Talk:Cartoon physics

Animation Top‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cartoon physics was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon. Click the image to the right for full size version.

Merge

this duplicates Cartoon laws of physics - I will merge them (I think into this title, which is better) if nobody objects. - DavidWBrooks 02:49, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

toon

Perhaps we can make a brief mention and link to the toon roleplaying game. It uses a lot of the same physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toon_%28role-playing_game%29

Also, it looks like at least one of the reference pages may have been partially taken right from that RPG!!! http://funnies.paco.to/cartoon.html mentions characters that are "cool"; this was a trait in that game (my cousin Spencer had a copy when I was a kid) and I remember busting up laughing reading the manual as a kid.. Zaphraud (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More than a list

I have rearranged this article to move the history/sociology up, and the examples down. There's always a danger it could turn into a list of funny things that we've seen in cartoons! - DavidWBrooks 16:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anime Physics

I don't get the most recent addition to the anime physics ... what have missiles and airplanes to do with the amount of blood in a human body? - DavidWBrooks 23:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree; I'm going to split it into its own topic if nobody minds. Tlogmer ^{Talk / Contributions} 07:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

emmm... Anime Physics was discussed and decided to merge with this article earlier. MythSearcher 16:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really certain that the subjects should be mearged. Normal animation and Japanese animation is so separate that I don't believe any of them are similar. I've copied and pasted the subsection, but am willing to hold-off making a separate article until further discusion is made. Elwin Blaine Coldiron (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why I removed item

This article is about aspects of animation that defy real-world physics in consistent (and usually entertaining) ways. It's not a list of every convention of cartoons - e.g. that anmials talk and women have impossible large breasts. So this "Mecha in many series tend to be superior combatants to more traditional combat vehicles ... " was removed because it's got nothing to do with physics! Maybe we could create a different article for it - e.g. anime conventions or something. - DavidWBrooks 15:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it has a great deal to do with physics. Without anime physics, mecha would be pretty well useless combat machines, so their effectiveness in combat is an example of anime physics in action. Iceberg3k 20:23, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

But how is it an example of a consistent physical law that differs from the "real world"? - DavidWBrooks 21:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a little late, but if you go to Universal Century Technology, then you'll understand... Some anime series do have their own physics law. (and have reference from official sources, too.) MythSearcher 16:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lists

I removed the stormtrooper effect link from the anime list, since that is not specific to anime - or even to animation. I also removed the face fault item, since that is behavioral not physics. - DavidWBrooks 21:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't know who put it back in, but he's right; "a face fault" is not physics-related! It is completely behavioral, and is related to shock.

Well, I guess it is because of the abnormal gravitational pull making it physics to whoever added it back in. However, I demand some reference about the gravitation part. Never heard of it before in any Japanese sources. It is more like having no friction between them and the floor which makes them slip and fall (and requiring friction interaction with other objects like the cell border of the manga/comic). However, it is more like original research so I am not adding it in. MythSearcher 02:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even friction; the instinctive explanation held by many ("many" defined as various members of anime clubs at multiple universities, including UC Berkeley) is that the character has suffered from a form of shock and/or surprise, attributed to the stupid/unexpected/unexpectedly stupid comment made by the other character, and thus loses their composure, which manifests itself physically as a loss of balance. bluemonq 10:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is in fact depicted as loss of friction in the Japanese coummunity including Animationists and manga artist in some cases, for example in Manga Science and GS Mikami where characters need to pull on other rigid bodies, including the cell border of the manga, to stand back up right. However, I do see a lot of moments where the characters actually maintained balance before completely on the ground. I do not route for keeping the unsourced material anyway but defining stuff by pure speculation, even it is among many people, is still not a legimate reason to be put into a wiki article. (well, it is not physics to begin with)

I know how it works in the US university anime community, most people ignore the official settings, which are often unavailable in the US, and judge by their own speculation only from the series itself. In so called forum debates they mostly route for their own favoured idea and can hard accept new ideas, even if it is official information from things like official guide books. Not to say it is wrong, since a lot of official settings are completely nonsense and contradicts itself, just not suitable in wiki that's all. MythSearcher 16:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming what you said was true (source please?), it's very interesting. My invocation of the position of the university anime community was in order to justify the removal of said "face fault" from the realm of anime physics - you agree with the removal, but not with the reason. Yet, you then go on to state that there are examples in which "alternative physics" is involved. It then stands to reason that it should be kept in the section. Your excuse is that it is "original research", that none of the animators, writers, directors, etc. explicitly stipulate such manipulations of "normal" physics, and that there is probably contradictory material. However, by those reasons, the entire anime physics section might as well be removed, since the other "laws" cited also aren't specifically defined and/or held by all anime, even when limited to comedic series. bluemonq 08:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I never reason to keep the sentence in the article, in fact I agreed to delete it. I just write to defend the point that some artist display it as altering physics, but not all and it is only my own speculation in the manga. Therefore I do not want it to be listed in the article, but not because it is not physics related, but there isn't an actual source stating what I have summarized. If it comes to removing the whole section, fine. I did not create it and do not know any source for it. I simply edit it when there are vandalism occured. MythSearcher 09:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpoint

Just thought I'd put in a counterpoint to the Anime law about fight attacks not destroying peoples' pants. There's been several examples of what I mentioned (a later point in Megaman Legends, for instance). All these explosions have been indirectly witnessed, and the female caracter only observed from behind or with strategically placed debris etc, of course. ;) --Yar Kramer 19:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is hardly unique to Anime, however. Indestructible pants are common in many cartoons. Take Hulk, for example. No matter how big he expands, and how much his other clothing rips to shreds, his pants (or at least the waist-area of them) always remains intact to preserve his dignity... -- Lurlock 18:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hammerspace

I removed the Hammerspace reference, since it is more an anime term (and is referenced, I think, in anime physics) - DavidWBrooks 02:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD results

This article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. For details, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartoon physics. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Shouldn't this be merged with Laws of Cartoon Thermodynamics?Indecisive 19:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... possibly. I trimmed the thermodyamics item, which was a cut-and-paste from Ebert's Web site, and noted it great similarity to cartoon physics. - DavidWBrooks 19:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Laws of Cartoon Thermodynamics should be merged with Cartoon Physics. After all, Thermodynamics is just a branch of physics.

Not falling

Doesn't seem to be a clear reference to cartoon characters walking off a cliff, and then remaining suspended in midair until they look down and realize there's nothing under their feet. AnonMoos 15:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No? This is the second sentence of the article: For example, when a cartoon character runs off a cliff, gravity has no effect until the character notices and mugs an appropriate reaction. - DavidWBrooks 00:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And aside from the numerous cartoons where this actually happens, it's also explicitly mentioned and demonstrated in an episode of Tiny Toon Adventures - SAMAS 20:16 28 April 2006 (UTC)

O'Donnell

In Ebert's Bigger Little Movie Glossary the laws appear as "Mark O'Donnell's Laws of Cartoon Motion" and O'Donnell's home is given as New York. Esquizombi 05:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Laws Of Cartoon Thermodynamics

I propose a merge from Laws of Cartoon Thermodynamics, since that article is a rather small list, and Thermodynamics is obviously part of physics. -The preceding signed comment was added by Nazgjunk (talk • contrib) 10:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A smerge might be appropriate, since that much primary source text is a no-no. Esquizombi 13:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, two pages with such similar content really should be merged. Support. Witty lama 07:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for it being merged. --Dexter111344 19:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I merged it but now many things are doubled. Shall we just delete the redundant? --Ton e 23:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Chuck Jones' autobiography

I vaguely remember a section on cartoon physics in Chuck Jones's autobiography. Might be an authoritative source if someone has a copy handy. --John Nagle 03:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anime stuff

I've removed a number of anime examples because they weren't examples of different laws of physics concistent in anime but just of non-real behavior that's consistent in anime (lots of blood in characters' bodies; women don't notice when their clothes are removed, etc.) - DavidWBrooks 18:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Pentagon comparison

The Pentagon comparison adds nothing to this article and it's needlessly politically charged. I don't think we need examples or demonstrations of why these "laws" are "obviously not true in real life," because they are obviously untrue; that's why they're on this list in the first place. This is why I've removed the Pentagon comparison from the "Examples" heading.

Before the inevitable character assassination begins, yes, I do believe American Airlines 77 hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11th. But this article certainly isn't the place to try to swat down conspiracy theorists. --Kuronekoyama 06:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bokken

Wooden katanas (bokken) can cut just as well as the real thing, if not better (see Tatewaki Kuno from Ranma 1/2 or Twilight Suzuka from Outlaw Star)

Isn't Kuno's move an attack? In Episode two,(Both Manga and Anime) Ranma comments on the airflow around the weapon that makes it invincible.

Plausible Impossible

The third paragraph mentions that Disney mispronounced the "impossible" in this phrase to make it rhyme with the "possible." But in my dialect they already rhyme to two syllables. /plQzIbl/ /ImpQsIbl/. Is my dialect different or did he mispronounce it to rhyme to three syllables? /plQzIbl/ /ImpQzIbl/

What?

Why were my additions to the article removed? All of them were relevant to their specific areas. Maybe I should have suggested them here before adding them to the article. I'll do that now, then.

In the initial Examples section:

Any item, solid or liquid alike, can freeze. Regardless of the substance, the freezing object will always turn into ice and become extremely fragile. The object is very easily broken or molten, and when melting, will turn into water, regardless of what was originally frozen.

In extreme cold, water and mucus will freeze instantaneously

In the anime physics section:

Even if a person is a few meters away from their target, they must sprint at top speed for several seconds to reach it, particularly if the person is running towards an opponent. This gives bystanders (and sometimes, though rarely, the target; however, both the target and the person can talk or think within the given time) enough time to interfere or react to the situation. This also applies to bullets, lasers, or other projectiles.

The first example can be seen in many classic WB toons (I've mostly seen these in ones that don't involve major recurring characters; though I can say I saw it in a few Sylvester and Tweety shorts, as well as some others). The second can be cited in Dragonball (in the original, Z, and GT), Gash Bell, Naruto (especially Naruto; the scenes surrounding Haku's death are a prime example of this) and Pokemon (look how long it takes to launch a Quick Attack), among countless others. It can even be seen in some Anime-influenced animation, in particular Xaolin Showdown, Teen Titans, and Avatar: The Last Airbender.

Uh, that's about it. Comments? 75.24.92.170 04:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because these are "funny things that happen in cartoons" not "consistent alternations to the basic laws of physics'". (There are, I'll admit, already some of these - hair and swords and whatnot) The list of the former could be endless, and tedious. - DavidWBrooks 11:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real-life physics

One of the Examples entries states that "Likewise, a fan and a sail attached to a wheeled platform will cause the platform to move". Uhm, this happens in real life too. Granted, the sail is unnecessary and the platform will move in the opposite direction of that seen in cartoons, but can we rephrase this entry?

It the fan faces directly into the sail (as it does in cartoons on all such occasions) - such that all of the airflow from the fan hits the sail - then no - the platform won't move in the real world. SteveBaker 18:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert, but wouldn't the fan's intake cause the platform to move at least a little? timrem 04:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps very slightly, but only because of the fan's own inaccuracy leading to less than 100% of the air hitting the sail. (The chance of this being less than the frictional force resisting movement is next to nothing though.) If you didn't put a sail on it, the platform would move due to recoil velocity. --tjstrf talk 04:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too many examples, again

As often happens, everybody who wanders by adds their favorite funny example and the lists grow out of control. I've cut some (four or five were variants on the same falling-affected-by-perception meme) but more trims would be nice. - DavidWBrooks 13:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took upon myself the liberty of significantly trimming the "examples" article.

Too much Looney Toons

I love this article, but I think there is too much emphasis on Looney Toons. (There's a whole section on anvils) We should expand the sections to look at other groups of cartoons. (Klasky-Csupo, ToonDisney, Treehouse TV, AdultSwim, ect.)--Wikiphilia 01:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup...

I'm going to clean this page up now, cut out some unnecessary stuff, like some references, and fix some typos and grammars. I'd very much like it if the cleaned version is not reverted just because someone feels that it is heinous to cut out certain things, this article IS after all meant to list some of the most common elements of cartoon physics, not the entire halabalooba. Do feel free to correct some eventual typos and/or incorrect grammars that I might leave in my wake though, and keep striving for perfection... That's all. 217.208.25.108 (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STDs?

Okay, how exactly does the lack of transmission of STDs factor into anything? I think STDs are usually just never brought up at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.215.135 (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anime physics

Most of the examples are more cliches than they are physics. There needs to be an overhaul. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 04:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

where did everything go

why is there basically nothing in the article anymore? who ddeleted it, bring it back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not G. Ivingname (talk • contribs) 18:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it is because Wikipedia is not a directory, and listing example of cartoon physics is not needed if it can be summed up by a few sentences. If you disagree with that, please do not revert the page and start an edit war, instead, either view the history for your own purpose, or, if you want it brought back, bring up the topic on this talk page, as you have done. --jftsang 12:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jftsang (talk • contribs)

Because Wikipeople are insufferable spoil-sports who don't get invited to parties is why. This used to be my favourite article. And all the anime stuff went because some people are just really anal about everything. 213.107.151.20 (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the old thing, you should search for mirrors regarding Wikipedia with static content, or copies which continue to aim to improve, like here. On a less serious note, I completely agree with the IP above me :-) --Anime Addict AA (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - I don't get invited to parties because I have edited the "Cartoon physics" article! Who would have guessed? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Gould?

The article mentions a "Stephen Gould" writing about cartoon physics, and the name is given a Wikipedia link to Stephen Jay Gould, the evolutionist, while the reference note credits Stephen R. Gould with the cartoon article. I've removed the Wikipedia link and changed the name to match the reference. Ricky of Kokiri (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comedian bit about 'Laws of the Cartoon Universe'

A long time ago when I watched Comic Strip Live on Fox, I recall seeing a comedian who had a bit about a long bearded Moses-type character who would declare 'Theaz are the Lawz of the Cawtoon Yoonivoorz' spoken more or less the way I spell it, almost in a parody of a Bostonian accent. I recall him including cartoon physics in the bit, but I can't seem to turn up anything about who the comic was. Anyone who knows who it was? This post [1] mentions the same guy, but doesn't confirm the identity, and I even found a transcript of the act here:[2], but I still can't tell who this is. I'm so close, but just can't 'close the search'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.85.243 (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

new law

It is also a law in cartoon physic that every time they watch tv to forget about something, that exact thing is on all the channels at the same time.Rphb (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-exclusivity section

I can't make sense of the sentence "For example, a person recovering remarkably quickly from a serious injury would classify as biology rather than physics." PurpleChez (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It means wikipedia editors don't always write very well. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cartoon physics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120531221157/http://blog.macmanltd.com:80/2011/07/13/cartoon-laws-of-physics/ to http://blog.macmanltd.com/2011/07/13/cartoon-laws-of-physics/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cartoon physics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More Examples

Are there more examples of cartoon physics?

2600:8800:8880:6A60:152:6688:B7D8:279E (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Double vision?

"Wolf looks both ways down the road, sees nothing, gets hit by bus". Doesn't this oly apply to Wile E. Coyote? Chuck Jones Shinoda ^{meep, meep!} 11:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]