sci-fi noir atmosphere is absolutely great, technical details are a t least pictured beautifully. Most of sci-fi movies lack even this.

Cloverfield (the first of its name)
Unlikely a dyno, even such big, could crush a self-propelled gun.
Also unlikely any giant species could crush a skyscraper or another strong building.
Just try doing this with a brick.

P.S.
Are the Asylum and Troma movies also considered as sci-fi?

[DAL59]

4 hours ago, PB666 said:

Enterprise - Best series in the franchise

Really? Why?  

I want to point out an error in Earth Unaware.  Its a prequel to enders game.  These people are mining the kuiper belt when they detect an alien ship.  Its mentioned that they need thrusters to cancel the acceleration whenever they use the mining laser.  Of course, the radiation pressure of the laser would not actually move the ship a noticeable amount.  

[PB666]

15 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Really? Why?  

I want to point out an error in Earth Unaware.  Its a prequel to enders game.  These people are mining the kuiper belt when they detect an alien ship.  Its mentioned that they need thrusters to cancel the acceleration whenever they use the mining laser.  Of course, the radiation pressure of the laser would not actually move the ship a noticeable amount.  

Because space is harsh, its not touchy-feely or the place to take your kids on a picnic. If anything shows from the first series to 'reach out and explore' is very dangerous for the new 'guy' on the set (although they do seem to recycle the guy who dies over an over again in different roles). Its stupid (looking at TNG) to have living quarters the size of a basketball course when you are pressing the laws of physics beyond the extreme. And android does not a room, all he needs is a tube to slide into that has something he can plug into. Doesn't even need a video screen. BTW, when you had kids in the first series, invariably they were doing very bad things.

If you have kids on an interstellar ship, you are not going to announce your presence to anyone.

Edited January 31, 2018 by PB666

[Nikolai]

2 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Better yet, heres a link to the youtiube: (image was frame at 1:44 and 1:52)

... and in that clip, you can actually see the rotation between 2:15 and 2:19 if you're watching for it.

2 hours ago, p1t1o said:

2 shots 8 seconds apart, little difference in orientation to planet.

The only shots I see that show orientation with respect to the planet have Bullock in the frame, and she's much closer to the center of rotation and doesn't move a whole lot.  Plus, you know, it's a long tether.  And it's hard to determine how the axis of rotation lines up with views of the planet below (perspective is hard in this scene, and in space generally).

2 hours ago, p1t1o said:

At the very least, if there is supposed to be a rotation or some other force that is not visually obvious (magnets?), then its a terribly shot scene.

I can't contest that, because a lot of people seem to miss that it's there.  Still, it seems to me that the fact that the force is there should be the sort of thing that makes people look for what they might have missed if they can't find it, not flatly state that there's nothing.

2 hours ago, p1t1o said:

theres no way they picked up a whole frame-of-reference rotation, the whole station would have to be spinning, which it isnt

Are you sure?  Such a rotation would be very gentle, as we've discussed.

Also, it's not the only way to pick up rotation.  If you speed towards the end of something much heavier than you are, and give yourself a kick in some random direction as you leave, but are restrained to the end by a tether, you'll pick up rotation.  (So will the heavy thing, but much less noticeably so.)

Edited January 31, 2018 by Nikolai

[PB666]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Bad science in Star Trek is any use of time travel (sorry, City on the Edge of Forever), and any _______-genic field, etc that TNG (et al) make up literally every episode as a plot device, because they don't know how to write. They also apparently don't know how to read/watch their previous shows, since many of those technobabble things obviate entire plots of future episodes.

Oh man, that one hurts,  . . . . . .

"I'm endeavouring, Ma'am, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone-knives and bear-skins." Spock to Edith Keeler,[in  "The City On the Edge of Forever"]. What geek doesn't remember that.

[_Augustus_]

This isn't a huge violation of science but it's interesting and I pointed some of this out to Weir himself once. He answered and sort of agreed that these were plot devices.

In The Martian, Hermes was obviously assembled and fueled in orbit. It can obviously be re-fuelled, in orbit If that's the case, why do the MAV and MDV need to be separate vehicles? I get that the MAV has to land earlier and use ISRU so it can fit on a smaller LV and launch/land on Mars mostly empty, but why? Why not just launch it into orbit and then send a tanker and extra kick stage? There are clearly orbital tankers in this universe; how else do they refuel Hermes?

In addition, how does the Ares 4 MAV have enough propellant to take off with Watney? I know Watney was on Mars for a pretty long time, but they mention that the arrival of Ares 4 would still be 4 years away for some reason (I guess it's because they have to clean up Hermes in orbit first?). If that's the case, if they're landing the MAV so long before the mission shouldn't it still need a couple more years to produce propellant?

My other nitpicks:

• Hermes is supposed to use nuclear power in the book, but it has giant ISS solar arrays in the movie.. why exactly?
• Hermes in the movie looks utterly ridiculous, like some KSP creation, with the Orion command module with an airlock in front of it, ISS solar arrays, etc.
• The Ares missions are month-long "flags and footprints" missions. Why do they have these giant habitats, multiple pressurized rovers, etc.?
• CNSA would/will never work with NASA.
• Does the Rich Purnell maneuver even work? If they used an Earth gravity assist to fly by Mars at a great speed, wouldn't that trajectory put them on a solar orbit with a further out aphelion, somewhere in the asteroid belt, adding years to their journey? And wouldn't they need a lot more fuel to perform Earth orbit insertion? 

Edited January 31, 2018 by _Augustus_

[KSK]

7 hours ago, Just Jim said:

Wow... it's funny... and I don't mean to argue, not at all... but I'm the complete opposite. I could handle Starship Troopers again, but I'd rather run head first into a brick wall than try and watch Interstellar again... Even my Emiko wormholes (as nutty as they are) are more believable.

Heh - back atcha.  

I'm not sure how well it would stand up to a repeat viewing but I'd certainly watch Interstellar again. I'm sure the folks on here poking holes in the science are all spot on but personally I found the story engaging enough to ignore the holes. I mean, to a certain extent, the title says it all. Any sort of interstellar travel (unless the film is some moody psychological piece about being trapped on a generation ship or something) is going to involve some... speculative...science.

But yeah, this isn't meant to be an argument either. Different strokes for different folks and all that.  

In general though, I think @MaxwellsDemon said everything I need to say, especially the part about films like Gravity, falling into a sort of uncanny valley where most of the science is realistic but that only makes the unrealistic parts stick out more. Even then, gimme a good story (and preferably a kickin' soundtrack to go with it) and I'm inclined to ignore the science errors. It's fun to do occasionally (as per this thread), but in general poking holes in movie science is rather like shooting fish in a barrel. With an M1 Abrams.

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by KSK

[justidutch]

22 hours ago, KSK said:

With an M1 Abrams.

Don't even get me started an Abrahms.  Ruined both Star Wars and Star Trek for me...

Edited February 1, 2018 by justidutch

[KSK]

4 hours ago, MaxwellsDemon said:

Yeah.  It's a point that Heinlein also made in one of his other books-- I think it was the commentary in 'Expanded Universe.'  Basically, why not limit the franchise to people who have shown that they are invested in the system.   He also speculated on limiting it to mothers, as they have a proven interest in the future.

Well there are obvious answers to both speculations but I suggest we fork off a Starship Troopers thread rather than derailing this one too much.  Speaking of which...be right back.

[PB666]

I need to make one defense for Star Trek (series 1). In 1967 (51 years ago if you are counting) certain idiosyncrasies in QM had not been fully worked out, there were still some deviations in the equations used for QED just 15 years previous. It might not, in the context of 1960s physics, be wrong to suggest FTL travel or time travel as a plausibility. For 1967 the time traveling episode would have been much less of a violation of what was plausible versus SG1 series or series later (like Star Trek Voyager) that use worm holes.

[MaxwellsDemon]

RE Trek... which, I must state up front, I love, especially TOS...  I once saw an extended discussion of the impossibility of the transporter.  I can't recall it all at this moment, but it came down to violation of conservation of the baryon number.   Not that I actually understand what that means without some re-study...

David Gerrold (one of TOS writers, among other roles) wrote that from his point of view, the technology of the transporter was inconsistent with the technology shown in the rest of the series.   Why, he asks, would you have 2-dimensional viewscreens and transporters on the same ship?  It just didn't "feel" right.

Of course, the real reason was that the original production didn't have enough money to build a "shuttle rocket" set, which was the original thought.  So they had to do some fancy footwork to get the show made, and voila... a legend is born from financial necessity.

 

ETA:  It's a common problem.   On the old 60s-70s Doctor Who, they had to get by with a ridiculously small budget...  caution:  if you read the rest of this, you will always notice it whenever it happens:

Spoiler

Tom Baker (Fourth Doctor) pointed out that there were often lines given to him to deliver while walking down a hallway.  However, they almost never had enough money to make a long enough hallway set.  So, he would walk into shot, stop, deliver the line, and then continue walking.

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by MaxwellsDemon
Addition

[DDE]

3 hours ago, p1t1o said:

The machine I am referring to is an aircraft. It works by having the underside of its wings completely covered in intense heating elements, in operation hot enough to be dazzlingly bright.

So it has a wing, with a very hot skin on the underside. Which somehow produces lift. Enough lift to fly the thing about like a Harrier jump-jet.

Sounds remotely like ionocraft and plasma hoverers. Every once in a while you end up encountering over-the-top fans.

3 hours ago, KG3 said:

Red Matter, really?

Somebody’s read too much spy thrillers featuring red mercury.

1 hour ago, _Augustus_ said:

In The Martian, Hermes was obviously assembled and fueled in orbit. It can obviously be re-fuelled, in orbit If that's the case, why do the MAV and MDV need to be separate vehicles? I get that the MAV has to land earlier and use ISRU so it can fit on a smaller LV and launch/land on Mars mostly empty, but why? Why not just launch it into orbit and then send a tanker and extra kick stage? There are clearly orbital tankers in this universe; how else do they refuel Hermes?

Am I reading it correctly? Are you suggesting a Zubrin-style Mars surface-Earth surface return craft with no Battlestar Galactica in between?

[PB666]

38 minutes ago, MaxwellsDemon said:

RE Trek... which, I must state up front, I love, especially TOS...  I once saw an extended discussion of the impossibility of the transporter.  I can't recall it all at this moment, but it came down to violation of conservation of the baryon number.   Not that I actually understand what that means without some re-study...

David Gerrold (one of TOS writers, among other roles) wrote that from his point of view, the technology of the transporter was inconsistent with the technology shown in the rest of the series.   Why, he asks, would you have 2-dimensional viewscreens and transporters on the same ship?  It just didn't "feel" right.

Of course, the real reason was that the original production didn't have enough money to build a "shuttle rocket" set, which was the original thought.  So they had to do some fancy footwork to get the show made, and voila... a legend is born from financial necessity.

 

 

ETA:  It's a common problem.   On the old 60s-70s Doctor Who, they had to get by with a ridiculously small budget...  caution:  if you read the rest of this, you will always notice it whenever it happens:

  Hide contents

Tom Baker (Fourth Doctor) pointed out that there were often lines given to him to deliver while walking down a hallway.  However, they almost never had enough money to make a long enough hallway set.  So, he would walk into shot, stop, deliver the line, and then continue walking.

 

 

You can have quantum teleportation, but you would have a computer larger than the Enterprise to do it. The problem quantum teleportation is that you have to have a device, a computer on both ends, not just to destroy the original copy, but you also have to provide the matter that has been teleported. So basically you cannot teleport to a hole inside a planet. Nor can you do a cryptic teleport to another ship (say a klingon ship in the The Search for Spock). The second point is that teleporting someone is essentially violating two laws, you can't kill someone or assist in their suicide, and you can't clone someone. So lets say your transporter fails, you just murdered someone. And there is nothing to stop me from making two or three clones (although QM prevents this you could make two slightly lower resolution, but in the case of molecular assemblies if you had the resolution to build a clone to begin with you are working at the 10^-13 meter level anyway. So you could basically get some of the information and then get some more information. You must kill the original copy, but once they are in the pattern buffer you could make 10 captain kirks and 10 spocks.

[monstah]

1 hour ago, KSK said:

I think @MaxwellsDemon said everything I need to say, especially the part about films like Gravity, falling into a sort of uncanny valley where most of the science is realistic but that only makes the unrealistic parts stick out more

Wonderful way of putting it. Never thought of it that way. Still find Gravity a very enjoyable movie, tho

1 hour ago, KSK said:

(and preferably a kickin' soundtrack to go with it)

Haha yeah. I wanted to like Interstellar's soundtrack, but couldn't. Love Hans Zimmer on Dark Knight. On Interstellar I think he fell asleep on the noise making button.

Honestly, I don't know why I'm so sour about that movie, but I really am. I wanted to like it. Even visually... the black hole was beautiful, but everything else... meh. And the ice clouds? Grrrr!

Edited January 31, 2018 by monstah
Silent K!