|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 15, 2018 22:42:21 GMT
Seems like that would only work if we assume that Steve Trevor could outrun a massive explosion. While I suppose that is possible in movie logic, it still doesn’t seem very probable if we applied real life logic. You shouldn't apply real life logic to movies like this. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Feb 15, 2018 22:55:03 GMT
Seems like that would only work if we assume that Steve Trevor could outrun a massive explosion. While I suppose that is possible in movie logic, it still doesn’t seem very probable if we applied real life logic. You shouldn't apply real life logic to movies like this. Isn’t that what you do when you complain about the Joker being “omnipotent”? Bottom line is that unless Steve Trevor is the Flash, there’s no reason to assume that he would be able to ignite a massive explosion, while also having enough time to run away from it unharmed. If the movie did that, you would’ve complained about how it makes Steve Trevor seem like a superhero. |
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Feb 15, 2018 23:04:17 GMT
You shouldn't apply real life logic to movies like this. Isn’t that what you do when you complain about the Joker being “omnipotent”? Bottom line is that unless Steve Trevor is the Flash, there’s no reason to assume that he would be able to ignite a massive explosion, while also having enough time to run away from it unharmed. If the movie did that, you would’ve complained about how it makes Steve Trevor seem like a superhero. Couldn't he just set it to ignite then create a big arse trail using gasoline and light it from a safe distance so he wouldn't need to outrun the blast? or you know use the sniper to create a spark to cause it to blow from a safe distance?
Just spit balling here.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Feb 15, 2018 23:38:21 GMT
Isn’t that what you do when you complain about the Joker being “omnipotent”? Bottom line is that unless Steve Trevor is the Flash, there’s no reason to assume that he would be able to ignite a massive explosion, while also having enough time to run away from it unharmed. If the movie did that, you would’ve complained about how it makes Steve Trevor seem like a superhero. Couldn't he just set it to ignite then create a big arse trail using gasoline and light it from a safe distance so he wouldn't need to outrun the blast? or you know use the sniper to create a spark to cause it to blow from a safe distance?
Just spit balling here.
Steve Trevor wasn’t a sniper as far as I recall. Anyway, how much gasoline would he need for the first thing you mentioned? |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 16, 2018 5:50:16 GMT
Isn’t that what you do when you complain about the Joker being “omnipotent”? Bottom line is that unless Steve Trevor is the Flash, there’s no reason to assume that he would be able to ignite a massive explosion, while also having enough time to run away from it unharmed. If the movie did that, you would’ve complained about how it makes Steve Trevor seem like a superhero. Couldn't he just set it to ignite then create a big arse trail using gasoline and light it from a safe distance so he wouldn't need to outrun the blast? or you know use the sniper to create a spark to cause it to blow from a safe distance?
They were at a German-occupied military airbase. He wouldn't have been able to create a long trail of gasoline without being spotted by the Germans.
The sniper? You mean the guy with PTSD who couldn't shoot the gunman at the top of the church in broad daylight? Would you risk the lives of thousands of civilians on a sniper with PTSD being able to create a spark from a distance at night?
It's as dumb as all the MCU fans who asked why Lois was on the plane with Colonel Hardy when they were going to use Kal-El's ship to send the Kyrptonians into the Phantom Zone in MoS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 12:04:05 GMT
Both DC and Marvel movies have benefited significantly in the past decade from the boost of using the companies' names on their movies especially the lesser known characters like 'Thor', 'Ant Man' and 'Guardians of the Galaxy' who hardly anyone knew of outside of comic book fans and not to mention being owned by multi-billion dollar companies like Disney and Time Warner who fork out millions of dollars to make their movies and can easily make more if one or two flop. On an equal playing field I doubt DC or Marvel would be able to compete with Image Comics since they already dethroned them twice in the 90s and 00s and could do it again on the big screen and attract a LOT of new fans who want something different than the standard superhero movies DC and Marvel release which are very much the same. 
|
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Feb 16, 2018 12:19:13 GMT
Couldn't he just set it to ignite then create a big arse trail using gasoline and light it from a safe distance so he wouldn't need to outrun the blast? or you know use the sniper to create a spark to cause it to blow from a safe distance?
They were at a German-occupied military airbase. He wouldn't have been able to create a long trail of gasoline without being spotted by the Germans.
The sniper? You mean the guy with PTSD who couldn't shoot the gunman at the top of the church? Would you risk the lives of thousands of civilians on a sniper with PTSD being able to create a spark from a distance?
It's as dumb as all the MCU fans who asked why Lois was on the plane with Colonel Hardy when they were going to use Kal-El's ship to send the Kyrptonians into the Phantom Zone in MoS. Great, he still could have landed the plane someplace else tho and figured out a way to blow it up without having to kill himself. And Lois being on the plane was nothing but a plot contrivance to have Lois in danger so Superman can save her all the time because she's clearly the only one he cares about and didn't care about anyone else being killed in the city. Lois didn't need to be on the plane as she could have easily explained to Dr. Hamilton what to do, who is a scientist after all. And given that it was him who even figured out what to do with the pod, that proves Lois didn't need to be on the plane. |
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Feb 16, 2018 12:48:37 GMT
Couldn't he just set it to ignite then create a big arse trail using gasoline and light it from a safe distance so he wouldn't need to outrun the blast? or you know use the sniper to create a spark to cause it to blow from a safe distance?
Just spit balling here.
Steve Trevor wasn’t a sniper as far as I recall. Anyway, how much gasoline would he need for the first thing you mentioned? Trevor wasn't but his mate was as for the gas trail I dunno which is a fair point, do we know how big the explosion would be? presumably we only need an initial one large enough to rupture on of the containers of the gas as it is flammable which I forgot which explains why blowing it up destroys the gas without spreading it, so admittedly the safest choice was fly it up and let it go boom that way cause for all we know it could have levelled a square mile, still I have to ask why not parachute to safety?
|
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Feb 16, 2018 13:17:08 GMT
They said it was a decent movie, but nothing special, which is 100% true. I do not get why this movie is so praised. It is decent, nothing more. That's being overly harsh on the movie. It was directed and written very well. The characters were solid particularly the two main characters that were likable. The action sequences were impressive and well shot. It didn't overuse its humour and what little it had was pretty funny. It had good pacing. It had a good score especially the main theme. It had good set and costume designs. It was pretty solid throughout and didn't really do much wrong. I agree with this. I gave it a 7/10. It is a decent movie. That is not overly harsh. That is an honest assessment of the film. It is not some modern masterpiece like I hear on here all of the time. |
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Feb 16, 2018 15:19:35 GMT
Seems like that would only work if we assume that Steve Trevor could outrun a massive explosion. While I suppose that is possible in movie logic, it still doesn’t seem very probable if we applied real life logic. Do I really need to spell this out? Land the plane in a field ... puncture a fuel tank ... set a portion of the plane on fire that will not instantly explode ... retreat to a safe distance and watch the fireworks. Steve Trevor killing himself was quite moronic. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Feb 16, 2018 15:43:28 GMT
Seems like that would only work if we assume that Steve Trevor could outrun a massive explosion. While I suppose that is possible in movie logic, it still doesn’t seem very probable if we applied real life logic. Do I really need to spell this out? Land the plane in a field ... puncture a fuel tank ... set a portion of the plane on fire that will not instantly explode ... retreat to a safe distance and watch the fireworks. Steve Trevor killing himself was quite moronic. Wait, are you saying he needed to set some random part of the plane on fire? Are planes that flammable? |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 16, 2018 16:49:00 GMT
Do I really need to spell this out? Land the plane in a field ... puncture a fuel tank ... set a portion of the plane on fire that will not instantly explode ... retreat to a safe distance and watch the fireworks. Steve Trevor killing himself was quite moronic. Wait, are you saying he needed to set some random part of the plane on fire? Are planes that flammable? WWI Planes were. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Feb 16, 2018 17:10:23 GMT
Wait, are you saying he needed to set some random part of the plane on fire? Are planes that flammable? WWI Planes were. Even if that’s the case, didn’t you previously say that we can’t apply real world logic to these movies? |
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Feb 16, 2018 17:55:09 GMT
Do I really need to spell this out? Land the plane in a field ... puncture a fuel tank ... set a portion of the plane on fire that will not instantly explode ... retreat to a safe distance and watch the fireworks. Steve Trevor killing himself was quite moronic. Wait, are you saying he needed to set some random part of the plane on fire? Are planes that flammable? Airplanes burn very much good. Particularly WWI aircraft that were mostly made out of wood and fabric. Add some aviation fuel and you get an inferno. At the end of Dunkirk, Tom Hardy safety landed his out of fuel Spitfire on the beach and then set it on fire to keep it from the Germans. If it was Steve Trevor, he would have kamikazed it into the ground in a supreme act of stupidity. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Feb 16, 2018 18:05:58 GMT
Wait, are you saying he needed to set some random part of the plane on fire? Are planes that flammable? Airplanes burn very much good. Particularly WWI aircraft that were mostly made out of wood and fabric. Add some aviation fuel and you get an inferno. At the end of Dunkirk, Tom Hardy safety landed his out of fuel Spitfire on the beach and then set it on fire to keep it from the Germans. If it was Steve Trevor, he would have kamikazed it into the ground in a supreme act of stupidity. Was Farrier getting rid of poison gas? |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 16, 2018 19:42:11 GMT
Airplanes burn very much good. Particularly WWI aircraft that were mostly made out of wood and fabric. Add some aviation fuel and you get an inferno. At the end of Dunkirk, Tom Hardy safety landed his out of fuel Spitfire on the beach and then set it on fire to keep it from the Germans. If it was Steve Trevor, he would have kamikazed it into the ground in a supreme act of stupidity. Was Farrier getting rid of poison gas? No but, the the battlefield expedient way to neutralize chemical weapons would be to blow them up in place - especially if you’re pressed for time. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 16, 2018 20:19:19 GMT
Even if that’s the case, didn’t you previously say that we can’t apply real world logic to these movies? Because if we did, Lois would've probably died of whiplash by now. |
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Feb 16, 2018 21:03:52 GMT
Airplanes burn very much good. Particularly WWI aircraft that were mostly made out of wood and fabric. Add some aviation fuel and you get an inferno. At the end of Dunkirk, Tom Hardy safety landed his out of fuel Spitfire on the beach and then set it on fire to keep it from the Germans. If it was Steve Trevor, he would have kamikazed it into the ground in a supreme act of stupidity. Was Farrier getting rid of poison gas? I mention it to illustrate that even a metal WWII aircraft will burn quite nicely ... since you expressed doubt that an airplane would burn. Any other questions? ... or have we sufficiently established that Trevor could have easily destroyed the chemical weapons on the ground and walked away from it unscathed? |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Feb 16, 2018 21:07:15 GMT
Was Farrier getting rid of poison gas? I mention it to illustrate that even a metal WWII aircraft will burn quite nicely ... since you expressed doubt that an airplane would burn. Any other questions? ... or have we sufficiently established that Trevor could have easily destroyed the chemical weapons on the ground and walked away from it unscathed? No, we haven’t. The point of comparison you cited didn’t involve a plane that was full of highly flammable gas. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Feb 16, 2018 21:07:55 GMT
Even if that’s the case, didn’t you previously say that we can’t apply real world logic to these movies? Because if we did, Lois would've probably died of whiplash by now. I wasn’t asking why you said that, I was asking why you’re being inconsistent. |
|
