Product Description

-Would the bus in Speed really have made that jump?
-Could a Star Wars ship actually explode in space?
-What really would have happened if you said "Honey, I shrunk the kids"?

The companion book to the hit website (www.intuitor.com/moviephysics), which boasts more than 1 million visitors per year, Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics is a hilarious guide to the biggest mistakes, most outrageous assumptions, and the outright lunacy at work in Hollywood films that play with the rules of science.

In this fascinating and funny guide, author Tom Rogers examines 20 different topics and shows how, when it comes to filmmaking, the rules of physics are flexible.

Einsteins and film buffs alike will be educated and entertained by this wise and witty guide to science in Hollywood.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #127553 in Books
• Published on: 2007-11-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 336 pages

Features

• ISBN13: 9781402210334
• Condition: NEW
• Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
• Click here to view our Condition Guide and Shipping Prices

About the Author
Tom Rogers is the founder and creator of the wildly popular website Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics. He has a Bachelors Degree in Mechanical Engineering from Arizona State University and a Master of Business Administration Degree from Clemson
University. He worked as an engineer for 18 years and currently lives in Greenville, South Carolina.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
Excerpt from Chapter 1:
THE NOBLE CAUSE:
Striking a Blow for Decency in Movie Physics

IT'S ONLY A MOVIE
"It's only a movie," is often spoken by fans in defense of flicks with flaky physics, as though reviewing movies for physics content is an insult. But isn't the fact that Hollywood thinks they can feed us stupid physics the real insult? Let me explain why reviewing movies for something they need is not insulting, or unnecessary-starting with a hypothetical. Imagine a football movie: a group of plucky individualists have been forged into a team by the tough yet big-hearted coach. No one gave them a chance; yet, here they are in the big game playing their hearts out as Murphy, their beloved teammate, lies in the hospital with bandaged eyes, listening to the contest via radio.

The team is behind and desperate. It's the seventh down in the eleventh quarter, so they punt a touchdown pass from the 127th yard line. But wait, this isn't football. It's nonsense. Anyone with football knowledge would think it was ridiculous; some would be offended. The scene would never appear in a movie-not because it's unlikely or hackneyed, but because it's unthinkable to take artistic license with the rules of football. (For those who don't favor American-style football, substitute basketball, soccer, hockey, or just about any other team sport. With a few modifications, the plot will still work.)

Artistic license isn't a driver's license; it's an ambulance license. It grants the right to break rules without suffering petty penalties like traffic tickets. But rule breaking can cause errors, leading to serious penalties: wrecks. Rule breaking requires care; it's not a good idea unless there's a good reason. Hollywood would never take such a gamble with the manmade rules of football.

So, when it comes to something profound like the guiding rules of the universe, why, of course, break the rules at will-no risk here.

Okay, I realize that Hollywood isn't likely to reform, but at least by discussing bad movie physics it's possible to repair some of the damage done to our clear thinking by constant exposure to foolishness. Sadly, Hollywood has a rational reason for affording more respect to the rules of football than the laws of physics: audiences are more likely to know them. Ironically, movies may be part of the cure for this ailment: Hollywood's bad physics examples are good physics teaching tools. Besides, movies are almost as entertaining as physics, so what could be more fun than combining the two?

In 1997, after years of watching one Hollywood physics wreck after another, I took a stand for decency in movie physics by founding what has become the premier movie physics site on the Internet. Since American moviegoers are used to rating systems warning of possible affronts to their sensibilities from strong language, violence, and sexuality, and since warning systems are, of course, highly effective deterrents, how could I resist? I created a similar system to warn about affronts from bad physics. Well, maybe ratings aren't so effective but at least they're fun.

Movie Physics Rating System:
GP = Good physics in general
PGP = Pretty good physics (just enough flaws to be fun)
GP-13 = Children under 13 might be tricked into thinking the physics were pretty good; parental guidance is suggested
RP = Retch
XP = Obviously physics from an unknown universe
NR = Unrated. When a movie is obviously a parody, fantasy, cartoon, or is clearly based on a comic book, it can't be rated but may still have some interesting physics worth discussing.

THE IMPACT ON ARTISTIC QUALITY
To understand when the rules (the laws of physics) should not be broken, it's best to start with the situations where they can or should be. These include cartoons, parodies, and fantasies. Even top-notch science fiction routinely stretches the boundaries of physics for the sake of story.

Time-travel is a good example of acceptable physics-bending for the sake of story. Ask ten physicists about time travel and you'll get eleven different answers, and that's with two abstaining.

The truth is nobody really knows for sure if it's possible, let alone how to do it. Without it, however, there would be no Terminator movies, a definite loss of some great cinematic moments (not to mention catchy gubernatorial campaign slogans). In The Terminator [PGP] (1984), computers/machines have developed consciousness and a need for entertainment along with it. What to do: work a few math problems-for a computer, how mundane-or kill off humanity? It's a no-brainer: kill people.

Unfortunately, those irascible humans are unenthusiastic about extinction. A human leader steps forward and pulls together an effective resistance movement.To remedy this affront, the machines send a terminator-a metal robot covered with living tissue (Arnold
Schwarzenegger)-back in time to assassinate the resistance leader's mother and snuff the movement before it starts.The humans, somehow, get wind of the plot and send back one of their own to protect the mother. Both protector and terminator arrive naked since, according to the movie, anything nonliving has to be surrounded by living tissue in order to be transported backwards through time. (Evidently hair, dead skin, and fingernails are the exception.)

Okay, the business about having to surround metal with living tissue and only send naked people back in time has no scientific basis, but it's necessary for the film's central conflict. If the human could carry a futuristic weapon, he could easily blow away the terminator and spoil the fun. Instead, he's a rabbit desperately trying to avoid the jaws of a bloodthirsty wolf in possibly the highest intensity chase ever filmed.

The nakedness also taps into the deepest levels of the human psyche. Imagine arriving naked, not just at work or school but in an entirely different era. The moviemakers do the arrival scene right: they depict a gray area of physics, time travel, with a minimum of scientific mumbo-jumbo and considerable artistic purpose. It's another matter to defy well-established physics principles for no good reason. Any bright high school physics student (probably not a target audience) can easily spot such foolishness. Many people feel it-like an annoying itch-even when they have no physics background whatsoever. They may not be able to verbalize reasons but have experienced gravity, velocity, acceleration, force, and energy firsthand their entire lives. Individuals with military experience-shooting guns, setting off explosives, flying helicopters-are especially cranky about the itch. Here's a scary thought: in spite of physics' reputation for difficulty, it's really not all that hard to learn; verbalizing soon follows.

Customer Reviews

A Great Book Full of Scientific Common Sense
When people think of physics, they often think with horror about its more abstract sub-disciplines such as quantum mechanics, relativity, elementary particles, cosmology, etc. As a result, many people shy away from this most basic of sciences. But one thing that this book makes perfectly clear is that much of what we see in everyday life is easily explainable (or analyzable) using the elementary physics that one learns in late high school and perhaps early university courses. Using this most basic physics, the author has done an absolutely superb job of dissecting the scientific credibility of modern movies using the scalpel of Newtonian physics and the laws of thermodynamics. The movies discussed are action/adventure/science fiction/fantasy-type movies, i.e., movies that are more prone to stretching and outright breaking the basic laws of physics for the benefit of added spectacular effects. Equations are included throughout but in special boxes for those who are more technically inclined. The writing style is very clear, most engaging and very tongue-in-cheek (even hilarious) when discussing matters related to the scientific literacy of Hollywood movie makers. This book can be enjoyed by everyone; however, it will likely be most enjoyed by science buffs and movie aficionados alike. It could also be used as an exciting complement to any basic physics courses.

Movies & Physics--A Great Combination
As a physics teacher who often used movies and TV to point out the ridiculous scientific mistakes that were common in the media, this book makes a great resource. Mr. Rogers does a good job pointing out the "insultingly stupid" physics that can quickly spoil a movie. Anyone with an interest in physics and the movies would be amiss not to have this on the shelf.

Mr. Rogers does a number of good things here. First, he is quite complete and deliberate in his coverage of the major topics of mechanics. There are chapters on the various aspects of Newton's laws, kinematics, energy, momentum, rotation, gravity as well as brief dips into other areas. He earns a lot of respect for his good, scientific analysis. His chapters focusing on JFK and the collapse of the twin towers are among the best I've read on these subjects.

Wisely, he keeps the calculations offset from the main text so casual readers can skip this if they wish. Most importantly, he also has a real love and appreciation of movies. He doesn't allow his science knowledge to interfere with his enjoyment of a movie if the science isn't crucial to the story.

If there is a weakness in this book, it is that his writing is a bit workmanlike and repetitive, so reading a lot at a sitting can be a slog. But my opinion of Mr. Roger's work may be a little colored because I did a lot of similar analysis for my physics students. Still, there were many ideas in this book that I never developed myself so I was glad to have my understanding widened. This book is well worth a read.

Highly Interesting for Geeks like me!
This book examines many things that happen in movies. So, you see a guy with an automatic weapon firing for 20 seconds straight. This book lets you know the firing rate, and capacity so that it would be empty in 1.5 seconds. Also, the weight of bullets, e.g. Matrix Revolutions, at that firing rate, wheelbarrels of bullets won't do it, you need truckfulls. Besides the physics - how fast an explosion goes, versus gravity pulling our hero down to water (they always jump away from an explosion), would give him 17 inches down toward water - oops, fried. Beside the fun physics, what I remember from high school and freshman college physics is in seperate boxes (e.g. Force = Mass x Acceleration) used to give details. You can skip these if they are too dry for you - but I love the backup info. What is great about this book is that the author does not just dismiss stuff - e.g. let's say Superman can fly (given), but if he swooped in to save Lois, coming to an immediate stop, all his kinetic energy would be converted to heat - about 6000 degrees. Or Spiderman, to zip around would need about 1/3 of his body weight to be web creating fluid. Lots of great stuff covered, Star Trek inertial dampers (without they'd be pancake crew), shields in all space movies, Matrix Revolution firing, bullets knocking someone off his feet (e.g. Lethal Weapon), how much explosive to blast the asteroid in Armageddon (oh, about 1000 of the largest nuclear bombs Russia ever built), the bus jump in Speed (how it could actually happen, versus how they filmed it), etc. Lots of great movies covered, without ruining them. Clearly this author loves movies as much as I do, and yet wants to educate readers on physics so you don't try to start a gasoline puddle fire with a cigarette (highly unlikely to work - read the book and see why!). The end of each chapter has a short list of PLUS and MINUS for movies in the category - e.g. [-][-] planets that explode in a few seconds, [0] terrestrial fireballs traveling great distances at hypersonic speeds (incorrect but forgivable), [+][+] fragmentation grenades detonating without large fireballs. So each of these plus and minus relate to movies in the prior chapter, and notice the author often 'forgives' some physics because it is good for the movie/story.