| |
|
I love these articles for two reasons.
Reason the first: They're funny.
Reason the second: One of the ways, specifically, they are funny is that the authors assume we (who make films) do not know as much about our chosen subject as they know about theirs.
Simple fact is that realistic physics often looks boring on screen or would complicate things past the point of workability. There's not a lot of drama when you can't see how nearly the bullets are missing the hero. There are times when it would be just great if that car would blow up. And sometimes we just don't care. I love the assumption that the people who work props/set dec/sfx on films haven't gone out and done extensive tests to see if reality looks good on screen, that we really don't know that jumping through a pane of glass would cut a person to ribbons. If these physicists can come up with a non-digital way to produce a single shot where the actor is seen running up to a window and jumping through it, cuts and slashes appearing on his body as the glass breaks, without harming the actor, I and many other people would love to hear it.
This link is pretty funny, but for some really sad shit, check the 'goofs' section on any given film's IMDB listing. It's funny and pathetic that people sit and meticulously compile errata like this, apparently under the misapprehension that we're too stupid to get it right rather than realizing the filmmakers decided to do it a certain way.
If you need things in films to be so realistic, go watch a fucking documentary. |
|
|
