What's your favorite inaccurate blockbuster? Let us know in the comments! For more content like this, click here: th-cam.com/play/PLmZTDWJGfRq1rbF0nCpzhbAu-LZ2mKkaO.html&si=mAr23OcMk0_9wlc0
What wasn't explained, but should have been in a matter of 30 seconds in Independence Day, was that humanity had been reverse engineering the alien technology piece by piece since the 1950s. This means the human computer systems developed were based on the alien systems making it easy for someone to create the viral payload once the alien ship woke up and they had full access and 40 years of knowledge behind them. That reverse engineering was accelerated after the attack when more ships were available to cannibalise, and that was explained in the second movie.
It was even explained in the first movie... And as for being Scientific BS... To the best of my knowledge we have YET to meet Aliens that have cracked Interstellar Travel, Or at least that's what "The Powers that be" tell us... So we dont actually have a definitive Scientific Basis to say that Alien Technology would be SO FAR ADVANCED of our own that we could not simply plug in a USB Drive... We have Theory and Speculation! Which are NOT Scientific Facts... So in universe, It works... In reality, It is most likely that it would not be feasible but we have NO EVIDENCE to prove as such! So it cannot be called Scientific BS as we have NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Aliens even exist!
To think we're alone in the universe is ludicrous. Aliens are either friendly (doubtful), just waiting for us to blow ourselves up or hostile. If they are hostile they'll take what they want, most likely water, & squash us like bugs if we get in the way. My favorite silly & entertaining 2:00AM movie is Battle: Los Angeles but the idea aliens need "boots on the ground" is beyond stupid. Launching a projectile big enough & fast enough from high orbit would cause tsunamis big enough to finish off 50% of us. Then we'd just sit and watch.
Brent Spiner's character (the Area 51 scientist with the long, grey hair) made it pretty clear that they'd been studying the alien technology for decades and had a pretty good understanding of its fundamentals. Creating a computer interface would have been the first thing on their to-do list. I've always hated people complaining about this "plot hole"; it really does show that Hollywood dumbing stuff down is totally justified because the average moviegoer really does need their hand held every step of the way.
It's kinda stupid to add movies like Superman.. Since when is such a movie supposed to be realistic? They're talking about the fact you can't be faster than light etc.. But being ultra strong, able to fly etc is fine? Okay, well then
They also ignored that Superman is essentially Infinitely Powerful... He gets his powers from our Sun, and the longer he is on Earth, The more Power he has... OK! Thats not discussed in the movie but it is Canonical! So yes, Superman DOES DEFY ALL LAWS OF PHYSICS IN CANON!
My problem is when the "science" defies the own film's common sense. I can accept Superman flying at the speed of light, but why would reversing the rotation of the Earth = time travel? there are planets that don't spin at all (like the Moon itself, I think). That doesn't mean the time stops there.
Look man I’m sorry, Superman is a great movie and everything, But the logic involving him spinning with the earth and all that is still incredibly stupid
@@alm2187 If I recall, it wasn't expressed that way. The boys hooked electrodes up to a Barbie doll, used his computer to create the CAD and personality, gained power from a military server, and a lightning storm created her off camera... or something like that. The '80s was a weird time for cheesy movies 😂
Jayden: Dad can I go to my room? Will: Are you asking me or telling me? Jayden: May I go to my room, sir? Will: DENIED! SIT DOWN! That dialogue is Meme worthy.
Superman didn’t make the earth rotate backwards to go back in time. Superman was flying back in time. Richard Donner couldn’t really figure out how to visualize that. So Donner made the earth rotate backwards. Arguably Donner could have done a bit of a better job showing us.
Yup! Such a widely corrected misconception. Surprised there aren't more of us in comments pointing it out. The announcer also implies a problem with Supes performing the feat within the Earth's atmosphere which, visibly, he doesn't. I understand (or at least I trust to) the mass problem, though.
I've heard that in the initial scripts for Matrix the human brains were used to process data (as biological CPUs), but the change from that to power sources were pushed my producers/execs because they thought it was easier to explain that to the audience
Important to note that Star Wars isn't science fiction, it's space fantasy. Many other actual science fiction films do the same thing with space, because watching space battles with no sound would be super boring to watch.
Yep. While that moment of silence in the Last Jedi was really good as a dramatic juxposition against the rest of the battle which had had sound, we wouldn't want to watch the movies if the sound or space flight dynamics were accurate.
I'm pretty sure I read an article where the Wachowski's confirmed that Cypher wrote an automated code to do it. That was why he was so jumpy when Neo came up behind him in that one scene. Also, he didn't have to be subtle about entering the Matrix since he wanted Agent Smith to find him.
@@theman4884 Even the bad movies were watchable when compared to movies today. Nothing but reboots, reimaginings, or legacy sequels. We'll never get a movie like The First Wives Club today.
@@CassandraY There were plenty of remakes and sequels in the 90s. I can find it or I would post Norm McDonald's SNL bit where he mentioned what was happening at the box office. "The First Wives Club" has dropped out of the top spot at the box office replaced by the Younger Prettier Second Wives Club.
@@theman4884 I'm not saying there weren't, but they hadn't taken over like they do now. It seems like so many movies, TV shows, and even video games are just recycling tired old tropes and plots that have been done a hundred times without adding even the basic level of creativity to make it their own. IMO, movies of the 90's were made by writers while movies today are made by executives.
Dishonorable Mention: *Common sense, what's that? - Superman 4: The Quest For Peace -This film is unbelievably scientifically inaccurate, even by comic book movie standards. To the point where Superman reversing the planet's rotation almost seems quaint.
You're against nuclear weapons disposal in the sun? Or you can't fix the Great Wall of China by staring at it? Or you can't pound a super-clone into the lunar surface like a stake? What all do you take issue with, here? 🤗
See this is actually what I love about sci-fi. The science can be as fictional and ridiculous as possible, and yet (when told right) it’s still entertaining
"Science" fiction, also known as futurology, in its early days was a speculative fiction, very much based on science (hence science in the name) and predicted some believable outcomes, that would be probable, based on what was known then. Some of them came true, like many gadgets we have today.
@@marikothecheetah9342 i was thinking along them lines? .... say a film abar 40 years ago? And they had advanced communications (the internet?) Or phones you can video call on? That would be classed as science fiction back then? But its "normal" for a lot of people now days? 🤔
@@lad4702 you just contradicted yourself. All that we have now is science, what science fiction did was to speculate, based on the science that was available then. A lot of the stuff became available to us now. It was called science fiction because it didn't involve real people and real stories but speculations were real.
Hold on... Superman, an alien that gets energy from the sun that makes him invulnerable, and has the ability to *MAGICALLY FLY SOME-CRAZY-HOW*... I'M JUST FLUSTERED... He didn't turn the earth backwards, he didn't fly in it's atmosphere, he flew faster than the speed of light and reversed time, *BECAUSE HE HAS FUCKING MAGICAL POWERS AND IS INVULNERABLE* What the hell are you talking about!?
I came here expecting a list of things feasibly possible like Twister, not necessarily a list of calling out science fiction. It’s like you’re arguing with Chewbacca on how unrealistic the force is.
To be fair... the science in pretty much every sci-fi movie is broken. The rare exception being probably something like interstellar. I have to admit, I'm really surprised that the black hole didn't make this list!!!!
These are stories. Fiction. No place for logic whatsoever. Star Wars is wonderful movie. Jurassic Park makes some sense. Indy maybe could have survive in refrigerator. Great list
The thing I always found funny about Jurassic Park is that they talk about how the closest genetic still living species to dinosaurs are birds and then when they need to fill gaps in the DNA they use a frog.
@@YavorM-Yash They could/should have used alligators. Alligators can also change sex and (bird, sure but nobody wants feathery dinosaurs) people associate them being more closely related to dinosaurs.
This video proves the point to why we invest so much into movies, because real life is so much more boring, so thank god for movie logic to actually entertain us by giving us a great escapism from the dull realistic nature of life.
The number of super-hero, science fiction, or science fantasy movies with only good science produced by Hollywood might not be enough to produce a "Top 20" list.
My geology professor in university used to do this (take Hollywood movies and explain what was wrong with the science). He spent a lot of time on Dante’s Peak.
Number 10 is why Star Wars is seen as Fantasy and *not* Sci-Fi. Though Star Trek, which is based in Science Fiction, does the cardinal sin of sounds in space too.
Note Firefly as an exception. For the most part, call it inconsequential in Star Trek and Star Wars since the characters aren't shown hearing it. The strangest stretch I know of is Ep II when the Fetts use sonic depth charges, or whatever they're called. It's easy to ignore the constant sound in space. Call it just stylistic. Then there's this one scene with the secret weapon for which sound designers created a highly distinctive effect. It just draws attention to the problem! Why'd they do it?
@@alm2187 They do it so the watchers have something to listen to while watching the scene. Interstellar is the first movie to fully adhere to the rules of space that we know of.
You forgot with Superman flying at the speed of light, he would also have to deal with time dilation. He would remain the same age as all life on earth would have aged.
Uhhh...if you're saying he can't go back in time, okay. If you allow that he can reach the past, you haven't hit on much of a problem. Sure, the film doesn't show civilization aging as he accelerates. Suppose that happens without us seeing it, though. Ultimately, Supes is still going back into the past, just enough that Lois hasn't been killed, yet. So, effectively, he goes forward in time via dilation, then backward per the film premise. Problem?
@@alm2187 "If you allow that he can reach the past, you haven't hit on much of a problem. " The film shows that he is going into the past by traveling at the speed of light, that's not how physics works. The faster you travel in space; the more time stretches and compress around you. " Sure, the film doesn't show civilization aging as he accelerates. Suppose that happens without us seeing it, though. Ultimately, Supes is still going back into the past, just enough that Lois hasn't been killed, yet. So, effectively, he goes forward in time via dilation, then backward per the film premise. Problem?" What do you mean? The whole scene we see Superman reverse time when traveling at lightspeed, which is impossible. When you travel that fast, you can't go into the past, you can only travel into the future. That's how time dilation works, hence the huge issue with that scene. No matter how fast Superman travels, he will never be able to travel into the past, he can only go forward.
Maybe I've processed your point more thoroughly now,@@Keith-b4v We're allowing for the physical existence of a super-powered entity. This entity intends a short journey a backward in time. (I hazard that's the same as reversing time as shown in the film.) The entity's planned means to accomplish this is breaking the light barrier. Per your comments, you're reminding us that this entity's endeavor would fail and, indeed, have the opposite effect at best. On reaching these theoretical speeds, and disregarding the mass issue, his perception relative to a civilized planet's perception would change. If reckoning with one another, he'd have to reckon with their time speeding up, and they with his aging slowed seemingly to a standstill. So again, instead of landing in his recent past upon return, he'd land x amount of time in his future. If that's your point, okay. Got it. If there's more to it, lay it on me. 🤓
@@alm2187 Bits and pieces but that is the general gist, yes. Traveling at those speeds would make his age relative to that of time moving around him. He would be temporally stagnate as time continues to move around him at a more rapid pace.
What's the meaning of BS? I still don't know. By the way, some of these movies are trying to tell us to investigate the matter of their plots by ourselves through internet, professors, colleges and many more. At least, that's what i think.
How about Speed? The bus jump was bad enough; but the ending where the subway train crashes through a city block's worth of dirt and concrete. It would have crushed like a soda can.
Another thing about the transformers one is that the autobots/decepticons bodies are made of metal. So even if Optimus Prime was trying to safely catch Shia LaBeouf falling, because Optimus is made of metal, Shia would hit Optimus's hand and the impact would be the same as if he'd jumped off a building and landed on a parked car
Not much different from John Wick being tossed at high speed into vans, trucks and cars repeatedly, completely crunching those vehicles, and just getting up and walking away. I think he took out 7 vehicles with his body in 4 without a single broken bone. Dont you know that you can claim every single movie character is now a superhero and everyone just buys it?
@@PrinceTrexus if it's a sentient being though, he could give with the impact to soften it. Like catching an egg. If you do it right, someone can throw and egg to you pretty hard and you can catch it without breaking it. We used to do it in baseball, to practice having "soft hands" when you field ground balls.
Number 20: Wasn't it said that showing the planet going the opposite direction wasn't meant to be taken liberally? As in, it was only meant to show that Clark was going past the speed of light, going FAR past the speed of light that he'd time traveled back in time. The planet's reverse rotation was only to indicate time travel, not literal rotation reversal, which would cause far greater damage to the planet.
Twister: Wouldn't they have been cut in half by the belt as well? After Earth,: not to mention, the weather patterns wouldn't change that radically either Die Another Day: Of course, the bad guy in a Bond movie CAN'T be an Asian guy
BS science? A lot of this is based on superheroes and science fiction which surely requires a certain amount of suspension of disbelief… maybe we should cut them some slack…? Sheesh
Thanks for asking! No, we don’t use AI voice. We actually credit the voice-over person at the beginning of the video so you know exactly who voiced it.
No INTERSTELLAR? They considered time dilation, which is an established element of printed sci-fi that few movies/TV consider, but viable planets orbiting a black hole, travel into the singularity is pretty bad, like the waves the size of mountains that don't pulverise what they land on. The Nolan Bros do that a lot in the Dark Knight trilogy, with Batman able to glide by stretching out his cloak, or a big aircraft being able to fly with a smaller one hanging from it (and its engines going downwards)
If you mean the Ezra Miller movie, it's such a mishmash of one problematic premise after another that nothing stands out for analysis. Helps if it has a little more focus. If it had less nonsense, any given aspect would be simpler to evaluate. It's like if you find a textbook that tells you there are only four elements, that heat is caused by caloric, that ether is beyond the stratosphere, and that Earth is the center of a rather small universe. Maybe toss in infinite turtles for good measure. If we wanted to address the problem with all that, where would we even start? 😆 What's the problem with the science in that unfortunate excuse for a first Flash film? Want to explore the science of falling babies in microwaves? Or analyze what causes blackish growths on obsessive doppelgangers? Or follow up after a character ACTUALLY POINTS OUT that Affleck and Clooney and Keaton aren't the same man? Anyway, you probably thought of it because of the time travel. With Superman, this vid sums up sufficiently why the science is wrong. With that Flash film, all it could say is that that's no kinda science.
Your understanding of the Superman and reverse rotation of Earth is erroneous. Here is what they TRIED to show but failed: 1. Superman flying at faster than light speeds around the Earth. 2. The Earth does not reverse spin due to the inertia/velocity of his flight. 3. The Earth only reverse spins because they are showing that his faster than light speed is actually allowing him to go backwards in time itself, so of course the Earth has reverse rotation because he is literally flying backwards in time. 4. He is not making the Earth spin backwards in order to go back in time because time does not depend on the rotation of the Earth but rather the reverse spinning our point of view of traveling back in time with Superman in real time. 5. As you can see, they tried to to cutaways on Earth as we are traveling backwards in time with Superman and every scene, the entropy was literally reversing...buildings re-assembling etc.
I think there is a more logical way that Die Another Day could have gone about the transformation. It is possible to alter a person's skin color, even with the technology in 2002. While deceased, Michael Jackson can prove this. And with just a bit of plastic surgery and a few other things (contacts, hair dye, etc.) you could have yourself a very realistic version of the transformation.
Independence Day - Nothing to say about the fact that aliens apparently don't possess the technology to implement independent countdown timers? Gravity - THANK YOU!!!
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” is a quote from Arthur C. Clarke. Everything about Superman appears to be magic because it is based on science that is so far advanced that we can't understand it properly. Superman reversing the spin of the Earth to turn back time is misunderstood. In the comics, Superman flies faster than the speed of light to go back in time. The way the special effects for that scene go is confusing. In that scene, Superman is flying around the Earth and going into the past. This is represented by showing everything going backward. But the Earth itself is NOT going backward. The director showed everything going backward to show to the audience, visually, that Superman is going back in time. Saying that it is impossible to go faster than the speed of light ignores that Superman has abilities that no person or machine has ever had. It is also impossible for a person to fly without help, shoot lasers from their eyes, or have bullets bounce off their chest. Also, it is a theory that faster-than-light travel is impossible. No machine has been created that can come close to the speed of light so it is unknown what would happen.
The issue with FTL is not about technology it's about energy and the laws of physics. To reach light speed would require infinite energy that exceed the energy of the entire universe. It's not a theoritical issue, it's a fundamental aspect of the universe.
@@Sstucash I always add on, "...with our current understanding of science". And, yes, I agree that it's very likely that all these "rules" and "absolute laws" are probably true but 10, 25, or 100 years in the future all these carved-in-stone facts will probably be laughed at as simplistic. And this FTL travel is done by a humanoid creature, not a huge spaceship. This being can shoot laser beams out of his eyes, lift cars and giant robots over his head, and toss them into outer space. This is a superhero FANTASY movie. Either all of it is bullshit or none of it is.
It's interesting you putting the original Superman film in there early doors. I went and watched that film at release with my best friend. And the actual ONLY thing he didn't like of the film was the time reversing bit. It was like talking to Sheldon Cooper with him keep going on about "Well.. it's just not scientifically possible to reverse time is it?" "Yeah dude.. Whereas a bloke flying around in his underpants is ok right?"
Hollywood Writer: Hey I've got a great idea for a movie! Watchmojo: I'm not a scientist or anything but that sounds like a load of BS. I mean we don't want to mislead people into thinking dinosaurs exist or that giant robots are real right?
00:00 - 01:10 Superman flying fast enough to reverse time? Impossible, yet we’re all in for the ride! Physics says no, but Hollywood says 'hold my cape!' Wouldn't you love to see what happens when a man flies at the speed of light?
My middle school science teacher in the 90's truly believed traveling opposite the earths rotation at incredible speeds would indeed allow that imagined craft to go back in time. Even at age 12 I couldn't see the science behind that. 🤦
He didn't reverse Earth's rotation, it was showing time going backwards. Yes, it wasn't well visualised or made clear to the audience, but there was 'backwards' footage of the disaster too.
In the movie, he flew around the earth in the opposite direction of its spin. This clearly indicated that what caused the reversal of time was the reversal of the spin. Further emphasized by the fact that in order to make time go forward again once he had reversed to the point he wanted, he had to go back and fly around the earth the correct way again.
You're about half right with Lucy. We do use all the parts of the brain to some extent continuously, and the old ten percent of the brain figure is somewhat made up. But while it was poorly understood and described, the underlying premise is still correct. The brain does have natural variability in performance, even for an individual over the course of a day. Training can improve performance, and certain chemicals or ems stimulation can overclock it even more. This isn't even science fiction, many people do it right now. Obviously training requires effort and maintenance, and stimulation is not sustainable and has potential side effects. We can't currently get to the insane levels of brain power in certain films, but the levels we can achieve are still remarkable, and there's no known fundamental obstacle preventing the technology from getting even better.
Independence Day works because a deleted scene showed that everything was reverse engineered from the alien spaceship. Which honestly explains why after the 60s we saw a tech boom the likes of which usually only happen every couple hundred years if not longer.
I’m sure other people have said this but…. Superman did NOT reverse the rotation of the earth. He was moving backwards in time which gave the illusion of the earth rotating backwards. But he was moving backwards in time not reversing the earths rotation
Superman was clearly NOT in Earth's atmosphere. Originally the Matrix wasn't using us for batteries, but our brains for processing power. There is a scene in the videogame Outriders that makes fun of the Indy fridge scene when your character is in a lab where a nuke is about to go off and your contact back at base tells you to find a fridge and climb in. You tell him it's the stupidest thing you ever heard and he says "I don't know, I saw it in some old movie!"
Superman did not "fly fast enough around the Earth to undo its rotation and reverse time". He flies fast enough to *travel backwards through time himself* and what we see is time reversing. This reversal, of course, would include the rotation of the earth and all other events. He is not the only DC character that has done this before, as several speedsters can and do this exact kind of thing. The perception that he is affecting the Earth's rotation is a common but obviously erroneous assumption. Is this scientifically possible? It is *as possible* as a man from space gaining invulnerability, super strength, speed and flight by being under yellow light. We call this "comics" and "movies" logic.... powered by the willing suspension of disbelief. Need I explain the rest of the other 19 points?
I have to disagree on the Star Wars one. Right at the beginning of the movie it states "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away..." In this distant galaxy there's air in space! So we would hear the spaceships and see them fly like they do in earth's atmosphere. QED.
Superman explanation: he didnt fly fast enough to reverse the rotation. He flew so fast that he went back in time. The earth spinning the opposite way was just for visual to show he was going back through time.
Superman didn't do anything to the earth, he went back in time and the planet spinning backwards was just a visual effect to let you know what was happening. Pretty sure the Flash and SC had set up the concept of fast people can go back in time before this film.
James Bond: Turning an Asian to a White guy is BS science. Tropic Thunder: Lets turn an Australian Multiple Oscars winning actor into a Black dude without being cancelled.
I like to fanfic that Clooney's character was so fed up with life that he just dipped out when he saw the chance. Bullock's character was too green to realize what happened and went along with it.
Yes lets condemn a movie for being "unrealistic" when it stars a superhero that's literally invincible and can fly. Where's the science again? Maybe it's...fiction?
![เป็นไปได้ไหม - WanMai [Performance Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Eh5hItD4Mr0/mqdefault.jpg)
What's your favorite inaccurate blockbuster? Let us know in the comments!
For more content like this, click here: th-cam.com/play/PLmZTDWJGfRq1rbF0nCpzhbAu-LZ2mKkaO.html&si=mAr23OcMk0_9wlc0
So you’re going to pick a bunch of popcorn movies and pick them apart?
It's called Science "Fiction" for a reason goofy
The Marvel Cinematic Universe
I'm totally watching these movies for accurate science. Like Abe Lincoln vampire hunter is real.
Science Fiction is science based creative work not based on fact. This entire list is pointless.
@thegoldenorder1240 most of the list videos are pointless they make
Shut up thats not real????
Exactly im with you 💯💯💯👍
You’re telling me science fiction movies are science fiction 😢
Oh, a kid born long after hard sci-fi times...
Reality is for those who can't handle science fiction.
There's science fiction and there's science fantasy
Compare these films to Interstellar and The Martian, for starters.
@@DrinkTheKoolAid62 perfect! Thank you!
What wasn't explained, but should have been in a matter of 30 seconds in Independence Day, was that humanity had been reverse engineering the alien technology piece by piece since the 1950s. This means the human computer systems developed were based on the alien systems making it easy for someone to create the viral payload once the alien ship woke up and they had full access and 40 years of knowledge behind them. That reverse engineering was accelerated after the attack when more ships were available to cannibalise, and that was explained in the second movie.
It was even explained in the first movie... And as for being Scientific BS... To the best of my knowledge we have YET to meet Aliens that have cracked Interstellar Travel, Or at least that's what "The Powers that be" tell us... So we dont actually have a definitive Scientific Basis to say that Alien Technology would be SO FAR ADVANCED of our own that we could not simply plug in a USB Drive... We have Theory and Speculation! Which are NOT Scientific Facts...
So in universe, It works... In reality, It is most likely that it would not be feasible but we have NO EVIDENCE to prove as such! So it cannot be called Scientific BS as we have NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Aliens even exist!
To think we're alone in the universe is ludicrous. Aliens are either friendly (doubtful), just waiting for us to blow ourselves up or hostile. If they are hostile they'll take what they want, most likely water, & squash us like bugs if we get in the way. My favorite silly & entertaining 2:00AM movie is Battle: Los Angeles but the idea aliens need "boots on the ground" is beyond stupid. Launching a projectile big enough & fast enough from high orbit would cause tsunamis big enough to finish off 50% of us. Then we'd just sit and watch.
I believe there was also a deleted scene talking about the same thing, I was coming here to say this but already did.
Brent Spiner's character (the Area 51 scientist with the long, grey hair) made it pretty clear that they'd been studying the alien technology for decades and had a pretty good understanding of its fundamentals. Creating a computer interface would have been the first thing on their to-do list. I've always hated people complaining about this "plot hole"; it really does show that Hollywood dumbing stuff down is totally justified because the average moviegoer really does need their hand held every step of the way.
Also, they state the aliens hacked our satellites, so in the film they just did this in reverse. As the Aliens had a system that could read our code.
Watching this video is like going to the movies with Neil Degrassi Tyson! 😂
Or with Sheldon Cooper 😂
Degrasse
No cuz he would actually get some things right. This guy obviously has no knowledge of even basic science
It's kinda stupid to add movies like Superman.. Since when is such a movie supposed to be realistic? They're talking about the fact you can't be faster than light etc.. But being ultra strong, able to fly etc is fine? Okay, well then
It's an asspull physics. Makes sense
They also ignored that Superman is essentially Infinitely Powerful... He gets his powers from our Sun, and the longer he is on Earth, The more Power he has... OK! Thats not discussed in the movie but it is Canonical! So yes, Superman DOES DEFY ALL LAWS OF PHYSICS IN CANON!
Don't forget laser beem eyes.
My problem is when the "science" defies the own film's common sense. I can accept Superman flying at the speed of light, but why would reversing the rotation of the Earth = time travel? there are planets that don't spin at all (like the Moon itself, I think). That doesn't mean the time stops there.
Okay, hold on. You leave Superman alone.
Yes
Womp womp
Look man I’m sorry, Superman is a great movie and everything,
But the logic involving him spinning with the earth and all that is still incredibly stupid
Amen to that,bro😊
@@Nbafan416?🤣😭
Well, Jurassic Park made us believe...even if for a couple minutes.
I love that you left out the entire Fast and Furious franchise. They are notorious for defying physics and gravity.
Sure but most (maybe all?) of these have a clear sci-fi element.
List onto itself
*_Weird Science:_* Creating a living, breathing human using a 1980s computer with CAD software.
Haven't seen it but isn't she a robot?
@@alm2187 If I recall, it wasn't expressed that way. The boys hooked electrodes up to a Barbie doll, used his computer to create the CAD and personality, gained power from a military server, and a lightning storm created her off camera... or something like that. The '80s was a weird time for cheesy movies 😂
The worst part of “After Earth” was Jayden’s acting lol
Jayden: Dad can I go to my room?
Will: Are you asking me or telling me?
Jayden: May I go to my room, sir?
Will: DENIED! SIT DOWN!
That dialogue is Meme worthy.
Superman didn’t make the earth rotate backwards to go back in time. Superman was flying back in time. Richard Donner couldn’t really figure out how to visualize that. So Donner made the earth rotate backwards. Arguably Donner could have done a bit of a better job showing us.
Yup! Such a widely corrected misconception. Surprised there aren't more of us in comments pointing it out.
The announcer also implies a problem with Supes performing the feat within the Earth's atmosphere which, visibly, he doesn't.
I understand (or at least I trust to) the mass problem, though.
I think for Supermans time reversal is similar to Flash being able to travel back in time through his speed. It was just shown in a different way.
I've heard that in the initial scripts for Matrix the human brains were used to process data (as biological CPUs), but the change from that to power sources were pushed my producers/execs because they thought it was easier to explain that to the audience
There's a reason why there's the word "fiction" just after "science".
Important to note that Star Wars isn't science fiction, it's space fantasy. Many other actual science fiction films do the same thing with space, because watching space battles with no sound would be super boring to watch.
Yep. While that moment of silence in the Last Jedi was really good as a dramatic juxposition against the rest of the battle which had had sound, we wouldn't want to watch the movies if the sound or space flight dynamics were accurate.
multi-million dollar movies (subtitles: [ship shooting] pew pew pew)
I'm still puzzled how cypher managed to plug himself in the Matrix to make the deal with Agent Smith and get out without any help.
I'm pretty sure I read an article where the Wachowski's confirmed that Cypher wrote an automated code to do it. That was why he was so jumpy when Neo came up behind him in that one scene. Also, he didn't have to be subtle about entering the Matrix since he wanted Agent Smith to find him.
I am not sure which was the dumber concept, that humans could be used as a power source or that the 1990's were the height of human creativity.
@@theman4884 Even the bad movies were watchable when compared to movies today. Nothing but reboots, reimaginings, or legacy sequels. We'll never get a movie like The First Wives Club today.
@@CassandraY There were plenty of remakes and sequels in the 90s. I can find it or I would post Norm McDonald's SNL bit where he mentioned what was happening at the box office. "The First Wives Club" has dropped out of the top spot at the box office replaced by the Younger Prettier Second Wives Club.
@@theman4884 I'm not saying there weren't, but they hadn't taken over like they do now. It seems like so many movies, TV shows, and even video games are just recycling tired old tropes and plots that have been done a hundred times without adding even the basic level of creativity to make it their own. IMO, movies of the 90's were made by writers while movies today are made by executives.
So you're telling me after all these years I wasn't watching science documentaries!?
What a jip.
A film can be enjoyable with a fairly accurate science, it doesn't turn you into nerd, don't worry, for that you'd actually have to learn something.
Freddy Krueger can’t kill you in a dream? 😂
no but there are actual incidents of people bening killed in dreams resulting in death in the real world where wes craven got the idea from
Glad that we also have movies that are highly scientifically accurate, like Sharknado. 😂
Dishonorable Mention:
*Common sense, what's that? - Superman 4: The Quest For Peace
-This film is unbelievably scientifically inaccurate, even by comic book movie standards. To the point where Superman reversing the planet's rotation almost seems quaint.
You're against nuclear weapons disposal in the sun?
Or you can't fix the Great Wall of China by staring at it?
Or you can't pound a super-clone into the lunar surface like a stake?
What all do you take issue with, here? 🤗
Well, that's why they call it Science fiction, not science fact.
See this is actually what I love about sci-fi. The science can be as fictional and ridiculous as possible, and yet (when told right) it’s still entertaining
Hell, I was an athlete in my 30's and now that I'm in my 60's, if I trip and fall down I would probably cripple myself.
Geez it’s almost as if a lot of these movies are science fiction.
Narrator must be fun at parties. None of these movies are documentaries, they're just fun
People don't watch these movies for scientific accuracy
Are you guys about to tell me that cars don't explode every time they're in a minor collision? Because I don't want to live in that world.
Um, movies are to entertain, not to be scientifically accurate. What’s next, the inaccuracies of movies with Santa Claus?
The only possible accuracy about him, is that he was possibly born in Turkmenistan?
Science "fiction"
Thank you God. Finally someone with a brain that reads books.
"Science" fiction, also known as futurology, in its early days was a speculative fiction, very much based on science (hence science in the name) and predicted some believable outcomes, that would be probable, based on what was known then. Some of them came true, like many gadgets we have today.
🥉
@@marikothecheetah9342 i was thinking along them lines? .... say a film abar 40 years ago? And they had advanced communications (the internet?) Or phones you can video call on? That would be classed as science fiction back then? But its "normal" for a lot of people now days? 🤔
@@lad4702 you just contradicted yourself. All that we have now is science, what science fiction did was to speculate, based on the science that was available then. A lot of the stuff became available to us now. It was called science fiction because it didn't involve real people and real stories but speculations were real.
Hold on... Superman, an alien that gets energy from the sun that makes him invulnerable, and has the ability to *MAGICALLY FLY SOME-CRAZY-HOW*...
I'M JUST FLUSTERED...
He didn't turn the earth backwards, he didn't fly in it's atmosphere, he flew faster than the speed of light and reversed time, *BECAUSE HE HAS FUCKING MAGICAL POWERS AND IS INVULNERABLE*
What the hell are you talking about!?
Interestingly zany way to make a largely good point. 🤗
I came here expecting a list of things feasibly possible like Twister, not necessarily a list of calling out science fiction.
It’s like you’re arguing with Chewbacca on how unrealistic the force is.
To be fair... the science in pretty much every sci-fi movie is broken. The rare exception being probably something like interstellar.
I have to admit, I'm really surprised that the black hole didn't make this list!!!!
Interstellar, while it does more or less stick to things that are possible in theory, takes some real liberties with proven science.
@@davefreier7738 that's why I used the conditional article "probably". 🙂
These are stories. Fiction. No place for logic whatsoever. Star Wars is wonderful movie. Jurassic Park makes some sense. Indy maybe could have survive in refrigerator. Great list
How did Face Off not make this list?
The thing I always found funny about Jurassic Park is that they talk about how the closest genetic still living species to dinosaurs are birds and then when they need to fill gaps in the DNA they use a frog.
They needed it for the plot - the ability to change sexes under circumstances.
@@YavorM-Yash That’s why it was so lame.
@@YavorM-Yash They could/should have used alligators. Alligators can also change sex and (bird, sure but nobody wants feathery dinosaurs) people associate them being more closely related to dinosaurs.
@@theman4884 maybe so, but they decided this.
James bond is science fact according to the producer.
You mean Barbara? What'd she say about the science?
Its called Science Fiction. Fiction: A creative work not based on fact. Do you even understand the basis behind the genre?
It is supposed to have a science origin though. Like research and so. You can be realistic and still entertain
Science fiction has science in the name for a reason. At least make an effort.
@foxymetroid Its Fiction. Not fact. It doesn't have to be at all. Watch a documentary.
I don't think Hollywood ever claimed to be the hub of science fact or reality of any kind even when depicting what's claimed to be reality or fact.
This video proves the point to why we invest so much into movies, because real life is so much more boring, so thank god for movie logic to actually entertain us by giving us a great escapism from the dull realistic nature of life.
Exactly!xx
It would be more logical to do the reverse, "Top 20 movies with good science", since the VAST majority of movies (and TV Shows) have bad science.
The number of super-hero, science fiction, or science fantasy movies with only good science produced by Hollywood might not be enough to produce a "Top 20" list.
if "must be fun at birthdays" was a video
My geology professor in university used to do this (take Hollywood movies and explain what was wrong with the science). He spent a lot of time on Dante’s Peak.
Number 10 is why Star Wars is seen as Fantasy and *not* Sci-Fi. Though Star Trek, which is based in Science Fiction, does the cardinal sin of sounds in space too.
Note Firefly as an exception.
For the most part, call it inconsequential in Star Trek and Star Wars since the characters aren't shown hearing it. The strangest stretch I know of is Ep II when the Fetts use sonic depth charges, or whatever they're called.
It's easy to ignore the constant sound in space. Call it just stylistic.
Then there's this one scene with the secret weapon for which sound designers created a highly distinctive effect.
It just draws attention to the problem! Why'd they do it?
@@alm2187 They do it so the watchers have something to listen to while watching the scene. Interstellar is the first movie to fully adhere to the rules of space that we know of.
With Star Wars, you'd want accuracy, or action, sounds, ground based air battles(I'm aware of the oxymoron).
Right. So, umm, start over. 🤗
You forgot with Superman flying at the speed of light, he would also have to deal with time dilation. He would remain the same age as all life on earth would have aged.
Uhhh...if you're saying he can't go back in time, okay.
If you allow that he can reach the past, you haven't hit on much of a problem. Sure, the film doesn't show civilization aging as he accelerates.
Suppose that happens without us seeing it, though. Ultimately, Supes is still going back into the past, just enough that Lois hasn't been killed, yet.
So, effectively, he goes forward in time via dilation, then backward per the film premise. Problem?
@@alm2187
"If you allow that he can reach the past, you haven't hit on much of a problem. "
The film shows that he is going into the past by traveling at the speed of light, that's not how physics works. The faster you travel in space; the more time stretches and compress around you.
" Sure, the film doesn't show civilization aging as he accelerates.
Suppose that happens without us seeing it, though. Ultimately, Supes is still going back into the past, just enough that Lois hasn't been killed, yet.
So, effectively, he goes forward in time via dilation, then backward per the film premise. Problem?"
What do you mean? The whole scene we see Superman reverse time when traveling at lightspeed, which is impossible. When you travel that fast, you can't go into the past, you can only travel into the future. That's how time dilation works, hence the huge issue with that scene. No matter how fast Superman travels, he will never be able to travel into the past, he can only go forward.
Maybe I've processed your point more thoroughly now,@@Keith-b4v
We're allowing for the physical existence of a super-powered entity.
This entity intends a short journey a backward in time. (I hazard that's the same as reversing time as shown in the film.) The entity's planned means to accomplish this is breaking the light barrier.
Per your comments, you're reminding us that this entity's endeavor would fail and, indeed, have the opposite effect at best.
On reaching these theoretical speeds, and disregarding the mass issue, his perception relative to a civilized planet's perception would change. If reckoning with one another, he'd have to reckon with their time speeding up, and they with his aging slowed seemingly to a standstill.
So again, instead of landing in his recent past upon return, he'd land x amount of time in his future.
If that's your point, okay. Got it. If there's more to it, lay it on me. 🤓
@@alm2187 Bits and pieces but that is the general gist, yes. Traveling at those speeds would make his age relative to that of time moving around him. He would be temporally stagnate as time continues to move around him at a more rapid pace.
Independence day had 50 years to break into their code. Unfortunately the Director cut the scene showing how they had cracked the code.
What's the meaning of BS? I still don't know. By the way, some of these movies are trying to tell us to investigate the matter of their plots by ourselves through internet, professors, colleges and many more. At least, that's what i think.
How about Speed? The bus jump was bad enough; but the ending where the subway train crashes through a city block's worth of dirt and concrete. It would have crushed like a soda can.
Top 20 Movies we like regardless if it's real science of not.
Another thing about the transformers one is that the autobots/decepticons bodies are made of metal. So even if Optimus Prime was trying to safely catch Shia LaBeouf falling, because Optimus is made of metal, Shia would hit Optimus's hand and the impact would be the same as if he'd jumped off a building and landed on a parked car
Not much different from John Wick being tossed at high speed into vans, trucks and cars repeatedly, completely crunching those vehicles, and just getting up and walking away. I think he took out 7 vehicles with his body in 4 without a single broken bone. Dont you know that you can claim every single movie character is now a superhero and everyone just buys it?
@@PrinceTrexus if it's a sentient being though, he could give with the impact to soften it. Like catching an egg. If you do it right, someone can throw and egg to you pretty hard and you can catch it without breaking it. We used to do it in baseball, to practice having "soft hands" when you field ground balls.
Indiana Jones surviving an explosion by hiding in a fridge.
It’s in the vid
Number 20: Wasn't it said that showing the planet going the opposite direction wasn't meant to be taken liberally? As in, it was only meant to show that Clark was going past the speed of light, going FAR past the speed of light that he'd time traveled back in time. The planet's reverse rotation was only to indicate time travel, not literal rotation reversal, which would cause far greater damage to the planet.
Twister: Wouldn't they have been cut in half by the belt as well?
After Earth,: not to mention, the weather patterns wouldn't change that radically either
Die Another Day: Of course, the bad guy in a Bond movie CAN'T be an Asian guy
They may be wrong but they’re so much fun to watch.
BS science? A lot of this is based on superheroes and science fiction which surely requires a certain amount of suspension of disbelief… maybe we should cut them some slack…? Sheesh
Sorry but "The Core" is completely factual thanks to unobtanium.
Hey man, Great video. Just wanted to know do you use AI Voice?
Thanks for asking! No, we don’t use AI voice. We actually credit the voice-over person at the beginning of the video so you know exactly who voiced it.
Amazing video watch mojo,fantastic job.
No INTERSTELLAR? They considered time dilation, which is an established element of printed sci-fi that few movies/TV consider, but viable planets orbiting a black hole, travel into the singularity is pretty bad, like the waves the size of mountains that don't pulverise what they land on. The Nolan Bros do that a lot in the Dark Knight trilogy, with Batman able to glide by stretching out his cloak, or a big aircraft being able to fly with a smaller one hanging from it (and its engines going downwards)
A hand-held wand connected to a proton backpack-sized nuclear accelerator. Because ghosts exist.
What about the Flash .. you gonna cut down Superman but not the Flash??
What about the movie Face Off?
If you mean the Ezra Miller movie, it's such a mishmash of one problematic premise after another that nothing stands out for analysis. Helps if it has a little more focus. If it had less nonsense, any given aspect would be simpler to evaluate.
It's like if you find a textbook that tells you there are only four elements, that heat is caused by caloric, that ether is beyond the stratosphere, and that Earth is the center of a rather small universe.
Maybe toss in infinite turtles for good measure. If we wanted to address the problem with all that, where would we even start? 😆
What's the problem with the science in that unfortunate excuse for a first Flash film?
Want to explore the science of falling babies in microwaves?
Or analyze what causes blackish growths on obsessive doppelgangers?
Or follow up after a character ACTUALLY POINTS OUT that Affleck and Clooney and Keaton aren't the same man?
Anyway, you probably thought of it because of the time travel.
With Superman, this vid sums up sufficiently why the science is wrong.
With that Flash film, all it could say is that that's no kinda science.
Technically speaking, he connected a Mac to an Alien computer system.
Your understanding of the Superman and reverse rotation of Earth is erroneous. Here is what they TRIED to show but failed:
1. Superman flying at faster than light speeds around the Earth.
2. The Earth does not reverse spin due to the inertia/velocity of his flight.
3. The Earth only reverse spins because they are showing that his faster than light speed is actually allowing him to go backwards in time itself, so of course the Earth has reverse rotation because he is literally flying backwards in time.
4. He is not making the Earth spin backwards in order to go back in time because time does not depend on the rotation of the Earth but rather the reverse spinning our point of view of traveling back in time with Superman in real time.
5. As you can see, they tried to to cutaways on Earth as we are traveling backwards in time with Superman and every scene, the entropy was literally reversing...buildings re-assembling etc.
I think there is a more logical way that Die Another Day could have gone about the transformation. It is possible to alter a person's skin color, even with the technology in 2002. While deceased, Michael Jackson can prove this. And with just a bit of plastic surgery and a few other things (contacts, hair dye, etc.) you could have yourself a very realistic version of the transformation.
Independence Day - Nothing to say about the fact that aliens apparently don't possess the technology to implement independent countdown timers?
Gravity - THANK YOU!!!
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” is a quote from Arthur C. Clarke. Everything about Superman appears to be magic because it is based on science that is so far advanced that we can't understand it properly.
Superman reversing the spin of the Earth to turn back time is misunderstood. In the comics, Superman flies faster than the speed of light to go back in time. The way the special effects for that scene go is confusing. In that scene, Superman is flying around the Earth and going into the past. This is represented by showing everything going backward. But the Earth itself is NOT going backward. The director showed everything going backward to show to the audience, visually, that Superman is going back in time.
Saying that it is impossible to go faster than the speed of light ignores that Superman has abilities that no person or machine has ever had. It is also impossible for a person to fly without help, shoot lasers from their eyes, or have bullets bounce off their chest. Also, it is a theory that faster-than-light travel is impossible. No machine has been created that can come close to the speed of light so it is unknown what would happen.
The issue with FTL is not about technology it's about energy and the laws of physics. To reach light speed would require infinite energy that exceed the energy of the entire universe. It's not a theoritical issue, it's a fundamental aspect of the universe.
@@Sstucash I always add on, "...with our current understanding of science". And, yes, I agree that it's very likely that all these "rules" and "absolute laws" are probably true but 10, 25, or 100 years in the future all these carved-in-stone facts will probably be laughed at as simplistic.
And this FTL travel is done by a humanoid creature, not a huge spaceship. This being can shoot laser beams out of his eyes, lift cars and giant robots over his head, and toss them into outer space. This is a superhero FANTASY movie. Either all of it is bullshit or none of it is.
It's interesting you putting the original Superman film in there early doors.
I went and watched that film at release with my best friend. And the actual ONLY thing he didn't like of the film was the time reversing bit. It was like talking to Sheldon Cooper with him keep going on about "Well.. it's just not scientifically possible to reverse time is it?"
"Yeah dude.. Whereas a bloke flying around in his underpants is ok right?"
Also how is Face/Off not on here?
Hollywood Writer: Hey I've got a great idea for a movie!
Watchmojo: I'm not a scientist or anything but that sounds like a load of BS. I mean we don't want to mislead people into thinking dinosaurs exist or that giant robots are real right?
00:00 - 01:10 Superman flying fast enough to reverse time? Impossible, yet we’re all in for the ride! Physics says no, but Hollywood says 'hold my cape!' Wouldn't you love to see what happens when a man flies at the speed of light?
My middle school science teacher in the 90's truly believed traveling opposite the earths rotation at incredible speeds would indeed allow that imagined craft to go back in time. Even at age 12 I couldn't see the science behind that. 🤦
Most of these movies literally explain that the events that happened were impossible but due to extreme circumstances it did…
So, your problem with Superman is that he couldn’t fly that fast, not that reversing Earth’s rotation would NOT reverse time?
The Earths reversed rotation is due to time being reversed, not the other way around.
He didn't reverse Earth's rotation, it was showing time going backwards. Yes, it wasn't well visualised or made clear to the audience, but there was 'backwards' footage of the disaster too.
In the movie, he flew around the earth in the opposite direction of its spin. This clearly indicated that what caused the reversal of time was the reversal of the spin. Further emphasized by the fact that in order to make time go forward again once he had reversed to the point he wanted, he had to go back and fly around the earth the correct way again.
You're about half right with Lucy. We do use all the parts of the brain to some extent continuously, and the old ten percent of the brain figure is somewhat made up. But while it was poorly understood and described, the underlying premise is still correct.
The brain does have natural variability in performance, even for an individual over the course of a day. Training can improve performance, and certain chemicals or ems stimulation can overclock it even more.
This isn't even science fiction, many people do it right now.
Obviously training requires effort and maintenance, and stimulation is not sustainable and has potential side effects. We can't currently get to the insane levels of brain power in certain films, but the levels we can achieve are still remarkable, and there's no known fundamental obstacle preventing the technology from getting even better.
Independence Day works because a deleted scene showed that everything was reverse engineered from the alien spaceship. Which honestly explains why after the 60s we saw a tech boom the likes of which usually only happen every couple hundred years if not longer.
Not only are they inside the f 5 tornado but they would literally have the air sucked out of there lungs and suffocated
Mojo, i have a feeling in a few decades you will have to revise some of these imposibilities :D
You want an actual science? Watch a documentary
God forbid I want a movie that follows physics AND is entertaining.
I’m sure other people have said this but…. Superman did NOT reverse the rotation of the earth. He was moving backwards in time which gave the illusion of the earth rotating backwards. But he was moving backwards in time not reversing the earths rotation
Superman was clearly NOT in Earth's atmosphere. Originally the Matrix wasn't using us for batteries, but our brains for processing power. There is a scene in the videogame Outriders that makes fun of the Indy fridge scene when your character is in a lab where a nuke is about to go off and your contact back at base tells you to find a fridge and climb in. You tell him it's the stupidest thing you ever heard and he says "I don't know, I saw it in some old movie!"
in these cases you just gotta ignore the science and enjoy the ride, especially in a Michael Bay movie.
saying MJ didn't do what he did based on science?
The Island- the idea that life memories are encoded in the DNA and can be "remembered" by a clone...
Independence Day: They had a deleted scene that explained that human computer tech was based on the alien ship they had at Area 51.
Superman did not "fly fast enough around the Earth to undo its rotation and reverse time".
He flies fast enough to *travel backwards through time himself* and what we see is time reversing. This reversal, of course, would include the rotation of the earth and all other events.
He is not the only DC character that has done this before, as several speedsters can and do this exact kind of thing.
The perception that he is affecting the Earth's rotation is a common but obviously erroneous assumption. Is this scientifically possible? It is *as possible* as a man from space gaining invulnerability, super strength, speed and flight by being under yellow light.
We call this "comics" and "movies" logic.... powered by the willing suspension of disbelief.
Need I explain the rest of the other 19 points?
This video definitely needs a part 2 😂😂
I have to disagree on the Star Wars one. Right at the beginning of the movie it states "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away..." In this distant galaxy there's air in space! So we would hear the spaceships and see them fly like they do in earth's atmosphere. QED.
Star Wars should be given a pass, since it was never meant to be taken seriously. It’s a fantasy.
4:39 you can LITERALLY see him decelerating Sam as he catches him.
For as much bs as you can find in the Transformers movies, this isn’t one of them.
Superman explanation: he didnt fly fast enough to reverse the rotation. He flew so fast that he went back in time. The earth spinning the opposite way was just for visual to show he was going back through time.
If you believe that Superman literally made the world spin backward, then you weren't paying attention.
Superman didn't do anything to the earth, he went back in time and the planet spinning backwards was just a visual effect to let you know what was happening. Pretty sure the Flash and SC had set up the concept of fast people can go back in time before this film.
This is the kind of guy who goes around telling little kids Santa isn't real.
Wow, this is new... science is everywhere
No love for Face/Off? That’s one of my favorite movies based around “Okay, just pretend this is a thing” science
James Bond: Turning an Asian to a White guy is BS science.
Tropic Thunder: Lets turn an Australian Multiple Oscars winning actor into a Black dude without being cancelled.
That's what Roland Emmerich was actually aspiring to: Making up 50% of the films in this list.
I like to fanfic that Clooney's character was so fed up with life that he just dipped out when he saw the chance. Bullock's character was too green to realize what happened and went along with it.
Yes lets condemn a movie for being "unrealistic" when it stars a superhero that's literally invincible and can fly. Where's the science again? Maybe it's...fiction?