We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
Posts must be:
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
I've never understood why people get so upset when he does this. I like it when someone points out the actual physics behind something that you see in films and what was done right and wrong.
Learning that something in a movie isn't scientifically accurate doesn't ruin the movie for me. I already figured it wouldn't be entirely correct and it doesn't have to be correct (unless it's supposed to be educational).
I thought it was funny when he argued that the BB-8 droid from Star Wars broke the laws of physics because a rolling mechanical ball can't roll uphill on sand.
He didn't know that the BB-8 shown in the movie rolling up dunes was a physical robot, not CGI.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm pretty sure the BB-8 you see on film is mostly CGI. A working BB-8 prop does exist but it's more of a reference that gets covered in CGI. It's a common film technique that gets used these days and often those articles praising "no CGI" are often PR bullshit that stretches the truth because "practical effects" has become a buzzword.
I can prove a few shots of BB8 are CGI.
Shot4 - Notes in bottom left confirm
I obviously can't prove it but I would assume every BB8 shot is either entirely CGI or uses the practical robot as a reference pass. Relying on a practical robot would introduce a point of failure that could delay shots and force more takes, adding cost and time to the production. The only reason the filmmakers have to use a practical effect is to give the actors a reference, all other shots it's faster and cheaper to use CGI.
TL;DR: BB8 is mostly if not entirely CG and film companies are almost always lying when emphasizing the practical effects used in their film.
Yes much of bb-8 is cgi, but there was a video of a physical bb-8 prop rolling in sand.
When Degrasse tweeted that it was impossible, Star Wars prop artist responded with a video of the physical robot rolling on sand. I'm not going post a link to Twitter on Lemmy but you can Google it.
It is how he does it, not that he does it.
Person who's only job is science and who is an expert on science comments about the science of things and people find a way to complain about it.
Let the man die on his silly hills. It's funny and harmless. Pull the damn stick out. Perhaps go pound sand.
He who touches the grass controls the universe
Immediately after any sci-fi movie comes out:
Internet: hey sciencey person, how accurate was the science?
Sciencey person: not.
Internet: surprisedPikachuface.jpg
My bitch with him is he’ll say the most stoner ass thing in the most smug way possible like it’s some insight from god.
I feel like people take these way too seriously, like some of these comments sound like it's personal. Its just a movie/book series if some one wants to poke some fun then just let em.
It's a scifi series, If in their universe sands can pass vibrations for a long range, they are welcome to do whatever they want.
Oh really? There's no space drug shat out by giant worms that will give me omnipotence? Thanks Neil, I was confused about that.
To be fair, we don't know that doesn't exist somewhere
Oh man why does he get off so much on being a complete fuckin boob