Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies It's funny.  Laugh. Programming

Programmer Debunks Source Code Shown In Movies and TV Shows 301

Posted by timothy
from the movie-mistakes-of-a-particular-kind dept.
rjmarvin writes "Someone is finally pausing TV shows and movies to figure out if the code shown on screen is accurate or not. British programmer and writer John Graham-Cumming started taking screenshots of source code from movies such as Elysium, Swordfish and Doctor Who, and when it became popular turned the concept into a blog. Source Code in TV and Films posts a new screenshot daily, proving that, for example, Tony Stark's first Iron Man suit was running code from a 1998 programmable Lego brick."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Programmer Debunks Source Code Shown In Movies and TV Shows

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @10:37AM (#45950593)
    I think this was meant as a fun and interesting kind of thing, not as some kind of whistle-blowing on how "OH MY GOD TV ISN'T REEEEAAAAAL!" Lighten up.
  • Re:oh duh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TWX (665546) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @10:38AM (#45950601)
    Yeah, I'd have been a lot more impressed if he'd concentrated on code that was closer to right, on examples that were more realistic.

    For examples, in two different films with Matthew Broderick, his modifying school records, assuming that he does indeed have credentials, is not implausible. In The Matrix Reloaded Trinity's hack is more realistic that most other movies.

    Sounds to me like this guy is bitter that he can't suspend his disbelief to just enjoy the movie, and he feels a need to drag the rest of us down with him. If the movie isn't specifically about computer hacking or computer security then I'm willing to give a fair amount of silliness a pass.
  • Re:oh duh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CamelTrader (311519) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @10:42AM (#45950675) Homepage

    This is cool because he isn't just calling out as bogus, but identifying the source, such as python julian calendar library, or C image library. It's pretty nerdy to know that the scene in the matrix where he's scrolling through code is the source for netstat.

  • Re:Oh My God! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fisted (2295862) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @10:44AM (#45950697)

    Only by stupid programs which don't follow the golden rule of shutting the hell up as long as nothing goes wrong.
    Therefore you're much more likely to see a message reading "Permission denied", if anything

  • by terevos (148651) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @10:46AM (#45950715)

    No, they're responding appropriately to how the story was posted. The original article is supposed to be fun. But the post says "Programmer Debunks Source Code Shown In Movies and TV Shows" and "Someone is finally pausing TV shows and movies to figure out if the code shown on screen is accurate or not." as if it's something new.

    It's not new, but it is cool how deeply they investigated this stuff.

  • This guy (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @10:49AM (#45950755)

    This guy is in desperate need of a life.

  • Re: oh duh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @11:12AM (#45951015)

    Why does everything have to be useful? It's amusing.

  • by netsavior (627338) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @11:55AM (#45951485)
    The lego source code is completely believable in the context of the story IMO. This is a program he used to run the prototype that he built in a cave in a war-torn country. He probably told them "I need a robotics kit" and this was in the bin of crap that they got him. If I was secretly programming an exo-suit in a cave, a mindstorm kit would be a boon. It sends signals based on several kinds of input... what else do you need?

    The mindstorm program is a lot more believable than anything state-of-the-art.
  • Re:common and fun (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rts008 (812749) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @11:59AM (#45951545) Journal

    A .357 magnum may have a bigger exit wound under rare circumstances, but under similar conditions, the .357 magnum and 9mm will have essentially equal size entrance wound characteristics.

    One doesn't even need to be hit by a bullet to be killed by it - high speed ammunition can tear tissue apart by the pressure differentials.

    The only part of that statement that is even remotely true is the second part:
    yes, frequently high velocity projectiles do damage soft tissue from tearing and rupturing...but there are a lot of variables that affect this, so it cannot be ruled as absolute.(pro tip: the bullet has to hit the soft tissue before this can even be considered--all the bullets whizzing past cause no physical harm)

    But that statement that "One doesn't even need to be hit by a bullet to be killed by it -..." is so full of crap that it's ludicrous!
    I'll even give you the possibility that in extremely rare (so rare as to be unheard of for all practical purposes) that some few individuals have 'died from fright' from being shot at...but [citation needed].

    I have personally been shot three times:
    twice with 9mm ammunition (one pistol:Soviet made Makerov, and one sub-machine gun), and once with 7.62x39 ammo (AK-47--which has a MUCH higher velocity and kinetic energy than either 9mm or .357 hand guns).

    I can assure you that I am not a ghost/dead. And having witnessed hundreds of combat deaths, none happened from near misses but bullets!

    I think your highest priority at this stage should be to finally stop putting off that education you should have received as a child..it's for your own good, really.

  • Accurate example (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PPH (736903) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @12:08PM (#45951635)

    ... in TFA from the movie "White House Down": A progress status popup giving percent complete with 9 decimal places.

    Yep. Pretty much standard programming practice from what I've seen.

What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite. -- Bertrand Russell, "Skeptical Essays", 1928

Working...