Science mistakes that ruin films for you (open spoilers)

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@DWMarch

@Robot Arm

[T]he point is made throughout the movie that the Red October is an aggressive, first-strike weapon; but ballistic-missile submarines serve the exact opposite function. They are designed to be hidden so they can’t be destroyed in a first strike and guarantee retaliation.

What bothered me more was that the US officials had a time limit they were all worried about before Red October could launch its missiles. Hello, folks? It’s an intercontinental ballistic missile launching platform. It could fire from beside the dock and still hit the US. Sure they could be sneaking up so that the missiles wouldn’t have to go very far but the US already knew they were coming. So not much of a sneak attack then.

First of all, while it is doctrine that sub-based missiles are a reserve counterstrike force, there’s nothing saying that they couldn’t be used as a first-strike weapon, particularly if launched from a platform that could hug in close to the target area. SLBMs have traditionally not been dedicated as first (and presumably disarming) strike weapons because their limited accuracy precluded them from targeting hardened silo-based missiles; however, the Trident D-5 (and probably the later Mod 1 SS-N-20 SLBMs) had significantly improved accuracy. (The SS-N-23 is reported to be extremely precise–down to a CEP of 200 meters, comperable to the LGM-30F MMII and superior to the C-4–but those are only deployed on the Delta IV. Red October, being a modified Typhoon-class SSBN, would be carrying the SS-N-20, and given the presumed pre-Gorbechev timeframe in the novel and film, probably the unmodded version, with a CEP on the order of 1000m.)

Second, SLBMs, while technically falling into the ICBM category, do not have the reach-around-the-world range of a ground-based ICBM (although I note that MissileThreat.com does list a 8,300km range for the SS-N-20…then again, it lists a 12,000km range for the D-5, which is definitely a highball number.) Red October would be able to hit the Eastern Seaboard or maybe the northernmost missile fields from Murmansk, but she’d be a lot better off hugged up to the coast. There was a big scramble back in the mid-Eighties when it turned out that Mitsubishi had sold the technology for how to cast the large non-cavitating props to the Soviets; the fear was that we wouldn’t be able to track their boats any more. (While they did get more quiet–the Typhoon-class boats approached a late flight Posieden boat in quietude–their noisy powerplants and sheer bulk still rendered them audiable to superior US sonar and discrimination technology.)

And you have to recall the times–the Soviet Union was being led by a string of near-death’s-door ideologues (and the US wasn’t doing much better in that regard)–in which each side was eyeing the other with great suspicion and circumspection. The Soviets were convinced we were on the verge of deploying an effective space-based ABM system; we viewed all troop movements and exercises in Eastern Europe as precursors to a European land war, and were afraid that the Soviets were co-opting Syria and Iraq as a move to grab the Middle East and it’s oil reserves for Soviet use. That neither of these speculations held any water didn’t stop both sides from displaying extreme paranoia about the opposing capabilities and intentions.

There are a number of technical errors in the the film adaptation of The Hunt for Red October, but Clancy seems to have got it mostly right in the novel.

Godzilla, however, I cannot defend.

Stranger

[BrainGlutton]

Everything brought up in this thread so far is probably covered somewhere in the “Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics” site – http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/.

It points out some really, really basic mistakes that Hollywood seems to keep making, in movie after movie:

Autmobiles generally do not explode when wrecked, not even after a very high-impact collision – not even if the gas tank catches on fire.

The action hero’s favorite firearm, the .45-calibre Mac 10, fires 1,000 rounds per minute. And is equipped with a 30-round magazine. If the hero fires it at full auto, the firefight will last 1.8 seconds. And if the gun had a bottomless magazine, sustained fire at the full rate of which it is capable would turn it into a piece of red-hot scrap metal.

It is extremely unlikely that a person who falls, jumps or is thrown through a pane of non-safety glass will survive.

Laser beams are ordinarily invisible.

Etc.

[BrainGlutton]

@kidchameleon

Or Dr. Banner bravely ‘saving’ his lab mate by diving in front of the gamma burst? That would have the great result of killing two people instead of one, as very little of the gammas were going to be stopped by a body. Thus the use of dense materials such as lead and tungsten to shield one’s DNA from gamma rays.

[the simpsons]

MILHOUS (on reading the Radioactive Man #1 origin story): Wow! I would’ve thought getting hit by an atomic bomb would kill ya!

BART: Well, now you know better!

[/ts]

[sturmhauke]

@BrainGlutton

The action hero’s favorite firearm, the .45-calibre Mac 10, fires 1,000 rounds per minute.

No no no, the bad guys use fully automatic weapons. The hero prefers pistols, because everybody knows that a handgun with a 10-15 round clip, or even a 6-shooter, is far superior to a machine gun.

[CalMeacham]

The trick is never to pull back. Not to flinch. Keep going forward, and you won’t get hurt.

Not necessarily true. When I was a kid, one of my friends put both arms through a glass window. He didn’t pull back, but the breaking glass formed a couple of very sharp edges that slashed him down both forearms. He bled a lot. He got help quickly, fortunately. But I never believed anybody going through windows without a scratch again. There’s certainly a very significant risk , at least, of serious injury.

[bouv]

@CalMeacham

Not necessarily true. When I was a kid, one of my friends put both arms through a glass window. He didn’t pull back, but the breaking glass formed a couple of very sharp edges that slashed him down both forearms. He bled a lot. He got help quickly, fortunately. But I never believed anybody going through windows without a scratch again. There’s certainly a very significant risk , at least, of serious injury.

Well of COURSE you’ll get sliced up if only part of you goes through. I think he was referring to your whole body going through a window.

[CalMeacham]

Well of COURSE you’ll get sliced up if only part of you goes through. I think he was referring to your whole body going through a window.

His arms went through and the glass completely dropped out. I don’t see how it’s different.

[CalMeacham]

To clarify – he completely broke the glass and pretty obviously sliced up his forearms going *through * the glass (on the sides and bottom surfaces – he wasn’t cut by falling glass). If he’d gone all the way through he would’ve been just as cut up. Just because he didn’t go all the way through doesn’t change anything. He probably did cut himself on glass that stayed in the frame, but it came out of the frame during the strike, and the frame was empty when he came to rest and started bleeding. Again, I don’t see how it would’ve been different if he continued on through. That’s the danger – sharp shards that remain embededed in the frame enough to act like a fixed knife slicing you as you go past, ratyher than breaking out of the way ahead of you as you sail through the frame. It can happen even if you go through the window bodily. Modern Tempered safety glass isn’t supposed to do this – it’s supposed to shatter into relatively small, pebble-like pieces withoyut long sharp edges. But this wasn’t that kinda glass.

[E-Sabbath]

Must have been going downwards and gotten unlucky. I got lucky, or was wearing a thicker shirt. Or was moving faster.

My dog… well, it’s the late 70s, and a cop car pulls into the driveway. First we hear of it is our dog… standard poodle… looks up, and charges for the front door. For some reason, she doesn’t notice the glass, and simply leaps… it was one of those doors with those long glass slats running horizontally, that can be cranked open and shut… through the glass. She came to a stop in front of the cop, and panted happily at him.

The cop, as it turned out, wanted to know who built our deck, as it was new, and well done.

Me? Early 80s, late 70s, helping my mother, a teacher, at work. On a ladder, went through a window when it tipped over.

Curled in a ball, kept rolling, not more than a few scratches.

Later… I recall one time I pointed to something and put my hand right through a window, which broke badly. I just didn’t flinch at all… I don’t have much of a flinch reflex, and again, by the time I stopped, my sleeves were where the glass was.

So, if you’re going through a window, don’t be bare armed? (I also tended to wear a jean jacket during that period.)

[Gary_Robson]

@VegemiteMoose

Oh, everybody jump through a plate glass window, (snip) The hero goes through without a care?

@BrainGlutton

It is extremely unlikely that a person who falls, jumps or is thrown through a pane of non-safety glass will survive.

What is this, the Urban Legend That Won’t Die ™?

I went through a sliding glass door (not safety glass) at a full run. I was charging down a staircase and didn’t realize that someone had closed the door at the bottom. The only injuries I sustained were cuts on my knees because I tripped over the bottom of the frame and landed on my knees. Had I been able to remain upright I doubt I’d have been injured at all.

I also accidentally rammed my arm through a small window once. I was trapped there, because the large slivers of glass were pointing outward. Had I pulled my arm in, they would have jammed into the skin. I had to have someone go outside and carefully remove the glass from around my arm before pulling it in. I had a couple of minor cuts on my palm (the point of first impact), but nothing that even required a band-aid.

Why is it that people believe going through a window will be fatal?

[Gary_Robson]

(Oops - I was going to include this in the previous post. Sorry)

@Stranger On A Train

Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex. Suffice it to say that Niven definitely has too much time on his hands.

The cool thing is that writing articles and essays like Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex is his JOB. He gets paid to come up with things like that!

I first read that essay when I was in college. It took a long time to rid myself of the visual images from Niven’s description of sex between Superman and a woman designated as “LL”:

Superman would literally crush LL’s body in his arms, while simultaneously ripping her open from crotch to sternum, gutting her like a trout. Lastly, he’d blow off the top of her head.

[BrainGlutton]

@InvisibleWombat

What is this, the Urban Legend That Won’t Die ™?

Well, here’s how it’s viewed by Intuitor’s Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics site (linked above):

Problems with Windows

No, we’re not referring to Bill Gates’ woes (or lack of them), but to the ways movie windows refuse to obey simple laws of physics. Apparently no one in Hollywood has ever picked up a piece of broken glass and suffered the inevitable bloodied finger.

Saying that shards of broken glass are razor sharp is an understatement. A shattered window contains thousands of incredibly sharp edges and dagger-like points. It takes almost no force for one of these points or edges to cause a laceration. However, people in movies routinely jump through plate glass windows without receiving a single scratch.

Broken glass has at least two mechanisms for slashing a person diving through a window: its weight and its inertia. First, large heavy shards of glass can fall like guillotines, slicing off body parts. Second, when a person jumps or, even worse, drives a motorcycle through a window, the shards of glass tend to stay in place due to their inertia. The only way to move them is to apply a force. If the person’s body provides this force by pushing on the edge of a piece of glass, it can slice right through clothing, skin, and flesh. In the real world, jumping or driving through a plate glass window would be suicidal.

There are individuals who have accidentally fallen through windows without sustaining serious injuries. There are also people who have survived the Ebola virus. However, in both cases the odds are not particularly good.

Safety glass helps because it’s designed to completely shatter into small pieces with low amounts of weight and inertia, not to mention rounded rather than sharp edges. This greatly reduces the severity of lacerations but can’t completely eliminate them. Laminated safety glass adds a thin layer of plastic sandwiched between glass layers. This helps keep pieces of broken glass from becoming projectiles.

Safety glass is four to ten times stronger than an equal thickness of ordinary glass and is hardly a soft surface to run into. All car windows are made of one or the other form of safety glass. Nevertheless, when craniums impact car windows it often results in head injuries, including lacerations and broken bones or teeth.
A person who jumps through a safety glass window would be far more likely to avoid serious injury than if he jumped through a plate glass window, but would still sustain at least minor cuts. All it takes is one minor cut on the head or face to make a person look like a bloody mess.

[Gary_Robson]

In this case, the Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics site seems to contradict the real world. “Inevitable bloodied finger”? Sheesh! I’ve picked up many, many pieces of glass without getting hurt. Despite what they’re saying, I know quite a few people that have wholly or partially gone through a window or glass door with little or no injury, and not a single one who has been seriously hurt. I’m sure it happens. Heck, it’s probably common. But so is going through glass without serious injury!

[Tuckerfan]

@Terrifel

In hindsight, I actually think this approach would have been a threefold improvement: adding to the versimilitude of the movie, providing more authentic humor than the actual script, and effectively blotting out most of the characters’ dialogue.

Or, if the film had gone for an accurate (well as accurate as a movie about a giant iguana running amok in NYC can be) portrayal of what things would be like if such a thing were to happen, you could have people just snapping because of the incessant car/burglar alarms going off. I imagine the scene where a character grabs a machine gun and begins firing it insanely at a car until it resembles the house in The Gauntlet would elict a standing ovation from the audience.

[Larry_Mudd]

As for the plate glass window controversy, I can offer two anecdotes:

When we were kids, my sister ran through a closed french door, thinking it was open. Not a scratch – although her face was slightly bruised.

Much less funny: A friend of mine’s eight-year-old boy was having a bath, and was playing with the sliding glass shower doors. Somehow, while trying to pull it open, he pulled one of the doors out of the track, and it fell on him and broke over his head.

We’re sitting there in the living room, and we hear the crash and the kid start wailing – we run into the bathroom and he’s sitting there with the frame over him, stark naked (naturally) in a tub full of broken glass. He froze in position and didn’t move, which is fortunate – and when his dad carefully lifted him out of the tub, he wasn’t cut at all. A naked kid in a tub full of broken glass (which was practically invisible in the water) and not much more harm than a scare.

On the other hand, I have a wicked scar on my left thumb from putting a stick through a window when I was four. The tendon was out and twitching.

[jali]

Independence Day -

Fireball in the tunnel. Chick steps back into shallow recess and her hair weave isn’t even singed - she’s fine as is Toto too.

Aliens have mind control but Will Smith can punch alien in the jaw, knock him out and pull him to the settlement.

I’m not a scientist, but these things really irked me. I hate that movie.

[Excalibre]

@Terrifel

I’m starting to suspect that you just can’t trust Michael Crichton to convey valid scientific insights.

Oh, dear. And just when I was getting over my shock that the government of Syria might not be the best source for information on Jewish theology.

@Mr. Miskatonic

In the book, he lost me whne he tried to describe black clothing as being just as comfy in the sun as white clothing because of it being an effficient ‘black body radiater’.

OK, its pretty true, but guess where over half that radiated heat is going to go, Mikey?

Your body! Ooops!

Except that it was a character saying that, and just saying it basically to shut someone up about the way he dressed. I don’t think it was meant to imply that black clothing actually is cooler.

[Excalibre]

Whoops, didn’t notice the thread was multi-page. People have probably discussed this already.

[Baldwin]

Why is it that people believe going through a window will be fatal?

Because it very easily can be. You got lucky. I’d like to hear from people who work in ERs.

[mks57]

Safety glass is four to ten times stronger than an equal thickness of ordinary glass and is hardly a soft surface to run into. All car windows are made of one or the other form of safety glass. Nevertheless, when craniums impact car windows it often results in head injuries, including lacerations and broken bones or teeth.

As a child, I shattered the family car’s windshield with my head after a panic stop by the driver. I didn’t have a bruise or a scratch. I’ve always wondered how I did that. How do martial arts experts break things with their head?