Not The Onion

12172 readers

727 users here now

Welcome

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!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

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!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

313

Neil deGrasse Tyson Complains That “Dune 2” Isn’t a Shining Beacon of Scientific Accuracy (futurism.com)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

137 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (4 children)

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).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

It's just navel gazing at it's worst.

Explaining that getting to the ISS from Hubble's orbit would take way more fuel than shown in the movie Gravity is useful. It can lead to explanations of Delta-V and how far apart things are in space. That's good.

Artificially locking in the definition of the parameters to be the same as on Earth for a fictional planet just so he can say "it's wrong" is just a waste of time. It's like arguing over whether the Enterprise could fight the Death Star. It's all made up, so the answer is whatever you want it to be.

So it's not that's it's he's criticizing things for being incorrect. It's that he's making assumptions about fictional things just to say it's incorrect. It's intellectually dishonest, and there's no real point to it. Nobody is learning anything about anything real if we talk about the relationship between sand worms and how sand trout could be alerted by a nearby sound which then alerts a massive sand worm that comes around to protect it's babies.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

Shot1

Shot2

Shot3 - CGI + possible practical (the lighting on the body of BB8 changes in CGI pass but idk if that confirms they CGIed the body too)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Yeah fair enough, I just wanted to rant about CGI. hehe

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It could have been the stick puppet version, though, for which the sticks were digitally removed after filming. I don't know more about that, but it sounds like you do.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Yes many were stick puppets. Some were trikes.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So did the mechanical ball roll itself uphill?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

I was wrong. Despite the official StarWars Twitter claim they had the robot bb-8 on the dunes for filming, a documentary says the full robot version wasn't done until the red carpet. However I have found videos of a large bb-8 rolling on sand. The small toy ones cannot roll on sand. (Which isn't surprising because most toy cars can't run on sand despite full size being able to.)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago

It is how he does it, not that he does it.