Bad science

[Uncle Yuan]

As a sci-geek (and more specifically a medicine geek), I am often bothered by the bad science that pops up in movies, TV shows and comic books.  I thought it would be fun to get every one to pick apart all the bad science that bugs them.*


I finally watched the Wolverine movie this last weekend.  In the scene were we find out that Logan's GF helped fake her own death she states that she was given a dose of "hydrochlorothiazide," a drug that would slow her heart and make her appear dead.  In real life hydrochlorothiazide is a diuretic (makes you urinate) used to treat high blood pressure.  The thing that bugs me here is that they used an incredibly common drug (almost always the first-line treatment for high BP) when they could have made up something.

The second bit was suggested by the same movie where they had a character that could turn into diamond.  The implication is that this is Emma Frost, although she is never expressly identified in the film.  But this brought me back to the comic book Frost and her "new" ability to turn into diamond and the resiliancy this provides her.  My beef here is just a poor understanding of materials science on the part of writers.  Yes, diamond is very, very hard.  But this just means it is very difficult to scratch/abrade.  The problem is that diamond is also very brittle - take your wife's ring out to the drive way and give it a good whack with a hammer and watch it shatter.  (Another neat trick it to heat it in a high oxygen environment and watch it "burn up" as CO2.)  Now I'm not sure what the property is called that makes something good armor, but it would have to be some combination of compressability, elasticity, heat conduction and tensile strength.  What ever this is, it is NOT something as rigidly crystalline as diamond.


So what has driven you nuts?




*I'm starting this here as it's both a comics and "other" media thing

[Zippo]

In the GI joe movie, when Cobra needs to commandeer a particle accelerator to weaponize the nanobot warhead things. I understand particle accelerators are in vogue right now, what with the LHC, but seriously. There are a million other ways they could have gone about it that aren't nearly as implausible or contrived.

[Tawodi Osdi]

How about ID4 when the Jeff Goldblum character wrote a virus to infect the aliens' computers.  When did the character develop enough knowledge of the alien OS to write viruses to exploit weaknesses.

[GogglesPizanno]

The problem is that diamond is also very brittle - take your wife's ring out to the drive way and give it a good whack with a hammer and watch it shatter.  (Another neat trick it to heat it in a high oxygen environment and watch it "burn up" as CO2.)

uh.... Id recommend this ONLY if you want to be on the "reaction" end of an action/reaction experiment.

I don't have any highly scientific issues with movies. Im good at suspension of disbelief, but I do still cringe and get annoyed at the "CSI" like method of photo enlarging and enhancement in films/TV. Especially when the source is some low res B/W security video from a VHS tape.

Oh and the fact that a Mac can easily interface with EVERYTHING!! Government systems, Alien spacecrafts, etc... I worked with IT people who would bemoan daily the 2-3 mac users in the company that took up inordinate amounts of their time trying to get it to play nice with everything else on the network.

[BWPS]

OMG yes. The whole "Zoom in. Now enhance. That's our guy." Thing drives me nuts. I also facepalm every time I watch Ferris Bueller's Day Off in which he hacks into his record to change his absences BEFORE THE INTERNET WAS EVEN INVENTED. And then he complains? "I wanted a car. I got a frelling MAGIC computer." In other movies and shows where there's any kind of hacking, like the almost worst movie ever Swordfish, it's enough to make me vomit, especially with the crazy OS they use. I remember one show where this hacker bragged, "I can hack into anything. 40 keystrokes and I'm in." I don't think his code was sufficiently commented.
And I also read somewhere that it doesn't actually take exactly 60 seconds to trace the location of a phone call and it doesn't become impossible after the person hangs up.

As far as comic books go, I think that every single character has bad science going for them. Which in a way is the point, but really none of it makes sense at all. Even Captain America who had scientifically reasonable powers got frozen for 50++++ years just by falling into water. I think freezing is actually bad for you. And how does Storm evolve a trait that lets her control the weather?
But for superheroes, that stuff doesn't bother me at all.

I like movies, but its always fun to watch stuff like that get Mythbusted.

[GogglesPizanno]

I also facepalm every time I watch Ferris Bueller's Day Off in which he hacks into his record to change his absences BEFORE THE INTERNET WAS EVEN INVENTED.

While I agree with your gripes, there was an online world before the internet....

[Panther_Gunn]

I do still cringe and get annoyed at the "CSI" like method of photo enlarging and enhancement in films/TV. Especially when the source is some low res B/W security video from a VHS tape.

Oh and the fact that a Mac can easily interface with EVERYTHING!! Government systems, Alien spacecrafts, etc... I worked with IT people who would bemoan daily the 2-3 mac users in the company that took up inordinate amounts of their time trying to get it to play nice with everything else on the network.

You just hit probably my top two for this category, although only more generally on the second one.

Creating pixels where they don't exist *always* annoys me.  You can attempt to extropolate what would be between the pixels you have, but you're never going to get something sharp & crisp.

On the subject of movie/tv computers (and specifically BWPS's comment), the framework for what would become known as the internet was in place for well over a decade by the timeframe of the movie, with many higher learning institutions "connected" to it (usually only for brief periods of dial-up access).  It's plausible, even if somewhat remotely, that his HS was accessing this network, or some other network via modem, giving him a point of access into the school's system.  Beyond that, we start getting further into works of fantasy.

The depiction of OS's and GUI's in movies & tv is always a sore spot, as they're always way more fancy, spiffy, slicker, and definitely faster than anything that actually is running in the real world.  And the amount of misinformation that spreads about computer systems in general, but more specifically about the Macs, is apalling.  Just because ~90%+ of the world uses the Windows OS architecture doesn't mean that *your* non-Windows system "doesn't get" viruses, trojans, malware, or other "headaches", and "just works".  It only means that most writers of malicious script want to hit as wide of an audience as they can, so they write for the majority of systems.  If they actually took the time to write a virus for Macs (and quite possibly Unix/Linux et. al.), those special little systems would crash faster than the early releases of Windows 95, specifically because they've not been targeted heavily in the past, so no one's really worked at beefing up the security for those systems and closing all of the gaping holes.  (this is not a rant aimed towards our Mac users, but at the general public that think that Macs are magic little machines that don't have any problems and believe whatever PR companies tell them)

One of my personal "favorites" is in the "unreleased" Roger Corman Fantastic Four movie.  As part of the climax the Human Torch has to outrace and block a laser weapon of Doom's before it hits it's target (which, by the way was the best special effect in the entire movie, probably because it was animation).  Because, of course, we all know that fire moves much faster than light!

[herodad1]

how about SUPERMAN RETURNS where he catches the huge jet then sets it down without it breaking into.also, when he stops the jet by pushing against the front of it,wouldnt he have just busted through the front of it when the full weight started pressing against him.then theres the lifting the whole island thing.  *sheesh*!

[yell0w_lantern]

Time Cop: they carbon dated GOLD to the 18th century thus proving it was brought forward through time by a criminal!

[Mr. Hamrick]

Roland Emmerich is notorious for using bad science (and arguably historical inaccuracies).  Well, at least in his last three movies (and some of his earlier ones too).  (I will give 10,000 BC a pass on the bad science in part because it put me to sleep.)

Honestly, I think bad science is prevalent in a lot of science fiction movies if only to keep the movies FICTION.   Sometimes, it's done intentionally and sometimes it's done accidentally though.  The challenge is separating the two.

The thing in Wolverine that was cited with the drug name sounds like they tried to make something up and didn't look to see if it was real or not.

The issue with Emma Frost's diamond skin sounds more intentional... because of the reputation of "diamond" and because she is not the first heroine/villainess in the Marvel universe to have that ability.

As for Ferris Bueller, that was very intentional.  At the time the film was made, the idea of hacking or using a computer in that manner was a new concept and a wondrous thing to most people.  Being the least bit "realistic" about it would've caused problems such as the very thing that Ferris did in the movie.

I'm in general agreement on the "CSI" stuff.  However, I am also willing the defend the show's need to "simplify" what's being done for the sake of only having so much time in a 60-minute TV show.  I remember a wonderful lecture I had from a retired GBI (Georgia Bureau Investigation) agent who pointed out a lot of the inaccuracies.  It was also mentioned that while he didn't agree with the amount they simplified it that he understood the "general reason" behind it.  He also was adamant that just because it's done on TV doesn't mean it should be done in books.  (The lecture was on using forensics in writing crime novels!)

[Reepicheep]

Pearl Harbor.

[The Phantom Eyebrow]

Oh my God, this is exactly the sort of thing that bugs me!

I always got a bit wound up by movie and tv depiction of how cars, drums, etc blow up when they're hit by bullets.  I was at one stage considering requesting a patch for Freedom Force so that oil barrels could ignite under heat attacks, but not from crushing or piercing attacks for example.  instead liqud would just leak onto the ground.  I was happy to concede that the spilled liquid could subsequently go on fire (after all, I don't want to be a complete killjoy here) but I decided the better course of action would be to simply let it go - we can allow superheros a bit more leeway to fly in the face of physical facts after all.

And don't get me started on Numbers.  I'll acknowledge that I've not seen much of it, but it was enough for me to form this semi-coherent rant.  The idea behind the show is appealing and so I gave an episode a try there a year or two back.  The guy seemed to be using maths to pinpoint exactly where a killer would strike next, even though said killler was striking random locations.  My sensibilities offended, I stopped watching at this point.  Then, some time later, I gave it another go.  This time a plane blew up over a forest, and they wanted to located a valuable thing (I don't recall what), even though the wreckage was strewn over many densely forested square miles.  This time, the guy calculated where it would land (again with stunning precision), based on the location of the object on the plane relative to the bomb at the time of the blast and the velocity and location of the plane. 

There was much in Armageddon that offended me too, but I need to lie down now...
 

[Uncle Yuan]

The trouble comes in when the writers try too hard to make things "real."  Then it's a matter of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."  I think this happens in TVs and movies more, and less in comics because they are a little more comfortable making stuff up.  Adamantium can be as incredible as it is because it is completely fictitious and thus can have any properties they can dream up.  Whereas to understand why being made out of diamond may not be so super requires a fairly detailed understanding of what makes a diamond hard and enough materials science knowledge to know that hard is not the same as durable, etc.

[detourne_me]

see, i'm more upset by weird science instead of bad science.  the last time i put a bunch of magazine clippings into my dad's apple2 floppy drive i didn't get a beautiful woman, i got grounded

[Gremlin]

The depiction of OS's and GUI's in movies & tv is always a sore spot, as they're always way more fancy, spiffy, slicker, and definitely faster than anything that actually is running in the real world.

OH GOD THIS. I get so annoyed whenever I see this. Star trek gets away with it because their interfaces make sense and are visually pleasing, and the Matrix was great because it was only seen as code and as virtual world. But when the AFIS interface from CSI looks like the opening screen to a video game instead of a simple looking application? What the heck.

One of my personal "favorites" is in the "unreleased" Roger Corman Fantastic Four movie.  As part of the climax the Human Torch has to outrace and block a laser weapon of Doom's before it hits it's target (which, by the way was the best special effect in the entire movie, probably because it was animation).  Because, of course, we all know that fire moves much faster than light!

...yeah but I'll forgive that one because it's awesome in a ridiculous way. I find that even the worse science can be amazing if the authors understand how utterly ridiculous it is, while the characters really don't. Tom Strong, anyone?

[Tawodi Osdi]

I finally watched the new Star Trek.  I am longtime Trek fan, and I loved this movie; so, it pains me to deconstruct some of the science.  The issue is that super laser used by Rommies to drill into Vulcan's core so as to introduce the singularity device.

I am no expert in climatology or geology, but it seems to me that releasing enough energy into an atmosphere to burrow a whole to its core would have such devastating effect on the climate that life would be hell if life were even possible, and the idea blasting a whole to a planets core would have such a negative effect on its tectonic plates would kill what people did not die from having the atmosphere fried.  The singularity device would have to be for effect only.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

And don't get me started on Numbers.  I'll acknowledge that I've not seen much of it, but it was enough for me to form this semi-coherent rant.  The idea behind the show is appealing and so I gave an episode a try there a year or two back.  The guy seemed to be using maths to pinpoint exactly where a killer would strike next, even though said killler was striking random locations.  My sensibilities offended, I stopped watching at this point.  Then, some time later, I gave it another go.  This time a plane blew up over a forest, and they wanted to located a valuable thing (I don't recall what), even though the wreckage was strewn over many densely forested square miles.  This time, the guy calculated where it would land (again with stunning precision), based on the location of the object on the plane relative to the bomb at the time of the blast and the velocity and location of the plane.

Actually, Numb3rs is routinely praised by mathematicians for the accuracy for the mathematics used on the show.  They say nearly all the principles and formulas used are quite accurate.  Both of the examples you used are not ones I consider implausible at all.  Mathematical order is often found in seemingly random events, especially when it comes to human beings.  While obviously no one professor could do what this character does all the time, in theory a mathematician intelligent enough could indeed do so. 

The realism issue here is simply that it's impossible for any person to be as brilliant as this character is, mastering every form of mathematics and physics simultaneous without even trying, a problem I find very prevalent in shows in general.  The scientists in both Stargate series (I don't consider Universe a Star Gate series) for examply are superhackers, masters of computer programers, and experts in so many different scientific and engineering fields it's ridiculous.  Don't even mention how ever show has a superhacker better than every real life hacker combined.

[Tawodi Osdi]

Still, the main reason people resort to fiction is see things that can't be seen in real life.  Even those who prefer to stay away from science fiction, and action genres tend to aim at the unrealistic.  Romances use people who are impossibly romantic, westerns use people that impossibly skilled as horsemen and shootists, and so on and so on.  I like shows that aren't slavishly dedicated to real life even though I enjoy pointing out the inconsistencies.

Besides, there have been genuine polymath (people who are expert in a diverse number of skills) in real life.  How many fields were da Vinci and Michaelangelo experts in?  Many of the Greek and Roman philosophers could claim polymathic ability as could some individuals from a diverse number of cultures.  In fact, the polymath represented the ideal of the Renaissance period.

The Numb3rs level is skill is definitely on the outer edge of what is probable, but is not impossible.

[Uncle Yuan]

I would argue it probably is impossible - the scope of human knowledge is so incredibly larger now than at the time of Socrates or even Di Vinci it is simply not possible to be proficient at the level depicted in the shows.

The issue here is not one of accuracy of science, but of the constraints of telling a story.  CSI is the classic example - a small group of characters have mastery over all fields of forensics and the depth of knowledge required for such mastery.  In this case the science is sound, but it would be nearly impossible to engage viewers in a procedural drama with a cast of dozens if not hundreds.  So they compress all those roles into six characters.  Time also gets wildly compressed for the sake of bringing a case to resolution in an hour long show.

[Tawodi Osdi]

I guess that is the problem with watched media like television or movies as opposed to read media like literature or comic books.  In television or movies, each character means a different paycheck; so, there are budgetary issues with bring in new characters.  Whereas in literature and comics, it doesn't throw away the budget by introducing another character. 

Also, there is the issue of actor egos.  An actor portraying Captain Kirk, Superman, or whoever wants screen time and feels put out when he doesn't get it.  A character in read media isn't going to walk off because he has to share the limelight.  It's like in Jurassic Park the novel versus Jurassic Park the movie.  There were more characters in the book and they got more story time dedicated to them.  In the movie, some of the characters were reduced to either being just having an appearance like the Asian geneticist or being melded into another character like the public relations guy.

[lugaru]

In quick order:

Disabilities or mental illness treated like a superpower.
Example: he is a great detective because he has OCD or a great doctor because he is autistic.

10 minute DNA scanning.

Smoking hawt 22 year old scientists.

Weightless bodies (see the wire dependant fight scenes in Wolverine)

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

I guess that is the problem with watched media like television or movies as opposed to read media like literature or comic books.  In television or movies, each character means a different paycheck; so, there are budgetary issues with bring in new characters.  Whereas in literature and comics, it doesn't throw away the budget by introducing another character. 

Also, there is the issue of actor egos.  An actor portraying Captain Kirk, Superman, or whoever wants screen time and feels put out when he doesn't get it.  A character in read media isn't going to walk off because he has to share the limelight.  It's like in Jurassic Park the novel versus Jurassic Park the movie.  There were more characters in the book and they got more story time dedicated to them.  In the movie, some of the characters were reduced to either being just having an appearance like the Asian geneticist or being melded into another character like the public relations guy.

You're partially wrong there.  Even in literature, you don't want too many characters, that poor writing.  Some writers can maintain a large cast, make them all relavent, and make them more than just cookie cutter personalities, but even those large casts are around a couple dozen or so major characters.  You have to condense, which is why that does happen.

By the way, the portrayal of scientific investigations, CSI in particular, has had a very negative effect on the justice system as a whole, because it's changed the common man's, i.e. potential jurors', perception of what kind of evidence is needed to prove a case.  Police departments have complained about having to invest in scientific labs even when the case can easily be proved using more old fashioned methods because the jurors expect to see scientific looking stuff and consider the police deparments negligent if they don't have it, even when it's completely unneccesary.

[daglob]

Omicron particles. I hate omicron particles.

[docdelorean88]

Okay, in case my FR name didn't give it away, i am a HUGE Back to the Future fan, so i am an expert in basic time travel theories. Its not too hard to follow for me. So, in BTTF III, Doc Brown(via 1955) and Marty stumble over a tombstone for Doc Brown(via 1985 who got sent back to 1885, got shot over a matter of 80 dollars and so his tombstone is here). When Marty goes back to warn him, he shows Doc the picture. He is disgusted and had no idea that this might happen/utterly surprised(as anyone would be). HOWEVER, the doc brown that sees this photo is the one that came from 1985, so even though his 1955 counterpart saw it he doesn't remember seeing it 30 years ago! I think a predetermined death would be something you would remember, even if you are traveling through time! UGH! One of the worst mistakes in all three films, and almost no one catches it! Aaaah!

[RTTingle]

I also facepalm every time I watch Ferris Bueller's Day Off in which he hacks into his record to change his absences BEFORE THE INTERNET WAS EVEN INVENTED.

While I agree with your gripes, there was an online world before the internet....

Indeed.  Perfect example would be another Matthew Broderick movie, War Games. 

RTT (Who was geeking by modem in the early 80s)

[docdelorean88]

I also facepalm every time I watch Ferris Bueller's Day Off in which he hacks into his record to change his absences BEFORE THE INTERNET WAS EVEN INVENTED.

While I agree with your gripes, there was an online world before the internet....

Indeed.  Perfect example would be another Matthew Broderick movie, War Games. 

RTT (Who was geeking by modem in the early 80s)

War games! ah, i love that movie, but yes. Many bad science ideas.

[yell0w_lantern]

Do you want to play a game?

[Mr. Hamrick]

Okay, in case my FR name didn't give it away, i am a HUGE Back to the Future fan, so i am an expert in basic time travel theories. Its not too hard to follow for me. So, in BTTF III, Doc Brown(via 1955) and Marty stumble over a tombstone for Doc Brown(via 1985 who got sent back to 1885, got shot over a matter of 80 dollars and so his tombstone is here). When Marty goes back to warn him, he shows Doc the picture. He is disgusted and had no idea that this might happen/utterly surprised(as anyone would be). HOWEVER, the doc brown that sees this photo is the one that came from 1985, so even though his 1955 counterpart saw it he doesn't remember seeing it 30 years ago! I think a predetermined death would be something you would remember, even if you are traveling through time! UGH! One of the worst mistakes in all three films, and almost no one catches it! Aaaah!

Actually, that might not have been an outright mistake.  If I recall correctly, despite his travels, Doc Brown didn't want to be told certain predetermined things about his own life.  However, he eventually did take Marty's advice and took a bulletproof vest with him.  So, either he didn't want to know the details of his death, was denying knowing them, or was alluding to the fact that he would be taking Marty's advice and cheating death.  Either way, it was a note on the character of Doc Brown and not a clumsy and outright mistake.  (Granted, I don't remember the movies all that well.  I am not a big fan of the series.)

[docdelorean88]

Okay, in case my FR name didn't give it away, i am a HUGE Back to the Future fan, so i am an expert in basic time travel theories. Its not too hard to follow for me. So, in BTTF III, Doc Brown(via 1955) and Marty stumble over a tombstone for Doc Brown(via 1985 who got sent back to 1885, got shot over a matter of 80 dollars and so his tombstone is here). When Marty goes back to warn him, he shows Doc the picture. He is disgusted and had no idea that this might happen/utterly surprised(as anyone would be). HOWEVER, the doc brown that sees this photo is the one that came from 1985, so even though his 1955 counterpart saw it he doesn't remember seeing it 30 years ago! I think a predetermined death would be something you would remember, even if you are traveling through time! UGH! One of the worst mistakes in all three films, and almost no one catches it! Aaaah!

Actually, that might not have been an outright mistake.  If I recall correctly, despite his travels, Doc Brown didn't want to be told certain predetermined things about his own life.  However, he eventually did take Marty's advice and took a bulletproof vest with him.  So, either he didn't want to know the details of his death, was denying knowing them, or was alluding to the fact that he would be taking Marty's advice and cheating death.  Either way, it was a note on the character of Doc Brown and not a clumsy and outright mistake.  (Granted, I don't remember the movies all that well.  I am not a big fan of the series.)

You are correct sir, it is just the tone in which he says it that makes me question this theory. It was an odd tone. Perhaps it wasn't a mistake, but it is definitely something that wasn't thought through all the way. That was an excellent explanation by the way. I hadn't thought of it in that perspective. Thanks!

[Tawodi Osdi]

The actor in question has always used an odd tone.  I liked the actor, but I could never get the character he played on Taxi every time I heard him speak, even when he played a Klingon commander on Star Trek III.