{"id":3602,"date":"2009-12-18T08:36:29","date_gmt":"2009-12-18T16:36:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.discovermagazine.com\/cosmicvariance\/?p=3602"},"modified":"2013-10-07T10:03:13","modified_gmt":"2013-10-07T17:03:13","slug":"whiplash","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/preposterousuniverse.com\/blog\/2009\/12\/18\/whiplash\/","title":{"rendered":"Whiplash"},"content":{"rendered":"

My favorite example of a recent Hollywood blockbuster that scientists should like is Iron Man<\/em><\/a>. Yes, it’s implausible that a prisoner in a cave in Afghanistan could build a lethal flying suit out of scrap metal, etc. But plausibility should never be the criterion for judging a science-fiction\/fantasy scenario; sometimes you just have to bend the rules of the real world to get the required dramatic effects. Consistency, on the other hand, is crucial; the non-real world you invent should follow some set of rules, even if they veer away from the actual world. (Nobody complains that the Enterprise<\/em> travels faster than light, but there are plenty of complaints about the bizarre use of time travel in the Star Trek<\/em> franchise.)<\/p>\n

Even better is when a film does a decent job at reflecting the practice<\/em> of science. And that’s why I loved Iron Man<\/em> — the whole second act revolves around Tony Stark in his lab, engineering designs and using trial-and-error to determine experimentally what works and what doesn’t. It makes for compelling viewing, which should be a lesson to people.<\/p>\n

So we’re all excited about Iron Man 2<\/em>, right?<\/p>\n

<\/div><\/div>
<\/div>
<\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/div>