# Factual Scientific errors in movies... **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [August 27, 2004, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704 "2004-08-27T00:20:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2004, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/121 "2004-08-29T05:58:55Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > You forgot the punchline: > > Bugs: Whew. Lucky this thing had air brakes! > The bit (and much of the footage) was recycled from an earlier Bugs toon called “Falling Hare”. The bomber plunges yet screeches to a halt in mid air: > > Gremlin: [the tiny saboteur Bugs has been chasing throughout the cartoon, addressing audience] Sorry, folks. We’re out of gas! > Bugs: Yeah. [points to a wartime gas ration card] You know how it is with these A-cards! Yes I did indeed forget that punch line , but the version I watched , probably in the seventies originally was edited , so that war time gas ration card never made it in. Damm cartoons have been butchered so much , there ougtha be a law Declan ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2004, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/122 "2004-08-29T16:21:11Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > Yes I did indeed forget that punch line , but the version I watched , probably in the seventies originally was edited , so that war time gas ration card never made it in. > > Damm cartoons have been butchered so much , there ougtha be a law > > Declan Well, there are actually (at least) _three_ cartoons that use the same “diving bomber” footage: “Falling Hare” (1943): Bugs chases a Gremlin around and into the bomber. The gremlin starts the plane, sabotages it, and relaxes calmly as it plunges while Bugs completely freaks out. The plane screeches to a halt in mid-air because they’re out of gas, with a reference to the A-card. “Hare Lift” (1952): Bugs is wandering around a bomber when Yosemite Sam, fresh from a bank robbery, storms aboard and assumes Bugs is a pilot, ordering him to take off. The plane eventually plunges, Sam bails out (to land in an open police car) and Bugs pulls the “air brake”. “Devil’s Food Cake” (1963): Reuses footage from “Hare Lift”, except Sam’s parachute doesn’t open (he’d grabbed a backpack filled with camping gear by mistake). Sam plunges through the ground, straight to Hell, where the devil gives him another chance to return to Earth and get Bugs (and reuse footage from two other cartoons it turns out - lousy clip shows). Bugs, meanwhile, has used the air brakes to stop the plane and hops the short distance down to Earth using an umbrella. But for the dated “A-card” punchline, “Falling Hare” is by far the most enjoyable because we get to see wiseguy Bugs totally bitchslapped by the gremlin. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2004, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/123 "2004-08-29T18:45:38Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Well, there are actually (at least) _three_ cartoons that use the same “diving bomber” footage: > > “Devil’s Food Cake” (1963): Reuses footage from “Hare Lift”, except Sam’s parachute doesn’t open (he’d grabbed a backpack filled with camping gear by mistake). Sam plunges through the ground, straight to Hell, where the devil gives him another chance to return to Earth and get Bugs (and reuse footage from two other cartoons it turns out - lousy clip shows). Bugs, meanwhile, has used the air brakes to stop the plane and hops the short distance down to Earth using an umbrella. > > But for the dated “A-card” punchline, “Falling Hare” is by far the most enjoyable because we get to see wiseguy Bugs totally bitchslapped by the gremlin. That sounds like the one I remember , with yosemite sam opening up the parachute and having everything fall out. I really should buy those cartoons on dvd. Declan ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2004, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/124 "2004-08-29T20:00:17Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > OK, I watched the Bowman-in-the-airlock scene again, and that door just ain’t there once the bolts blow. One gets the impression from watching the scene that there’s a big blast of smoke/steam or very fine debris entering the airlock, but nothing big like a slab of metal. I don’t have my _2001_ DVD with me but that sounds right, now that I think about it. And furthermore, how can you use explosive bolts on a _sliding_ door? However, the pod probably had thrusters to keep it in position, so it wouldn’t get blown away when Dave blew the door. Didn’t Dave recover the pod afterwards? I seem to recall that _2010_ (either the movie or the book) mentioned one pod remaining on Discovery. ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2004, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/125 "2004-08-29T20:23:21Z")
Since **2001 and 2010** were mentioned, I have always wondered. If **Discovery** was basically an immense universal phallus in the stars, why was it turning end over end to create artificial gravity? Would it not be A) safer in terms of sudden enounters with space debris, and B) more energy efficient to have it rotate around its nodall point, instead of spinning around its axis? Wouldn’t the same effect be created if it spun around longways? Cartooniverse, who is proud that nobody has mentioned **Independance Day** yet… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Terminus\_Est](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terminus_est/32/3087_2.png) [@Terminus\_Est](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terminus_Est)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2004, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/126 "2004-08-29T20:34:37Z")
> [@Cartooniverse](#): > > If **Discovery** was basically an immense universal phallus in the stars, why was it turning end over end to create artificial gravity? Would it not be A) safer in terms of sudden enounters with space debris, and B) more energy efficient to have it rotate around its nodall point, instead of spinning around its axis? Wouldn’t the same effect be created if it spun around longways? Discovery didn’t turn end over end. There’s a portion that spins. If you recall the jogging astronaut, he’s basically running around the entire circumference of the centrifuge. There’s a ladder that goes “up” to the hub for access to the rest of the ship. The true blooper is that only that portion of the ship should have gravity, yet most of the other scenes show the astronauts sticking firmly to the floor. ---
**Author:** ![mike1dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@mike1dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mike1dog)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2004, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/127 "2004-08-29T21:56:26Z")
One thing that irritated me about _The Bourne Supremacy_ was that they apparently repealed all laws of physics in the car chase. Not to mention the incredible ability of that car to take huge hits and somehow still be driveable. The part where the little Lada pushed the heavy Mercedes into the barrier was just beyond silly. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2004, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/128 "2004-08-29T22:54:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Discovery didn’t turn end over end. There’s a portion that spins. If you recall the jogging astronaut, he’s basically running around the entire circumference of the centrifuge. There’s a ladder that goes “up” to the hub for access to the rest of the ship. By design, only that portion is supposed to spin. But by 2010, the bearings had seized up, bringing the centrifuge to rest relative to the rest of the ship. Thanks to conservation of angular momentum, this caused the whole thing to tumble slowly, so there was weak gravity everywhere then (not necessarily in the direction the designers intended). ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2004, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/129 "2004-08-29T23:53:13Z")
> [@Terminus Est](#): > > The true blooper [of _2001_] is that only that portion of the ship should have gravity, yet most of the other scenes show the astronauts sticking firmly to the floor. I think we’re supposed to believe they are wearing magnetic shoes. The Pan Am shuttle stewardess clearly had magnetic shoes (or was it velcro?). As for the ship’s spin - I always thought it _should_ have been designed to spin end over end. That way the entire cabin would have gravity, and there’d be no need for a separate centrifuge section. Also the larger diameter would mean a more natural artificial gravity, with less Coriolis effect. The only reason for that particular design was to allow for the jogging scene. (Which, I admit, is spectacular and perhaps worth the compromise in ship design.) ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2004, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/130 "2004-08-30T00:06:08Z")
> [@](#): > > Spoofe, in space no one can hear you get whooshed. SPOOFE doesn’t get whooshed. SPOOFE catches the silly joke and hurls it back at the silly people who, silly as they are, can’t stop being silly. Sorry if you can’t accept it. ---
**Author:** ![Duderdude2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/cdc98d/32.png) [@Duderdude2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duderdude2)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2004, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/131 "2004-08-30T06:29:46Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > I think we’re supposed to believe they are wearing magnetic shoes. The Pan Am shuttle stewardess clearly had magnetic shoes (or was it velcro?). It’s been a few years since I’ve seen 2001 (saw it on Imax when re-released - f’ing awesome), but as I recall, the shoes were velcro. I also recall the scenes being pretty damn well done. Damn you guys, now I want to go watch that movie again. Better make room for 2.5 hours, might have to call in sick. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Kilt-wearin\_man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kilt-wearin\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kilt-wearin_man)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2004, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/132 "2004-08-30T13:33:00Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > No, I think _you_ need to rewatch. When BG came out this error mpressed itself upon all of us grad students, and the stupidity of it was the topic of discussion for days. “centos” were units of time, but “microns” were definiyely a measure of distance. we figured that some screenwriter for the series recollected that fact, but forgot how small they were. Maybe you grad students were too busy studying real stuff to pay close attention to the pop scifi on the tube… Run a Google search on “Galactica” and “Units of Measure” and you’ll find a lot of [folks](http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art15346.asp) who remember things as I do, and only one or two who remember “microns” as units of time. Oh, and since I’ve spent waaaaaay too much time on this, “hours” were “centaurs” but they didn’t have a separate term for “day”. Weeks were “sectons”. And there were apparently 100 microns to the centon. As for “centos”, there weren’t any mentioned, but I suspect they may have been tasty mint candies known aboard the Galactica as “the fresh-maker”. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2004, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/133 "2004-08-30T16:14:53Z")
Gravity is a problem in lots of movies, and not just the ones in which the hero climbs up the side of a skyscraper and then has enough breath left for a ten-minute fight scene on the roof. I was flipping channels one day and came in on the middle of a movie in which a couple were going from bickering to actual fighting. They were doing this on the top floor of a huge interior courtyard, giving the cameraman opportunity for dizzying shots up and down and around. He hits her, she slams him back, he hits her again. She reels into the low railing around the open space and somehow breaks it off. As she teeters four stories or more up she notices that there is a huge chandelier over the middle of the courtyard. An idea strikes her. While teetering she heaves herself off the ledge. Does she fall straight down to her death? No, she flies at least twelve, and more probably twenty feet out from the railing and grabs hold of the chandelier that was _above her head_ to begin with. That’s when I changed the channel again. A much more subtle gravity error occurs in 2001. It’s in the PanAm passenger rocket. Every move made is carefully crafted to show the audience that they’re in microgravity. Even the drinks have straws to sip through since the liquid won’t flow. But if you look closely, you’ll see that after a passenger sips through the straw the liquid level drops as gravity pulls it back down. Somewhat less subtly, no one has a hair out of place, unlike the streaming hair of real female astronauts. Must have been a big hair spray concession at the airport. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2004, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/134 "2004-08-30T17:32:23Z")
I thought the flight attendants were wearing caps to keep their hair in control. Chronos rightly pointed out that Discovery had a siezed centrifuge. However, in the scenes where Dave and Frank are checking out the AE35 unit and conspiring in the pod, they sure look like they’re in artificial gravity. But they’re also completely out of the centrifuge. I can’t really fault the filmakers for having to cut back on the wire work. What they did manage to depict realistically is worth applause. Having said that, the inconsistencies in realism from one scene to the next are a bit jarring. The seamless footage in the centrifuge, of one walking and running around its entire circumference while another sits at a workstation, was simply magnificent. From what I understand, they build a fill-sized, rotating drum to film those scenes in, and Kubrick’s willingness in such instances to go for maximum realism is astonishing. But then they go up the ladder into the pod bay and walk around. They must have just hit a budget wall or something. I’ve read making that film was excruciating because of Kubrick’s obsessiveness. One anecdote I’m not sure if I heard or read is that the original Obelisk was actually a slab of clear plastic, and after they build/molded it, Kubrick jettisoned the whole idea because he didn’t like the light, a decision that cost the production tens of thousands and months of work. I never want to say it’s anything less than a great film. But I’ve got to admit, the changes in technical realism from scene to scene can be fairly stark (and I’m not talking about LSD-freakouts warping through the Stargate). ---
**Author:** ![Kilt-wearin\_man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kilt-wearin\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kilt-wearin_man)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2004, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/135 "2004-08-30T21:09:27Z")
Didn’t they only walk on specific areas of the floor in the pod bay? In the Pan-Am shuttle, care was taken to demonstrate that the stewardess was wearing special grip shoes to stay in contact with the floor (these were the days before Velcro), so I just assumed that Dave and Frank were doing the same in the zero-g areas of _Discovery_. ---
**Author:** ![Terminus\_Est](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terminus_est/32/3087_2.png) [@Terminus\_Est](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terminus_Est)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2004, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/136 "2004-08-30T21:18:19Z")
VELCRO ® was [patented in the 1950s](http://www.velcro.com/kidzone.html). I think the stewardess really was using VELCRO ®, since it’s just the sort of gee-whiz gizmo that Clarke/Kubrick wanted to show. The actress also did a good job of pretending that she could have floated off at any moment, unlike the two astronauts who simply walked across whatever it was that was supposed to be keeping them on the floor. ---
**Author:** ![Duderdude2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/cdc98d/32.png) [@Duderdude2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duderdude2)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2004, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/137 "2004-08-30T21:42:01Z")
> [@Exapno Mapcase](#): > > But if you look closely, you’ll see that after a passenger sips through the straw the liquid level drops as gravity pulls it back down. I don’t know if I read this somewhere or made it up, but wouldn’t sucking the juice up the straw create a vacuum in the container, thus drawing whatever content remaining in the straw back down? ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2004, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/138 "2004-08-30T22:14:07Z")
> [@Duderdude2](#): > > I don’t know if I read this somewhere or made it up, but wouldn’t sucking the juice up the straw create a vacuum in the container, thus drawing whatever content remaining in the straw back down? I think if the container was firmly sealed, such that the straw was the only way for air to get in or out, the loss of volume of liquid would cause the air in the container to expand (and cool by adiabatic processes, but that’s not important here), and the relative pressure inside the container to decrease. The greater external pressure would push the remaining liquid in the straw back into the container, and spillage wold be minimal or none. This would, however, make it rather difficult to draw large volumes of liquid out of the container, assuming the container did not simply collapse. If the container collapsed, the pressure on the inside and the outside would be at least partially equalized. If it was fully equalized, the momentum of the liquid traveling up the straw might be enough for some to shoot out if one wasn’t careful when they removed their mouth from the straw. If the container were not tightly sealed, I would think drawing the liquid out with suction would cause the whole system to act a bit like a siphon on Earth: The reduction in pressure in the straw would give the liquid in the straw momentum up the straw. I would imagine even after one’s mouth was removed from the straw, since the liquid would likely still have some momentum in the aforementioned direction, it wold keep moving, atomospheric pressure would keep pushing liquid up the straw from behind, and the process wouldn’t stop until the container emptied. Quite a mess. How would you stop it? If you blew air in the other direction, the process might simply reverse, and liquid might spew out of whatever other hole was in the container. I’m not sure about that last point. The cross-section of the straw is a lot smaller than the area of the liquid exposed to air in the container, presumably, so maybe, unless you blow back really hard, it’s not possible to give the liquid enough momentum in the other direction to push all the liquid out of the container. Man, it’s hard for me to think of practical stuff like this in zero g conditions. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2004, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/139 "2004-08-31T00:43:25Z")
> [@](#): > > A much more subtle gravity error occurs in 2001. It’s in the PanAm passenger rocket. Every move made is carefully crafted to show the audience that they’re in microgravity. Even the drinks have straws to sip through since the liquid won’t flow. > > But if you look closely, you’ll see that after a passenger sips through the straw the liquid level drops as gravity pulls it back down. According to Jerome Agel’s **The Making of Kubrick’s 2001** , Kubrick admitted to this bein an error. I think he claimed it was the _only_ scientific error in the film. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2004, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/140 "2004-08-31T01:35:50Z")
> [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by CalMeacham > No, I think you need to rewatch. When BG came out this error mpressed itself upon all of us grad students, and the stupidity of it was the topic of discussion for days. “centos” were units of time, but “microns” were definiyely a measure of distance. we figured that some screenwriter for the series recollected that fact, but forgot how small they were. > Maybe you grad students were too busy studying real stuff to pay close attention to the pop scifi on the tube… Run a Google search on “Galactica” and “Units of Measure” and you’ll find a lot of folks who remember things as I do, and only one or two who remember “microns” as units of time. Oh, and since I’ve spent waaaaaay too much time on this, “hours” were “centaurs” but they didn’t have a separate term for “day”. Weeks were “sectons”. And there were apparently 100 microns to the centon. I’ve been perusing the Web, and there do seem to be plenty of uses of “micron” as a unit of time. But several sites (such as this one: [http://www.kobol.com/archives/timeunit.html](http://www.kobol.com/archives/timeunit.html) ) note that it is also used as a unit of distance (and apparently not in the sense of “five minutes away” is colloquially used). It could be that this was iuntentional from the start (if so, it would be in the BS “Bible”, but I have a suspicion that “micron” started out as a unit of length, and hey fixed it up later when the error was pointed out to them. I know I don’t recall “micron” being used as anything but a unit of length in the first couple of episodes that I watched. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704.md?page=8)