Which is why a good animator needs to have a very good grasp of physics. It is quite common for big budget movies to have CGI that looks “off” because the animators don’t understand inertia and cause and effect.
I’m reminded of when LSLGuy landed a 767-300 on an aircraft carrier!
Not for real, but he was an airline pilot in a real simulator, and had a chance to do it just for kicks! 
In the commentary track for Who Framed Roger Rabbit one of the animators said they’d deliberately made Jessica Rabbit’s boobs move opposite the way they should have.
Man I miss LSLGuy. Imagine how he’d blow this thread way…
ETA: But we still have Richard Pearse, who now has to work overtime.
In 1979 on TWA Flight 841, a 727-31 went supersonic and pulled 6 g’s, yet the plane and passengers survived: TWA Flight 841 (1979) - Wikipedia
Except hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.:rolleyes:
The Oklahoma capsizing in the movie Pearl Harbor is awful. It looks like the far side of the ship is floating up.
Ironically, bad physics in CGI then leads to people thinking real life is wrong as it doesn’t look like the movies, e.g, 9/11.
This is a pet peeve of mine, e.g. fighter jets that can pull 20 or 30 g and have a thrust-to-weight ratio on par with a top-fuel dragster. I wish they would use flight simulators to generate realistic flight paths/attitudes, and then import that information into their CGI machines for top-quality visual rendering. That seems like the best way to achieve both realistic dynamics and realistic visuals without incurring the massive costs of using actual aircraft.
[Moderating]
Nobody of any nationality died in the incident engineer_comp_geek referenced, nor did it lead to anyone dying. The fact that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died of unrelated causes is completely irrelevant to that incident and this thread, and your post served no purpose other than to make a political potshot. Which is against the rules of this forum. This is an official Warning.
Me too 
Don’t go anywhere Richard!