Top 10 biggest tech flaws in films

1 of 10

Posted on 9 Apr 2010 at 12:59

There's a lot you can forgive in films. In order to keep the plot moving along, you have to leave realism at the door at some point. However, there's a big difference between a bit of artistic licence and wholesale nonsense that gets a lazy script writer out of a plot dead-end he's penned himself into. The worst example of this has to be the way that Hollywood treats computers, 'sexing' them up to ridiculous levels.

Here's our top 10 list, with two notable exceptions. First, we haven't listed Hackers, as it's so incredibly awful that it transcends this; secondly, we haven't listed Jurassic Park, as the computer being used is a Unix system. [and we know Unix!! - Ed.]

10. Lawnmower Man (1992)

In this film Pierce Brosnan plays Dr. Lawrence Angelo, an expert in virtual reality. He begins using the technology to help Jobe Smith (Jeff Fahey), the guy who cuts lawns, improve his intelligence. Soon, Jobe's learning Latin in an hour-and-a-half.

So far, we can live with it, but then the film takes a turn for the ridiculous. First, Jobe starts to develop telekinetic powers, then he has sex in virtual reality, which is just beyond believable. Finally, Jobe starts to believe that his final stage of evolution will be becoming pure energy and live in a mainframe computer.

It's all, obviously, complete and utter rubbish. A more realistic version of virtual reality would have featured Jobe being forced to wear some ridiculously heavy headwear, which allowed him to see a poorly-generated and boring 3D world derived entirely of triangles badly-stitched together into rubbish-looking objects. The flicking screens in the headset would most likely give him a headache, too.

9. Avatar (2009)

It may have been revolutionary in terms of the technology used to bring the film to the big screen, but the use of computers is a little bizarre. We're supposed to believe that the technology exists for people to transport their consciousness into 7ft-tall smurfahontases (N'avi), controlling them in real time. For the sake of argument, we'll go with it.

However, the climax of the film involves the humans having to attack the tree of life, which is an area where technology doesn't work properly. As a result, the only thing that the humans can do is fly incredibly slowly towards it, waiting until they're directly overhead in order to manually drop their bombs (which for some reason have to be pushed out the back of the cargo bay by hand).

Surely, if the area stops technology working properly, they wouldn't be able to fly there? If they can fly, why not nuke the place from orbit? Why couldn't the humans just fly higher and use manual bomb sites to drop their payload (a bit like bombers in WWII)?

Assuming there are answers to all of these questions, the one thing that doesn't make sense is that the good guys move their trailer full of Avatar equipment into the no-technology zone to avoid being detected. Surely that would also render the technology that allows them to transmit their brains useless? At best, controlling an Avatar in this zone should be about as smooth as playing multi-player Call of Duty: Modern Warfare on a netbook over a dial-up connection.

1 2 3 4 5

Get more reviews, tutorials and in-depth advice, every month with Computer Shopper.
Click here to try 3 issues for £1

< Previous News : General Next >

User comments

I do think some of those points are a bit unfair

With the Terminator series for instance, the time line of Reese going back in time to be John's father makes sense as its a circular timeline not a linear one, e.g reese goes back in time, impregnates Sarah, Sarah has John, John sends Reese back in time and round and round again continually making it a circular timeline, if any one of those events doesn't happen though like Reese getting killed before sleeping with Sarah then there is a paradox. Makes sense to me.
The issue with the Terminator being 6'2" and muscular also makes sense as there are several models of Terminator so that they can fit one in all sorts of places, the T-1000 for instance looks much more ordinary and would fit in with others who are not tall muscular guys whilst the T-100 (Arnie) would fit in with them.
The point about the T-1000 being able to replicate humans but not complex machines is simple - it only replicates the outside image of a person and overlays it on top of itself whilst morphing to their outside shape.

With Avartar, the reason the bomber is flying slowly is simple. Its said by the scientist who the good guys leave behind as a spy that 'their converting the shuttle into a bomber' so thats why it flys slow. Also the point about the bombs being pushed out the back is wrong as well because thats how real life hugh bombs like the Daisy Cutter and MOAB are dropped, out of the back of a C-130 cargo plane at mid altitude so it can float down with parachute retarder before exploding on the target, their so heavy and big that even a B-52 Stratofortress can't carry one.

You have to give films some creative license though - if you over analyse stuff like this then it stops being fun.

By s162216 on 12 Apr 2010

not exactly

1. It is not the worse interview, it's the best.
2. Apple macs are very good at communicating with windows and linux machines. The problem is Windows. In general linux does also a pretty good work at communicating. A lot of Windows places miss understand basic tech like ssh and setup badly. That's when problems with other platforms start. By the way excellent this articles are a lot of fun.

By samurai_monk2001 on 4 May 2010

there's nothing being "a bit unfair"

@s162216

you failed to see the flaw in the time paradox in Terminator. There has to be the start of event as well as the end of it or else there will be no end for the loop. For instance, if you were to follow the Terminator's theory of time travel; you go back to the past and kill your father wouldn't that will erase you? But then how could you exist in the future if you father was killed in the past by yourself? If we follow the logic both you and your father should not have existed in the first place so that kind of event would just never occur. The same should apply to Terminator as well, where John Connor should have never born at all. And could you please use proper word for your English, please? (I'm begging you). You were improperly using the word "their" there when it should be "they are" or "they're". I understand if English ain't your first language for I am too but that kind of mistake is unforgivable even to me because it's damn annoying and irritates me!

you know, there's no creative about being stupid. And there's no such thing as the so-called "over analyze" because that's what we, the techies/technologists do. Besides you said about "being fun" so let me tell you one thing; there is no fun if things are wrongly portrayed like above. It's a blaspheme to the knowledge of science! Even if it's just for entertainment/art/fun. Now you want us to be fair with those movies then I have to say this too; be fair to the technologies and don't commit the sin of giving people the wrong impression about them.

By halfey on 16 May 2010

Leave a comment

You need to Login or Register to comment.