Blooper in film. :D

[D.A.V.E]

As this thread has progressed.. its dawned on me that I have misread the term "blooper"... I thought that was something like.. "you can see a boom-mic"... or "You can see the strings..." where did I go wrong?

[Moorkey]

I think those of us who replied to this thread perceived it as thread to point out things we saw that were wrong/confusing/absurd about the movie (plot holes, helicopters without landing gear, the whole snow-no snow-snow argument).

Maybe our perception of the definition of 'blooper' is a bit different than the accepted norm.

[Lensman]

emyr said:

when you have films such as Battlefield Earth that shows 'cavemen' using simulators and learning to pilot Harrier jets, then it takes the mickey.

Oh, yes indeed. I did have a slight difficulty (cough, cough) with believing that a group of illiterate savages could learn to be effective combat pilots in just a week using a single simulator. Not to mention the idea that after 1000 years sitting in a cave, present-day fighter jets would still be in good working order and not need any major maintenance or replacement parts. Pretty good rubber they were using in those tires... ;D

A movie which pummels my willing suspension of disbelief as savagely as did "Battlefield Earth" causes that suspension to die rather quickly. But then, I consider BE to be one of the very worst theatrically released films of all times... every bit as bad as the book it was based on.

[Lensman]

emyr said:

it is suggested that a construct such as a Farraday Cage would provide at least some protection. Apparently the US Military has done some tests with 'EMP simulators' with cars. They found that cars generally were more resistant to EMP, because the metal shell is insulated by rubber tires.

I think you're confusing protection from lightning with protection from an EMP pulse. A Faraday cage-- essentially a cage of metal bars which deflects lightning bolts-- is sufficient to protect against lightning, and indeed if you're inside a car and not touching any part of the metal frame you're protected against lightning, both because the car frame acts as a Faraday cage and also because the car is insulated from the ground by its rubber tires.

But EMP works differently. I've seen it explicityly stated that a Faraday cage will *not* protect against EMP pulse; the electromagnetic particles sail right thru the gaps in the metal bars. To protect against EMP pulse you need a metal box completely covering the electronics on all sides, and the electronics inside must be completely isolated from the outside. Any antenna or wire long enuff to act as an antenna outside the metal box will conduct the EMP energy to the electronics inside. Clearly any car with a radio antenna is vulnerable. The metal sheeting on cars would provide some protection, but I seriously doubt it would be enuff to stop a powerful EMP pulse; there are too many large openings in the car's metal "shell", such as window glass and the front grille.

The rubber tires insulating a car from the ground might lessen the vulnerability to EMP a bit, but since planes in flight are vulnerable to EMP, it seems clear that a lack of grounding at best only offers partial protection against EMP.

[Lensman]

moorkey said:

Maybe our perception of the definition of 'blooper' is a bit different than the accepted norm.

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines "blooper" merely as "an embarrasing public blunder." That's certainly vague enuff to cover anything we're discussing here. Check out the "goofs" section at any movie listing on IMDb.com; you'll see the goofs sorted into categories such as continuity errors, equipment/crew visible in frame, factual errors, etc.

Traditionally, film "blooper reels" included actors blowing their lines, tripping and other physical mishaps, as well as mike booms and other equipment being visible in the picture frame, and crew or their shadows being "seen" by the camera. Perhaps plot holes and factual errors don't belong in the same category with such bloopers, so I can see your point. But there doesn't seem to be any good reason to limit our discussion in this thread.

That's my 2 cents, anyway.

[<[Iron Man]>]

lensman said:

I think you're confusing protection from lightning with protection from an EMP pulse. A Faraday cage-- essentially a cage of metal bars which deflects lightning bolts-- is sufficient to protect against lightning, and indeed if you're inside a car and not touching any part of the metal frame you're protected against lightning, both because the car frame acts as a Faraday cage and also because the car is insulated from the ground by its rubber tires.

Yep i should have elaborated further. Although in my defense i did state the following..

emyr said:

I read that a Faraday cage may be a more ideal way of protecting sensitive equipment. Apparently as long as the contents aren't touching the inside surface of the box and are insulated then in theory they would be safe, but who knows.

emyr said:

Obviously if a computer or sensitive electronics were stored in such boxes/cases then they must not touch the metallic interior, or not be encased in a way in which an EMP wave could connect to and damage the components. So if you had a chipboard, then some form of insulator or non-conducting material would need to act as a 'buffer' in my opinion.

emyr said:

So in essence the principle of the Faraday Cage is adequate, except you need total instead of partial protection. This in my view is why vehicles have been fairly resistant in EMP simulators run by the U.S Military. Since the frame and bonnet/hood acts somewhat as protection.

Should've concentrated on remembering the things i said . Nevermind!

lensman said:

The metal sheeting on cars would provide some protection, but I seriously doubt it would be enuff to stop a powerful EMP pulse; there are too many large openings in the car's metal "shell", such as window glass and the front grille.

In one of my earlier posts i stated..

emyr said:

There's also some information on tests conducted on cars by the US Military using 'EMP Simulators'. Which showed contrary to peoples belief that Cars/Vehicles were more resistant against EMP. One idea may be that the vehicle itself is a sort of Faraday Cage/Box being made of Metal, and that the Rubber tires act as insulators against the ground. This doesn't make them 100% EMP proof but more resistant apparently.

lensman said:

The rubber tires insulating a car from the ground might lessen the vulnerability to EMP a bit, but since planes in flight are vulnerable to EMP, it seems clear that a lack of grounding at best only offers partial protection against EMP.

Although the Military wouldn't just rely on the physical construct of the vehicle to withstand EMP. The Military would 'harden' their more vulnerable and sensitive systems. Perhaps by placing aluminium foil, 'boxing' in components and insulating them from any metallic suface. Here's something i found..

Sabritec's filter connectors are used on most major military aircraft programs in the U.S. and Europe

Applications
Military:

*
cockpit Upgrades
*
Navigation Systems
*
Power Control Units
*
Avionics Systems
*
Missiles
*
Ruggedized Computer Systems


From this site..

www.sabritec.com/products/filterconnectors.htm

Also..

Transient voltage suppressors (transorbs) integrated into the connector offer EMP transient protection to sensitive circuitry. JANTX level or equivalent diode reliability screening is available

From here..

www.sabritec.com/technotes/emisuppression.htm

Just gives you an idea of how some of the components are protected.

This site looked promising, but it seems to be missing!

mae.pennnet.com/whitepapers/wp.cfm?id=146

Found this site on EMP ship protection..

www.seepa.com/

Just a few of many components but it makes a difference.

Hope that helps

[Lensman]

emyr said:

In one of my earlier posts i stated..

7/15/05 at 17:54, <[Iron Man]> wrote:
There's also some information on tests conducted on cars by the US Military using 'EMP Simulators'. Which showed contrary to peoples belief that Cars/Vehicles were more resistant against EMP. One idea may be that the vehicle itself is a sort of Faraday Cage/Box being made of Metal, and that the Rubber tires act as insulators against the ground. This doesn't make them 100% EMP proof but more resistant apparently.

Sorry, my bad. I made the mistake of misapplying a general rule to a specific case. Makes me wonder why airplanes are so vulnerable if cars are resistant. Maybe that's just what happens in the movies, not in reality, but I thought I had read elsewhere that planes were quite vulnerable to EMP.

I admit I'm puzzled as to why a car's antenna would not conduct enuff EMP to cause problems. But maybe it's dissipated in the radio and doesn't travel thru to more important electronics. I'm just guessing out loud here, tho.

I know modern military vehicles have more protection vs. EMP than civilian vehicles do, but I have no idea to what degree. That's probably classified anyway.

[<[Iron Man]>]

lensman said:

Sorry, my bad. I made the mistake of misapplying a general rule to a specific case. Makes me wonder why airplanes are so vulnerable if cars are resistant. Maybe that's just what happens in the movies, not in reality, but I thought I had read elsewhere that planes were quite vulnerable to EMP.

No worries mate . I just didn't want to make an arse of me by contradicting myself lol. Thing to remember is that an aircraft is more complex than a car. It has many more sophisticated equipment, which in turn is more sensitive. Therefore there would be more exposed spots. As you said, films don't always get it right. So people tend to make assumptions based on what they see in films!

lensman said:

I admit I'm puzzled as to why a car's antenna would not conduct enuff EMP to cause problems. But maybe it's dissipated in the radio and doesn't travel thru to more important electronics. I'm just guessing out loud here, tho.

Hmm..well it does depend on the strength of the EMP. There also could be such factors as a vehicle being in a sheltered area? Underground parking or garage? Perhaps some vehicles are better 'shielded' than others. Or have less electronics. I'm the same as you here, just guessing in the dark.

lensman said:

I know modern military vehicles have more protection vs. EMP than civilian vehicles do, but I have no idea to what degree. That's probably classified anyway.

The thing is, with armoured vehicles like the M1A2 Abrams & M109A6 Paladin. They're designed with NBC (Nuclear, Biological & Chemical) protection. So you'd imagine a vehicle that's supposed to withstand a nuclear blast (within safe limits i'd imagine) to still be able to operate. In this instance survival is key. Which means the vehicle would need to be operational, so that it could get away from the fallout zone.

[jeffwaynefan]

redweed2 said:

As this thread has progressed.. its dawned on me that I have misread the term "blooper"... I thought that was something like.. "you can see a boom-mic"... or "You can see the strings..." where did I go wrong?

Well, that's how this thread started out in life, but with the enormous amount of aneraks popping up with magnifying glasses still stuck to there eye shouting "that FORD right there is 5 inches away from the curb, when in the last shot it was only 4 inches away, I found a bonified blooper".

[D.A.V.E]

jeffwaynefan said:

redweed2 said:

As this thread has progressed.. its dawned on me that I have misread the term "blooper"... I thought that was something like.. "you can see a boom-mic"... or "You can see the strings..." where did I go wrong?

Well, that's how this thread started out in life, but with the enormous amount of aneraks popping up with magnifying glasses still stuck to there eye shouting "that FORD right there is 5 inches away from the curb, when in the last shot it was only 4 inches away, I found a bonified blooper".

lol! It's a shame I don't pay "that" much attention when im watching....

[Lensman]

jeffwaynefan said:

with the enormous amount of aneraks popping up with magnifying glasses still stuck to there eye shouting "that FORD right there is 5 inches away from the curb, when in the last shot it was only 4 inches away, I found a bonified blooper".

No joke! When my movie group showed "Jurassic Park" a couple of weeks ago, I printed out IMDb's "goofs" listing. I went off to do sommat else and when I returned I was stunned at the stack of paper in the "out" bin of my printer! Among the so-called "goofs" on the many pages were such gems as "placement of fingers between shots". Umm... gee whiz, I guess that means we're watching a *movie* and not a *documentary*. Talk about people who need to get a life! No way would I consider this a "goof", but rather a normal part of movie-making.

[<[Iron Man]>]

lensman said:

jeffwaynefan said:

with the enormous amount of aneraks popping up with magnifying glasses still stuck to there eye shouting "that FORD right there is 5 inches away from the curb, when in the last shot it was only 4 inches away, I found a bonified blooper".

No joke! When my movie group showed "Jurassic Park" a couple of weeks ago, I printed out IMDb's "goofs" listing. I went off to do sommat else and when I returned I was stunned at the stack of paper in the "out" bin of my printer! Among the so-called "goofs" on the many pages were such gems as "placement of fingers between shots". Umm... gee whiz, I guess that means we're watching a *movie* and not a *documentary*. Talk about people who need to get a life! No way would I consider this a "goof", but rather a normal part of movie-making.

Lol yeah you do get those.

Although confession time, most of my gripes tend to be of Military accuracy lol (obviously). One of the weirdest is with films like Godzilla. With Apache gunships they have 'twin cannons' instead of the mounted one. Or they have a non-existent tank instead of the M1 Abrams lol.

Yet they have existing unchanged vehicles like the Humvee. Now i know that is nitpicking to the extreme ..however my point with it is why change an existing model? Surely it's easier to copy and model what exists, rather than change something like how many guns or whatever. I can't quite see the logic.

Surprisingly the Hulk is a film with almost total accuracy, in terms of explosions and vehicles.

Anyway we have our guilty pleasures

[Moorkey]

redweed2 said:

jeffwaynefan said:

Well, that's how this thread started out in life, but with the enormous amount of aneraks popping up with magnifying glasses still stuck to there eye shouting "that FORD right there is 5 inches away from the curb, when in the last shot it was only 4 inches away, I found a bonified blooper".

I agree. When a blooper (in the sense of snow one shot, not in the next shot, helicopters minus landing gear, or unfeasibly small aircraft)is blatant enough to stand out, its understandable. When you watch a movie freeze frame after freeze frame, LOOKING for errors, well, that gos a bit too far in my eyes. Besides, isn't someone employed by the studio to do this?

[jeffwaynefan]

Bloopers are a ever day part of life for film making. When you involve such a large amount of people with the film being made over a period of time, mistakes will always go unoticed.

One good example of a mistake going unoticed was the script to this film ;D

[Moorkey]

AMEN!