Neil deGrasse Tyson Complains That “Dune 2” Isn’t a Shining Beacon of Scientific Accuracy
Neil deGrasse Tyson Complains That “Dune 2” Isn’t a Shining Beacon of Scientific Accuracy
I need that meme where he talks about kissing himself in the mirror
"Somebody didn't do the research on that," Tyson told the talk show host, making the case that if you pound your fist into a sand dune, it wouldn't actually produce a thumping sound the way it does in the film. "You can't thump sand."
Oh, this is easy. Neil, the thumping isn't for the sand its for the spice in the sand which is a near-magical substance that is tied biologically to the sandworms and when consumed by humans in large quantities lets you see into the future. Are you going to try and tell me a substance which clearly grants its user the ability to see through space-time can't be excited mechanically with thumping it on the ground?
Actually it does work with regular sand dunes. The sequential baked layers creates a reasoning champer that amplifies sound at certain frequencies.
Which means Neil is actually upset with how much scientific world building Frank Herbert did, since it confuses people like him who haven't studied sand dunes for decades.
Besides the sand worms can pick up on the vibrations. It doesn’t need to be loud. Just be a consistent pattern.
So having the thump sound is there for artistic purposes. For the art. In a medium used for art.
Well, it's more than that. I think this is even mentioned in the new movies, but there's a phenomenon in Dune called "drum sand" that is a section of sand that somehow amplifies vibrations. Obviously it doesn't matter how any of this works. It's a story where, if you get high enough, you can predict possible futures. No shit it isn't realistic. No one cares.
Neil failed to remember that they are on Arrakis, not in the Mojave desert.
patrolling arrakis almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter
Spice might be like mycelium on Arrakis.
With what Spice does to people, and the general weirdness of the spice/worm/maker life cycle, suggesting that the worms are partially fungal in nature actually makes a lot of sense!
Someone didn't read the book far enough to get to the part about Drum sand
Personally it was the behemoth worms and psychic mind readers that made me think it wasn't a documentary, but YMMV
Did you watch the segment? Even the article (which links to another article whose author apparently watched the segment) makes it clear this was done in fun.
Tyson complains about the ornithopters needing wings to fly when they should just use the anti-gravity mechanics of the gigantic spaceships. Colbert points out that the ornithopters aren't large enough to house the anti-gravity devices.
You seem to be missing that my comment was done in the same spirit :)
'Ornithopter' also isn't a term Herbert invented. It's an actual word for an aircraft that flaps its wings to fly, like an animal. So he's really complaining about the presence of 'thopters. Different propulsion techs for different situations makes a lot of sense, though; it's not like VTOL jets made helicopters obsolete even though they're superficially a superior option.
You shut your whore mouth fiction is not a thing that exists
That man's pedantry is truly beyond parody.
Honestly I think it's just his form of boomer humor. Like he slaps his brain knee. At least it's weird and not like malicious.
The original book finds itself in a science fiction genre only because anything with spaceships and technology is placed there. For all practical purposes though, it’s a space fantasy.
In other words, complaining about science of Dune is like complaining about poetic meter of a tax report - something you do only with the closest of friends.
There's also a lot in there about how a planet's ecology influences culture. Also the long term effects of banning computers. Also about how in the far future people will forget about Earth but some cultural artifacts will remain even when people have forgotten why they do things. Also about how over enough time, people may change so much they may not even be recognizable as human. Also how with the existence of FTL travel it may become impossible to escape the killer robots people will inevitably build unless someone turns themself into a worm.
Lol, you really channeled Dave Barry for that last paragraph.
NdGT is a pretentious twat who needs to just shut up and sit down.
I swear the only time he’s relevant is when he’s bitching about some science fiction movie not being 100% accurate
So, you're saying he should...pound sand?
He should go and make a another season of Cosmos already.
Like a thumper!
Movie: "Y'all check out these space wizards who can pilot big space ships at FTL. Check out these giant worms that shit magic dust. Check out a Special Boy who can see the future."
NDT: "None of this is scientifically accurate."
I swear the only time he’s relevant is when he’s bitching about some science fiction movie not being 100% accurate
Taking an ice-pick to "Contact" because it isn't realistic, and posting it in Tyson's DMs every day until he deletes his account.
Science fiction not science facts. When was the book written again? And why is an Astrophysicist giving opinions on worm biology? Not his area of expertise?
The specific thing he's bitching about is sand physics, that is that sand doesn't really 'thump'.
This is something that is actually specifically addressed in the book, I'm not sure about the movie; short version is that the sand and weather on Arrakis are weird, and the sand forms more solid areas than elsewhere.
So not only is he complaining about a minor (from a realism perspective, it's important in-universe) detail, he's also showing that he did not read the book
In the movie, the first time Paul uses a thumper he has to dig in a few spots before he finds one that the thumper will work on.
Which is funny because on Earth sand actually does create resonant chambers in the desert dunes that do, under specific circumstances, drive sound hundreds of miles. It's the phenomenon of singing deserts, that goes from anywhere between low rumbles up to flute like warble, it's been documented since the times of Marco Polo. We even have squeaking sand beaches. So, as usual, the pedantic twat is actually technically incorrect.
This is all a bit of harmless fun beginning to end, but this is such a model of misinformation it loops around to being actually fascinating.
Harmless event>fair but misleadingly titled article>social media responding to the headline. There's some worm life cycle for you. Simultaneously elegant and horrifying.
Professional "That guy" has "That guy" take. Shocking
Well, Niel, it's not called a "science" film. It's "science fiction."
wait til he gets to the part where they fold space with their minds and shit
Um, actually, in the books, the Spacing Guild Navigators use the spice only to gain prescience into the future as a way to steer the ships while undergoing FTL travel. This can't be done with a computer or droid like in Star Wars because thinking machines are illegal.
That part he can understand. He probably has some mathematical formula to prove it's possible.
So I guess transcribing a YouTube video and providing a weak opinion on what was said is considered journalism these days? This is such a low effort article.
I watched the interview and it seems like more of a comedy bit than Neil's actual opinion of the movie overall. Some people just want something to get upset over I guess...
I'm kind of surprised at the reactions honestly. He's even said this in interviews before, it's a fun bit he does to comedically over-analyse any time a new sci-fi film comes out. I think he stopped or considered stopping for a while precisely because people took out the pitchforks and he didn't want to ruin people's fun, but I think the fact that many people enjoyed it swayed him to keep going.
The problem is that these kinds of news outlets know that if you take it out of context in an article headline and make it sound like it’s a genuine critique of the movie, you’ll get a lot of engagement from people who are ticked off about it.
Yeah, it doesn't ruin anything for me. If you demand that your science fiction be 100% accurate, there's going to be very little science fiction that you enjoy.
Dune is really more like science fantasy, like Star Wars, anyway.
When the planet's massive sandworms move, they barrel forward in a straight line. But as Tyson points out, pretty much all legless, worm or snake-like creatures on Earth have to slither in S-shaped lines if they want to move forward.
"Have you ever seen a snake chase you as a straight snake? No!"
Has he ever seen an earthworm???
Sand worms have pulsating segments. Sure snakes slither but they can also move forward by pulsing. This isn’t some impossible thing.
Or maybe this snake doesn’t exist?
That's not mysterious. It's one of the methods snakes use to move forward across terrain that doesn't have things to push sideways off of when they slither. Everyone knows this. Neil knows this. He's just too busy being an ass to remember that he knows it.
It clearly ingests and expels sand for rocket-like propulsion, but Neil can't even get cool with it.
Neil DeAss Wipeson
Why does the Internet dog pile onto NDT over every tweet, but seems to try it's best to ignore Alex Jones et al?
Everyone knows Alex Jones is a piece of shit. We expect more from NDT, and nitpicking everything doesn't help inspire more people into STEM.
AJ knows what he is and flaunts it. NDT thinks he's god's gift to humanity and makes that point painfully obvious while simultaneously assuming you require convincing of that "fact". He's also a stunning example of the Dunning Kruger effect.
I think there's a feeling that NDT is representing himself as some sort of ambassador for "science" when quite a few pro-science people find him a bit pompous. Or maybe there's more vitriol because a lot of people used to like him and have now changed their minds.
With Alex Jones, he's just someone that no one with half a brain could take seriously. Of course he's an ass, but also that's just kind of a given.
That's a great question. I really don't understand why almost this entire thread is so pissed at him for making some stupid tweets. Who gives a fuck about tweets? Even years ago.
I've never understood why people get so upset when he does this. I like it when someone points out the actual physics behind something that you see in films and what was done right and wrong.
Learning that something in a movie isn't scientifically accurate doesn't ruin the movie for me. I already figured it wouldn't be entirely correct and it doesn't have to be correct (unless it's supposed to be educational).
He's comparing things like known sand on earth, to make-believe drum sand on make-believe planet called Arrakis. He thinks he's being smart, but he's really just being obtuse.
To be fair, if you define “sand” as being silicate particles of a given size, you would expect it to behave similarly in similar conditions.
Sure, I’m nothing to let it get in the way of my enjoyment… but to be honest, part of my enjoyment of Star Trek is ragging on terrible science and engineering. (Sorry, but for example most federation ships do not appear to have their CoGravity line with the CoThrust. How much fuel do you think they wasted keeping the enterprise flying straight?)
I thought it was funny when he argued that the BB-8 droid from Star Wars broke the laws of physics because a rolling mechanical ball can't roll uphill on sand.
He didn't know that the BB-8 shown in the movie rolling up dunes was a physical robot, not CGI.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm pretty sure the BB-8 you see on film is mostly CGI. A working BB-8 prop does exist but it's more of a reference that gets covered in CGI. It's a common film technique that gets used these days and often those articles praising "no CGI" are often PR bullshit that stretches the truth because "practical effects" has become a buzzword.
I can prove a few shots of BB8 are CGI.
Shot4 - Notes in bottom left confirm
I obviously can't prove it but I would assume every BB8 shot is either entirely CGI or uses the practical robot as a reference pass. Relying on a practical robot would introduce a point of failure that could delay shots and force more takes, adding cost and time to the production. The only reason the filmmakers have to use a practical effect is to give the actors a reference, all other shots it's faster and cheaper to use CGI.
TL;DR: BB8 is mostly if not entirely CG and film companies are almost always lying when emphasizing the practical effects used in their film.
It could have been the stick puppet version, though, for which the sticks were digitally removed after filming. I don't know more about that, but it sounds like you do.
It is how he does it, not that he does it.
It's just navel gazing at it's worst.
Explaining that getting to the ISS from Hubble's orbit would take way more fuel than shown in the movie Gravity is useful. It can lead to explanations of Delta-V and how far apart things are in space. That's good.
Artificially locking in the definition of the parameters to be the same as on Earth for a fictional planet just so he can say "it's wrong" is just a waste of time. It's like arguing over whether the Enterprise could fight the Death Star. It's all made up, so the answer is whatever you want it to be.
So it's not that's it's he's criticizing things for being incorrect. It's that he's making assumptions about fictional things just to say it's incorrect. It's intellectually dishonest, and there's no real point to it. Nobody is learning anything about anything real if we talk about the relationship between sand worms and how sand trout could be alerted by a nearby sound which then alerts a massive sand worm that comes around to protect it's babies.
Person who's only job is science and who is an expert on science comments about the science of things and people find a way to complain about it.
Let the man die on his silly hills. It's funny and harmless. Pull the damn stick out. Perhaps go pound sand.
Immediately after any sci-fi movie comes out:
Internet: hey sciencey person, how accurate was the science?
Sciencey person: not.
Internet: surprisedPikachuface.jpg
He who touches the grass controls the universe
My bitch with him is he’ll say the most stoner ass thing in the most smug way possible like it’s some insight from god.
I feel like people take these way too seriously, like some of these comments sound like it's personal. Its just a movie/book series if some one wants to poke some fun then just let em.
It's a scifi series, If in their universe sands can pass vibrations for a long range, they are welcome to do whatever they want.
yeah, I don't care if a fantasy universe is inconsistent with our standards and physics.
I only care if its blatantly inconsistent within its own rules.
I like NDT, but the dude just loves to shitpost constantly like this and its tiresome.
I think the problem is more that Tyson is "uMm AcHtUaLlY"ing in a way to try and be cool or funny, but it doesn't come off as cool or funny what-so-ever. It's just irritating.
If its irritating then why bother engaging with it. There is a point where you can just ignore it because in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't change anything (or at least it shouldn't).
Idk I think he does it in some misguided attempt to try to educate people. I agree it is obnoxious though.
Oh really? There's no space drug shat out by giant worms that will give me omnipotence? Thanks Neil, I was confused about that.
To be fair, we don't know that doesn't exist somewhere
Oh man why does he get off so much on being a complete fuckin boob
The guy whonwas in the superman movie?
Did anyone expect it to be?
Not really and I don't think NDT really does either, he's using pop sci-fi for science outreach to point out the parts of the fiction that are fiction that many of us without a thorough science education may miss or to build interest for science in the general population. I think even if he misses the mark sometimes it's a valuable thing to attempt and he does nail it occasionally.
Seismic surveys looking for oil and gas use what's called a thumper truck, which literally thumps the ground to send seismic signals through the Earth. Those signals are received by seismometers some distance away. Geologic structures underground are detected by the way they reflect, bend and otherwise change the thumper truck's seismic waves.
When seismologists perform these surveys near sand dunes, however, they notice their signals are not coming through clearly.
My god, you are a damn astro theoretical engineer or something, do astro garbage and stop talking about themes outside of your field
I don't want to call him a queef because at least those don't stink.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is insufferable. No idea why he got that Cosmos job he didn't deserve it and he shat on Sagans version.
Also when someone pointed out if you just look at Zendaya face se looks like a boy. Can't stop seeing it.
Dude Zendaya's so galactically out of your league Neil deGrasse Tyson could do a StarTalk episode on it.
You know, years ago, I used to really like Neil before he adopted this "Well, ackchually..." shtick over scientific inaccuracies in works of fiction. I find him absolutely insufferable now. It's the same kind of brainworms as CinemaSins.
Relevant comic:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-03-21
Physics teaches you can model reality with math.
If you get really good at anything, there’s a natural temptation to use that skill outside of its proper context.
Now I'm just really sad about my dead dog.
This motherfucker watched a movie where a girl inherits all of the memories of her 4 most recent female ancestors because her mother used drugs while she was pregnant and he's like "that isn't how sound moves through sand"
Is that an actual movie cause that sounds wild
He's a physicist, so he's obviously going to comment on the physics. He might've commented on it if he was a geneticist, ob/gyn, or pharmacist.
I think that Neil doesn’t understand something very vital about being a science educator which if there is one thing people know about them, it’s that they are smart as hell and whether that is actually true or not the science educator must adopt a self-deprecating, disarming character to be relatable to the audience within the context they are in because of it.
You can’t play the character of a king and be relatable if people perceive you as actually being a king outside the context of the play….
Well-put. Compare Bill Nye, who comes across as highly intelligent, yet still relatable and likable, in large part because his Science Guy character tends to be a bit of a goof, and, more importantly, because he never talks down to his audience.
Similar story. I liked him a lot, read one of his books, and started listening to his podcast. But the more I listened, the less I liked him.
I really, really liked his podcast when the co-hosts rotated, including Kristen Schall and Eugene Merman. Then it became Chuck Nice all the time, and I didn't stick around to see if it ever changed back.
Ah yes, loved CinemaSins, ruined how I watch movies, then became too annoying to watch.
OH GOD THE BELLS
CinemaSins is far too often just them not understanding the damn point of a scene or movie.
I've only watched a few of their videos (from a few years ago) and they're the definition of "nit-pick"
That one tweet about the stars in Titanic was the only good one of those.
I totally agree with this sentiment. This is the way I feel about Elon Musk. Although, I do have an exorbitant amount of disdain for the latter.
quoth @rodhilton@mastodon.social
He talked about electric cars. I don't know anything about cars, so when people said he was a genius I figured he must be a genius.
Then he talked about rockets. I don't know anything about rockets, so when people said he was a genius I figured he must be a genius.
Now he talks about software. I happen to know a lot about software & Elon Musk is saying the stupidest shit I've ever heard anyone say, so when people say he's a genius I figure I should stay the hell away from his cars and rockets.
Seems to be a case of the ole " I can't see the forest, all these trees are in the fucking way!".
Which is kinda funny considering the books had a lot to do with ecology.