When it comes to
animated films, in most cases, the laws of physics are constantly broken in
order to create more appealing and entertaining moments throughout the film. A
certain law found to be broken quite often is Newton’s third law of motion,
which states: “For every action, there is an equal reaction in magnitude and in the
opposite direction.” Countless
examples can be found in various films that don’t correctly follow Newton’s
third law of motion and present unequal reactions when forces act upon each
other.
The
first example can be found in Pixar’s first feature film, Toy Story. In the beginning title sequence, we meet young
Andy playing around the house with his favorite cowboy toy, Woody, on the day
of his birthday. One moment in the sequence, Andy places Woody on the ground
where he leans up against the leg rest portion of a recliner chair and launches
Woody in the air by pulling the leg rest side handle. Woody then lands
perfectly on the arm of a couch across the room.
Taking
into consideration Newton’s third law, in order for Woody to reach that type of
height, let alone the distance across the room to land on the arm of the couch,
he would need a greater force acting upon him than the leg rest of the
recliner. Realistically, Woody would only have travelled roughly a quarter or
so of the distance portrayed in the film. Even if the recliner had a greater
amount of force than a usual recliner, the height that Woody reaches and the
parabolic arc he follows in the film is highly unlikely.
Another
example comes from the classic Looney Tunes
shorts made by Warner Brothers Animation. A particular short, starring
Sylvester the Cat, is at it again as he tries to box with a kangaroo that is
getting on his last nerve. However, the exaggerated fighting animation between
Sylvester and the kangaroo breaks Newton’s third law of motion in order to
create a more comedic moment. At one point the kangaroo and Sylvester are
“fighting” on top of each other which the kangaroo then kicks Sylvester and
sends him flying into a brick wall.
This
moment breaks Newton’s third law when you analyze that the force of the
kangaroo’s kick is not powerful enough to send Sylvester crashing all the way
back into the brick wall. Both characters look roughly the same in size, so Sylvester
would have a good amount of opposing force acting upon the kangaroo as he
kicks. Plus, another factor to consider is that the kangaroo is flat on his
back while kicking Sylvester. In reality, the kick would most likely send
Sylvester only a good few feet away and perhaps landing on his back too.
There
are plenty more exaggerated and entertaining examples found within animated
films that go against the laws of physics, but what about live action films? In
this example, the popular science-fiction, action, comedy from the late 1990’s,
Men
In Black, is put into question
with a certain scene involving the after effects of a powerful gun being put
into use. The film follows two men, K and J, who work for a secret service
called the “M.I.B” whom fight off aliens that disguise themselves as humans
planning to destroy earth.
The
scene being analyzed shows K and J in a pawnshop looking for a certain alien
that has taken over someone’s body and riding around the city in an
exterminator truck. K and J try to stop the alien as he climbs into the getaway
truck, where J pulls out his gun called “the cricket”. It is a comedic moment
because it is an extremely small gun but surprisingly has a ton of power. J
finally uses the cricket where the reaction of the gun sends J to the back of
the store where he violently hits the back wall and falls flat on his face.
However, when analyzing the sequence, the damage made by the actual bullet of
the gun in comparison to the “kick back” effects it has on J don’t necessarily
match up.
The
first shot made by J aiming at the side of the truck, shatters the glass of the
pawnshop window and sets fire to a few surrounding objects on the sidewalk, but
there is barely a scratch on the truck as the audience sees in the next couple
of shots. The second shot he only breaks the chain attaching the tow truck to
the exterminator truck, which seems like a light amount of damage that still
doesn’t have much effect on both automobiles. Finally, the third shot is made
by J, where he shoots the back of an even bigger diesel truck which results in
a big blast of flames from where the bullet made contact with the diesel truck.
With each gunshot, J is being more violently thrown back and shows how much the
forces are unequal.
What’s
peculiar about the last shot is that the audience can see a couple walking on
the sidewalk that are only a few feet away from the corner of the diesel truck
that is shot by J. Once the bullet makes contact with the truck, the couple
merely falls to the ground in a more frightened manner than in a natural,
forceful throwback of an explosion. If the force of the gun’s shot were equal
to the reaction force done on J, the damage done by the shot would send the
couple back a few feet as well. As powerful as the cricket is in the hands of
J, the weapon seems to cause inconsistent damage that does not follow Newton’s
third law of motion. The cricket probably damages the shooter just as much, if
not more, than it does the person being shot at with the weapon.
Newton’s
third law of motion, along with his other two laws, prove to be critical
factors of knowledge with filmmaking, no matter how cartoony and exaggerated
your film may be. Animation should always be pushed and test the limits of
reality by walking a fine line with actions of certain characters, but it is
also good for studios to have an attention to detail in this day and age where
animation is no longer a medium obsessed with countless gags and cartoon
appeal. Filmmakers should fully embrace the laws of our dear friend, Isaac
Newton, as well as many other intelligent minds that contribute to filmmaking,
and not always just sweep this knowledge and information under the rug.
No comments:
Post a Comment