Jump to content

Hollywood Science: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
top: ButlerBlogBot 2: date formats + general fixes for {{Infobox television}}, {{Episode list}}, & {{Series overview}};...
 
(22 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|BBC TV programme}}
<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the discussion has been closed. -->
{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2023}}
{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Hollywood Science|timestamp=20211202022602|year=2021|month=December|day=2|substed=yes|help=off}}
{{more footnotes needed|date=December 2021}}
<!-- Once discussion is closed, please place on talk page: {{Old AfD multi|page=Hollywood Science|date=2 December 2021|result='''keep'''}} -->
{{Use British English|date=December 2021}}
<!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->
{{Infobox television
{{unreferenced|date=April 2015}}
| country = United Kingdom
{{Use dmy dates|date=November 2012}}
| company = [[BBC]]
| network = [[BBC Two]]
| first_aired = {{Start date|2001|05|10|df=yes}}
}}
'''''Hollywood Science''''' is an [[Open University]] TV programme produced for the [[BBC]], which attempted to determine whether or not scenes in various films were scientifically credible. In the show, presenter [[Robert Llewellyn]] and scientist Jonathan Hare look at the science behind a scene in a film. They experiment or perform calculations, to see how the scene would work in real life. The scene is then given an accuracy rating. The approach is similar to that of the [[Phil Plait|Bad Astronomer]], who also uses films as a vehicle to teach science. The presence of Robert Llewellyn means the tone of the show is fairly light-hearted.


The show started in the [[BBC Learning Zone]], a section of education programming broadcast in the early morning, meant to be recorded and watched later. It was then given a higher profile programming slot on [[BBC Two|BBC2]] in the early evening. The programme is currently repeated on [[UKTV Documentary]].
'''Hollywood Science''' is a general term given to the phenomenon of scientific principles being misinterpreted, ignored or abused by the [[Hollywood]] film industry.


The series formed the basis of a Jonathan Hare lecture at [[Hull University]] in 2008.<ref>[https://www.rsc.org/events/detail/2049/hollywood-science-jonathan-hare-lecture "Events: Hollywood Science, Jonathan Hare lecture"], Royal Society of Chemistry, retrieved 2 July 2022.</ref>
The term has given rise to a number of television programmes which endeavour to expose whether phenomena seen in films can be replicated.


== BBC series (2001–02) ==
== Episodes ==


=== Series 1 ===
''Hollywood Science'' was an [[Open University]] [[Television program|TV programme]] produced for the [[BBC]], which attempted to determine whether or not scenes in various [[film]]s were [[science|scientifically]] credible.
The first series of six ten-minute episodes premiered in the Open University's Learning Zone on BBC2 at 12:30 from 10 May 2001.

In the show, presenter [[Robert Llewellyn]], with the assistance of scientist [[Jonathan Hare]], look at the science behind a scene in a film. They experiment or perform calculations, to see how the scene would work in real life. The scene is then given an accuracy rating.

The approach is similar to that of the [[Phil Plait|Bad Astronomer]], who also uses films as a vehicle to teach science.

The presence of Robert Llewellyn means the tone of the show is fairly light-hearted.

The show started in the [[BBC]]'s [[Learning Zone]], a section of education programming broadcast in the early morning, meant to be recorded and watched later. It was then given a higher profile programming slot on [[BBC Two|BBC2]] in the early evening. The programme is currently repeated on [[UKTV Documentary]].

=== Episodes ===

==== First series ====
The first series of six ten-minute episodes premiered in the Open University's Learning Zone on BBC2 at 12:30 from [[Thursday 10 May 2001]].


Each of these episodes concentrated on the science of a single film.
Each of these episodes concentrated on the science of a single film.

* [[Shanghai Noon]]
* [[Shanghai Noon]]
* [[Dante's Peak]]
* [[Dante's Peak]]
Line 36: Line 28:
* [[Speed (1994 film)|Speed]]
* [[Speed (1994 film)|Speed]]


==== Second series ====
=== Series 2 ===
The second series consisted of four half-hour episodes. <!-- and premiered on BBC at TIME on DATE!-->
The second series consisted of four half-hour episodes. <!-- and premiered on BBC at TIME on DATE!-->


'''Break-Ins'''
"Break-Ins"
* [[The Score (2001 film)|The Score]] - If one fills a safe with water, will an explosion produce a more powerful door-busting effect?
* [[The Score (2001 film)|The Score]] If one fills a safe with water, will an explosion produce a more powerful door-busting effect?
* [[Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves]] - Could a mediaeval [[trebuchet]] fire Robin Hood and Will Scarlet into a castle, and land them on target?
* [[Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves]] Could a medieval [[trebuchet]] fire Robin Hood and Will Scarlet into a castle, and land them on target?
* [[The Thomas Crown Affair (1999 film)|The Thomas Crown Affair]] - Would knocking out the air conditioning cause [[Infrared|Infra-Red]] cameras to become useless?
* [[The Thomas Crown Affair (1999 film)|The Thomas Crown Affair]] Would knocking out the air conditioning cause [[InfraRed]] cameras to become useless?


'''Gross Out'''
"Gross Out"
* [[Waterworld]] - Is it possible to sufficiently purify one's own urine to be able to drink it?
* [[Waterworld]] Is it possible to sufficiently purify one's own urine to be able to drink it? The team concluded that the film was portraying a [[reverse osmosis]] process with a realistic looking unit.
* [[Fight Club (film)|Fight Club]] - Can high quality soap be made from liposuction fat?
* [[Fight Club (film)|Fight Club]] Can high quality soap be made from liposuction fat? The team succeeded in making soap from pig fat, but it was not top quality soap.
* [[The Great Outdoors (1988 film)|The Great Outdoors]] - Could someone eat a 96-ounce steak?
* [[The Great Outdoors (1988 film)|The Great Outdoors]] Could someone eat a 96-ounce steak? The team concluded that this amount of meat would not fit in a human stomach, and thus gave it the "least plausible" award for the episode.


'''Tricky Situations'''
"Tricky Situations"
* [[Deep Blue Sea (1999 film)|Deep Blue Sea]] - Is it possible to be surrounded by electricity and water without being electrocuted?
* [[Deep Blue Sea (1999 film)|Deep Blue Sea]] Is it possible to be surrounded by electricity and water without being electrocuted?
* [[The Last Castle]] - How far can a water cannon fire a grappling iron?
* [[The Last Castle]] How far can a water cannon fire a grappling iron?
* [[A View to a Kill]] - Can one survive underwater by breathing the air from a car tyre?
* [[A View to a Kill]] Can one survive underwater by breathing the air from a car tyre?


'''Escapes'''
"Escapes"
* [[Chain Reaction (1996 film)|Chain Reaction]] - Could a hydrogen gas cylinder move a concrete slab?
* [[Chain Reaction (1996 film)|Chain Reaction]] Could a hydrogen gas cylinder move a concrete slab? The team concluded it could, but probably not enough to allow escape and with a great risk of explosion.
* [[Escape from Alcatraz (film)|Escape from Alcatraz]] - Can one braze together a spoon and some nail clippers using a US dime, and some matches?
* [[Escape from Alcatraz (film)|Escape from Alcatraz]] Can one braze together a spoon and some nail clippers using a US dime, and some matches? After initial failure, the team concluded they needed a pre-1960s dime for its high silver content. Although they then succeeded in melting the dime, they failed to make a solid joint, largely due to the lack of [[Flux (metallurgy)|flux]]. They also could not generate sufficient heat from matches, the heat source portrayed in the film.
* [[Hollow Man]] - Would you be able to move a metal bolt using a hand-made electromagnet?
* [[Hollow Man]] Would you be able to move a metal bolt using a hand-made electromagnet? While this may be possible with good electromagnets, the team concluded the power source used in the film (a [[defibrillator]]) would be too feeble to do the job. This film was given the "least plausible" award of the episode.
<!-- Not in the 2nd series -->
<!-- Not in the 2nd series -->
<!-- * [[Die Hard]] - Would you survive a fall from a building, with the use of a firehose as a bungee? -->
<!-- * [[Die Hard]] Would you survive a fall from a building, with the use of a firehose as a bungee? -->


== See also ==
== National Geographic series (2006) ==
* [[MythBusters]]; an Australian/American television show in which [[myth]]s, [[urban legend]]s, [[common misconceptions]] and the like are scientifically tested, checked, researched and evaluated; often features cases/examples from Hollywood movies.


==References==
In 2006 the [[National Geographic Channel (UK)|National Geographic Channel]] began broadcasting an hour long series with similar premise to the BBC series.
{{Reflist}}

Classified into episodes with various themes such as ''[[Spy Gadgets]]'', ''[[Car Chases]]'', ''Amazing Vehicles'' and the like, the episodes combine footage from the films and television series they analyze with footage of similar real-life objects and opinions from experts on the subjects covered. The screenwriters, producers and directors (among them [[James Cameron]], [[Doug Liman]] and [[Frank Marshall (movie producer)|Frank Marshall]]) also offer their perspective on the realism showcased in their productions.

Unlike the BBC series, however, the shows do not feature specific tests of the scientific principles in the films or television programs, nor are they hosted (just narrated), but rather use the statements of experts as well as real life footage to prove their point. The series is also more serious than its BBC counterpart, but does have its light-hearted moments in the form of witty anecdotes from its guests.

The productions featured in the episodes include ''[[Dante's Peak]]'', various [[James Bond]] films, ''[[Enemy of the State (film)|Enemy of the State]]'', ''[[The Conversation]]'', ''[[Minority Report (film)|Minority Report]]'', ''[[I, Robot (film)|I, Robot]]'', ''[[True Lies]]'', ''[[10.5 (TV miniseries)|10.5]]'', ''[[Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film)|Mr. & Mrs. Smith]]'' and ''[[24 (TV Series)|24]]'', among many others. Security systems, tracking devices, futuristic vehicles and fictional disasters from these shows are examined.

The series was created and produced by [[Prometheus Entertainment]] and [[Fox Television Studios]] for [[National Geographic Channel]]. The Executive Producer was Emmy Award-winning filmmaker [[Kevin Burns]].

== See also ==
*[[MythBusters]]; an Australian/American television show in which [[myth]]s, [[urban legend]]s, [[common misconceptions]] and the like are scientifically tested, checked, researched and evaluated; often features cases/examples from Hollywood movies.


==External links==
==External links==
*[http://www.open2.net/hollywoodscience/index.html BBC series website]
* [http://www.open2.net/hollywoodscience/index.html BBC series website]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20050815000425/http://badastronomy.com/ The Bad Astronomer]
*[http://www.llew.co.uk/hollywoodscience/ Robert Llewellyn's Hollywood Science]
* [http://www.creative-science.org.uk/ Jonathan Hare's Creative Science Center]
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20050815000425/http://badastronomy.com/ The Bad Astronomer]
*[http://www.creative-science.org.uk/ Jonathan Hare's Creative Science Center]
* [http://www.vega.org.uk/ Jonathan Hare's work with the Vega Science Trust] Freeview Science Programmes.
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20070927035509/http://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/explore/hollywood/ Hollywood Science at National Geographic Channel's website]
*[http://www.vega.org.uk/ Jonathan Hare's work with the Vega Science Trust] Freeview Science Programmes.
* [http://www.berfrois.com/2011/06/david-kirby-hulk-smash-accurate-science/ "The Role of Scientific Integrity in Cinematic Science"], David A. Kirby, ''[http://www.berfrois.com/ Berfrois]'', 14 June 2011
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20070927035509/http://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/explore/hollywood/ Hollywood Science at National Geographic Channel's website]
*[http://www.berfrois.com/2011/06/david-kirby-hulk-smash-accurate-science/ "The Role of Scientific Integrity in Cinematic Science"], David A. Kirby, ''[http://www.berfrois.com/ Berfrois]'', 14 June 2011


[[Category:National Geographic (American TV channel) original programming]]
[[Category:BBC Two original programming]]
[[Category:BBC Television shows]]
[[Category:Scientific skepticism mass media]]

Latest revision as of 12:26, 25 February 2024

Hollywood Science
Country of originUnited Kingdom
Production
Production companyBBC
Original release
NetworkBBC Two
Release10 May 2001 (2001-05-10)

Hollywood Science is an Open University TV programme produced for the BBC, which attempted to determine whether or not scenes in various films were scientifically credible. In the show, presenter Robert Llewellyn and scientist Jonathan Hare look at the science behind a scene in a film. They experiment or perform calculations, to see how the scene would work in real life. The scene is then given an accuracy rating. The approach is similar to that of the Bad Astronomer, who also uses films as a vehicle to teach science. The presence of Robert Llewellyn means the tone of the show is fairly light-hearted.

The show started in the BBC Learning Zone, a section of education programming broadcast in the early morning, meant to be recorded and watched later. It was then given a higher profile programming slot on BBC2 in the early evening. The programme is currently repeated on UKTV Documentary.

The series formed the basis of a Jonathan Hare lecture at Hull University in 2008.[1]

Episodes

[edit]

Series 1

[edit]

The first series of six ten-minute episodes premiered in the Open University's Learning Zone on BBC2 at 12:30 from 10 May 2001.

Each of these episodes concentrated on the science of a single film.

Series 2

[edit]

The second series consisted of four half-hour episodes.

"Break-Ins"

"Gross Out"

  • Waterworld – Is it possible to sufficiently purify one's own urine to be able to drink it? The team concluded that the film was portraying a reverse osmosis process with a realistic looking unit.
  • Fight Club – Can high quality soap be made from liposuction fat? The team succeeded in making soap from pig fat, but it was not top quality soap.
  • The Great Outdoors – Could someone eat a 96-ounce steak? The team concluded that this amount of meat would not fit in a human stomach, and thus gave it the "least plausible" award for the episode.

"Tricky Situations"

  • Deep Blue Sea – Is it possible to be surrounded by electricity and water without being electrocuted?
  • The Last Castle – How far can a water cannon fire a grappling iron?
  • A View to a Kill – Can one survive underwater by breathing the air from a car tyre?

"Escapes"

  • Chain Reaction – Could a hydrogen gas cylinder move a concrete slab? The team concluded it could, but probably not enough to allow escape and with a great risk of explosion.
  • Escape from Alcatraz – Can one braze together a spoon and some nail clippers using a US dime, and some matches? After initial failure, the team concluded they needed a pre-1960s dime for its high silver content. Although they then succeeded in melting the dime, they failed to make a solid joint, largely due to the lack of flux. They also could not generate sufficient heat from matches, the heat source portrayed in the film.
  • Hollow Man – Would you be able to move a metal bolt using a hand-made electromagnet? While this may be possible with good electromagnets, the team concluded the power source used in the film (a defibrillator) would be too feeble to do the job. This film was given the "least plausible" award of the episode.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Events: Hollywood Science, Jonathan Hare lecture", Royal Society of Chemistry, retrieved 2 July 2022.
[edit]