TV shows, movies, and books that are ruined for you by physics

[member 656954]

The 100.

After a nuclear war what's left of humanity is up in space stations, which don't rotate (we see this from external views), yet they have 1G inside. Most of the survivors are science types, yet they can't ascertain the on-the-ground radioactive levels or whether life is viable from space or who/what might have survived. So, they have to send their kids down as guinea pigs to test what's going on.

And when the kids land, they have very useful tools like shovels...and they are clearly not 3D printed ones! Who takes a shovel to a space station?

It doesn't really get any better, to be honest, but I have to admit I persevered through three seasons, though I've not bothered to go back for Season 4.

 

[Michael Price]

Buzz, I do not believe that the matrix was not about aliens, but machines that we built. That took over the world and decided to use the humans at power.

The bit about using humans as batteries was a bit hard to swallow. Enjoyed the rest, though.

 

[BWV]

What about The Flash running around at relativistic speeds? Getting hit by his fist at .99c or however fast he is supposed to be moving is way more energy than Hulk or Superman could generate

 

[pinball1970]

The bit about using humans as batteries was a bit hard to swallow. Enjoyed the rest, though.

Inefficient source of energy I would have thought. Find planet get all valuable resource then move on.

 

[RPinPA]

Or 'unobtainium?' (The Core)

I believe that was also the substance that was being mined in "Avatar". I won't say that in itself ruined the movie for me. I did find it irritating, but that was only one of several things that irritated me. I still mostly liked the film.

I can't think of anything that fits the premise of this discussion. I'm willing to suspend a lot of disbelief for a good story, especially a good character-driven story.

I absolutely hate the trope, seen in the most recent "Time Machine" film but other places as well, that H. G. Wells was himself a time traveler. And there is some truly ridiculous "science" in that film involving accidentally blowing up the moon by mining it.

I was extremely irritated by the premise of "Gravity", which involves one satellite blowing up and somehow sending debris carefully aimed to hit every single satellite in every orbit. That one angered me to the point of being embarrassingly vocal in the theater and I really had to talk myself down. "Can't they spend a couple bucks on a science advisor?" I muttered.

I think it's that attitude by filmmakers toward scientific accuracy that bugs me, rather than the errors themselves. It didn't even occur to anyone on the team to run some of this stuff past, say, a high-school physics teacher over a couple of beers.

Nevertheless, despite glaring errors like that, I thoroughly enjoyed both films. So no, I can't say that learning physics ruined any films or TV shows for me.

Edit: I'll add that there is stuff in the Star Wars films that kind of spoiled my enjoyment of them. But that stuff bugged me right from the first viewing. And I know I'm going to make enemies, but I didn't do my usual thing of forgiving bad science for a good story, because I thought the story lines and characters were kind of idiotic and cliched.

 

[RPinPA]

Here's kind of the opposite effect. I used to really like the Eric John Stark novels by Leigh Brackett. They were a little in the flavor of Edgar Rice Burroughs "John Carter" novels, involving different civilizations on the different planets of our solar system, but a lot more intelligent and better written.

Brackett stopped writing them as the space program discovered the truth of conditions on the various planets. She didn't want to describe environments that contradicted what the spacecraft were discovering, didn't want to sacrifice scientific accuracy for the sake of a good story.

And though I admired that stance, I actually thought that was kind of a shame, to be honest.

 

[pinball1970]

I believe that was also the substance that was being mined in "Avatar". I won't say that in itself ruined the movie for me. I did find it irritating, but that was only one of several things that irritated me. I still mostly liked the film.

I can't think of anything that fits the premise of this discussion. I'm willing to suspend a lot of disbelief for a good story, especially a good character-driven story.

I absolutely hate the trope, seen in the most recent "Time Machine" film but other places as well, that H. G. Wells was himself a time traveler. And there is some truly ridiculous "science" in that film involving accidentally blowing up the moon by mining it.

I was extremely irritated by the premise of "Gravity", which involves one satellite blowing up and somehow sending debris carefully aimed to hit every single satellite in every orbit. That one angered me to the point of being embarrassingly vocal in the theater and I really had to talk myself down. "Can't they spend a couple bucks on a science advisor?" I muttered.

I think it's that attitude by filmmakers toward scientific accuracy that bugs me, rather than the errors themselves. It didn't even occur to anyone on the team to run some of this stuff past, say, a high-school physics teacher over a couple of beers.

Nevertheless, despite glaring errors like that, I thoroughly enjoyed both films. So no, I can't say that learning physics ruined any films or TV shows for me.

Edit: I'll add that there is stuff in the Star Wars films that kind of spoiled my enjoyment of them. But that stuff bugged me right from the first viewing. And I know I'm going to make enemies, but I didn't do my usual thing of forgiving bad science for a good story, because I thought the story lines and characters were kind of idiotic and cliched.

Not seen avatar so can't comment.
I liked gravity, the music was absolutely fantastic. Perfectly fit the impending collisions. As for the physics I like the fact the George Clooney character worked out when the next collision was in his head.
I also liked the lack of sound when the debris hit.

 

[Nik_2213]

There's the old rule-of-thumb that serious SciFi be allowed but one 'impossible' thing. Beyond that lies 'Fantasy', and all bets are off barring a plea for internal self-consistency...

Now, if you can convince me that ST's warp-drive, their internal gravity and transporter tech are but different facets of one such 'impossible' thing, I'll allow that series a restricted waiver.

Sadly, the only truly single-impossible that comes to mind is '2001' & Co, via its Monoliths...
D'uh...

 

[Michael Price]

I absolutely hate the trope, seen in the most recent "Time Machine" film but other places as well, that H. G. Wells was himself a time traveler.

One exception I can think of, is "Time after Time", where Wells goes after Jack the Ripper, who has stolen his time machine to escape from justice... Well, I enjoyed it, anyway.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_After_Time_(1979_film)

 

[Klystron]

Oddly enough physics education ruined watching a popular Western "The Rifleman". I liked the show as a small child. Father and Son farmers bravely surviving the Old West. Then my father -- an expert Army rifleman during WWII -- watched the show with me to ascertain gratuitous violence levels on my 6-year old mind.

Dad laughed and laughed as dead serious Chuck Connors stalked bad guys with a long heavy rifle rigged to fire every time the cocking lever was engaged; one handed! Dad and I drew diagrams indicating how difficult the Rifleman's rifle was to aim and how dangerous to bypass the trigger.

Though my parents never really approved of the violence of the show, my 7th birthday included a toy Rifleman Winchester model 92 modified with a little sear to fire normally with a trigger squeeze or to fire as the rifle is cocked. I only engaged the latter mode when facing down more than two bad guys simultaneously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rifleman#/media/File:The_Rifleman_TV_Series-611880410-main.jpg

 

[Michael Price]

Sadly, the only truly single-impossible that comes to mind is '2001' & Co, via its Monoliths...
D'uh...

Clarke's third law: a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
I agree about the rest being accurate, e.g. the artificial gravity for Poole and Bowman was generated by rotation.

 

[BWV]

Most SF books are just some other genre - thriller, spy novel, war story, etc set in a futuristic setting. The Expanse, for example, is a thriller plot. The older I get the more I respect pure space fantasy like Star Wars and Dune - which I would define as a plot that touches on the same sort of mythological tropes as regular fantasy