Physics is not interested in your delusions of grandeur




From what I remember, Ronald was eventually hit by a bullet that ricocheted off his “bullet proof” car.


If he was hit by a Ricochet, it sounds like his car really was bulletproof. Of course bulletproof cars only work if you are inside of them.


When I want to enjoy entertainment, I watch entertainment.
When I want to enjoy science, I watch science.
Why all the fuss over the fact that entertainment television doesn’t strictly adhere to science?


It’s funny. I always assumed that there was some plausibility to being able to dodge a bullet, unless it’s at close range. Dodging a laser, on the other hand…


Everytime I see someone take a bullet for someone on TV, they jump in front of the person before the gun is fired (in slow motion), not after.


Have you ever fired a gun? As far as human reaction times are concerned it’s no different than a laser. You can’t even see the bullet. What you can do is jump into the line of fire before the gunman pulls the trigger (maybe for the second or third time), but once the bullet is out of the chamber, any movement on your part is effectively in super-slo-mo as far as the bullet is concerned.


This has already been mythbustered. Take home was that you could potentially dodge a bullet at about 400 meters, so long as you saw the muzzle flash. But they could only see the muzzle flash at that distance if they used Hollywood-style blanks.

[edit 400, not 500]


I’ve fired a gun–and wasn’t very good at it. I should have been clearer that the only reason I assumed there was some plausibility to being able to dodge a bullet has more to do with the shooter’s accuracy (or lack thereof) than the dodger’s speed. And I guess technically that’s not “dodging”. That’s “being missed”. That’s why the hero being missed by a single bullet always struck me as slightly more believable than the hero being able to whip out a gun and accurately hit a moving target without taking time to aim.


The article is standing proud against a supposed science mistake, but is it just a strawman?

No matter how many times you’ve seen the movies and the TV shows that have a protagonist leaping in the path of a bullet

I can’t think of a single show in which anyone jumped in front a bullet after the shot was fired. Perhaps the article should cite some?


“The Unforgiven” does a good job of capturing a lot of that.


I’ve seen plenty…don’t care to track one down, though, since that’s always the annoyingly stupid scene in a movie that I take pains to forget.


What I want to see is someone jumping in front of a bullet, except mistiming it significantly. On TV people are always right on time, or just a little to late. No one ever jumps too early.


My thoughts exactly. Saying you can’t jump into (or out of) the path of the bullet once it’s been fired is one thing, but aside from The Matrix (which made it possible because of exploited computer simulation) I haven’t seen much of that.

Usually it’s someone jumping at the same time or slightly before the gun is fired, which means the jump had to anticipate the shot - there’s no waiting to see the muzzle flash or hearing the bang.


But was the car okay?


Heroes outrunning an explosion is what always makes me groan in movies, especially when they’re in a tunnel which focuses the blast directly at them.

Not only do they outrun the blast and survive but they have only cosmetic injuries with no significant burns, shrapnel wounds, or hearing loss.


the only one I can think of is the Simpsons.


Indeed, you’d think that they would cover them in a non-ricochet layer; but then I guess that that might be misconstrued as caring about collateral damage.


Wait, so “The Matrix” wasn’t a documentary?


“Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!” Bash-oooooom! Thudududud!