Student’s name
Instructor
Course
Date
Bad Science in a movie
In life, each individual gets an opportunity to watch movies in different platforms. Movie directors, in many instances, employ various techniques to attain the enormous viewership. Many a time some happenings apply bad science. Generally, lousy science is where the producers misuse the science facts to get the audience in buying with their thoughts or making the happening to look better than how it actually is. In this paper, a review on how Richard Donner applies bad science in his 1978 film, Superman is discussed with the various ways that this bad science can be fixed.
In this movie, Christopher Reeve is the starring character as the man of steel. The film shows the life of an alien orphan that is sent from his dying planet to planet earth (Donner, Min. 3). On planet earth, he is adopted where he grows to become a superhero. There are various instances of bad science. Firstly, bad science is applied through his flying ability. When he flies, he seems to throw himself, and just like that, he is off. It is against the principle of aerodynamics. The movie suggests that Reeve can generate acceleration by himself. I suppose that the act can be corrected by putting emphasis on the role that his mass and the inertia force have towards acceleration. There should back blasting of air before the flying is made complete. Through this, I would fix it.
Secondly, on the screen, we watch Superman accelerate beyond the speed of light and then turning around and accelerating in the opposite direction below the speed of light. The creation is scientifically wrong since the ordinary matter will not be in the position of managing to travel at the speed of light. The scientific principle of relativity precludes this scenario. As per relativity, as the speed of an object increases, the object gets shorter as well as massive. The energy required is immense. The scene can be rectified by defining well that the indestructible nature of Superman can ignore relativistic mechanisms by telling the audience much more on krypton (Watkins, 333).
Thirdly, as the plot develops, there is a scientific problem created when Reeve travels back in time. As he goes to save Lois, there is a paradox that is created. Either he is moving back in time or living in parallel universes (Thorne et al., 1815). The act of time traveling minus any aid of a time machine leaves the application of science in this part as wrongful. The use is against mechanics and precisely the motions. The traveling made in the movie lacks any time machine. I think the fault can be rectified through an introduction of a time machine, most specifically the flux capacitor. The plot development would all have been easier without any scientific questionings.
Additionally, there is also an issue in his saving of Lois Lane from falling. By zooming and grabbing Lois midair, it is a violation of trajectory motions. As per the Newtonian gravity, I suppose the zooming and grabbing are too exaggerated. As per the first law of Newton, the body would be accelerating than what is shown. In reality, the slowing would have been gradual. The way I would fix this is by introducing a step-by-step rescue process and not this instant one. Lastly, other violations of science include his use of X-Rayy vision. The eyes would not have been in position of perceiving the radiation from that object unless an object that is emitting from behind.
To sum up, there are ways through which bad science is applied in this movie. An engine falls off the plane, and Superman quickly goes to its rescue. As he places himself under the wing to take the position of that missing engine (Donner, min.82), he violates the third law of Newton on the motion. The film supposes that he develops a thrust, an instance that I think can be possible through the presence of an ejecting material backwards. It is in these happenings that scientific principles have been misused in this Superman movie directed by Richard Donner.
Works Cited
Donner, Richard. “Superman 1978 Christopher Reeve – How Much Do You Like The Movie?. Youtube, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYucO3o5DyA.
Thorne, Kip S., and James B. Hartle. “Laws of motion and precession for black holes and other bodies.” Physical Review D 31.8 (1985): 1815.
Watkins, Eric. “The laws of motion from Newton to Kant.” Perspectives on Science 5 (1997): 311-348.