TimTimTyner
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2016
- Posts
- 382
What movie moments seemed totally illogical to you?
I'm sitting here watching "Deep Impact", the 1998 movie about an impending comet collision with Earth. And while it is a science FICTION movie, I still can't help but wonder why the writers and/or directors would include a scene that is so scientifically illogical to the aims of the characters.
Specifically, I am referring to the approach of the spacecraft to the comet. The pilot (Robert Duvall as Spurgeon Tanner) brings the ship in from behind the comet and steers it through the dangerous tail of rock and ice at a relatively high speed.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to arrive next to the comet, rather than behind it, then merge over next to it at a speed relatively close to that of the comet and, therefore, the debris creating the tail?
The movie's version of approach could be thought of as driving up a busy 60 mph freeway at 180 mph, trying not to hit any other cars as you head for a specific exit; while my version could be thought of as driving up that same freeway at 65 mph and moving slowly about the other cars with the same goal in mind.
And before you say that the ship had to catch up to the asteroid, the ship was coming from Earth, so ... there was no catching up to be done.
Yeah, yeah, I know what you're going to say: it was done for drama's sake. But couldn't they have found a more logical way to include some drama?
You trolls are free to ridicule what I have said. I expect your replies, though, I won't read it. But feel free.
I would much rather see your examples of similar illogical movie scene offerings.
Have fun.
I'm sitting here watching "Deep Impact", the 1998 movie about an impending comet collision with Earth. And while it is a science FICTION movie, I still can't help but wonder why the writers and/or directors would include a scene that is so scientifically illogical to the aims of the characters.
Specifically, I am referring to the approach of the spacecraft to the comet. The pilot (Robert Duvall as Spurgeon Tanner) brings the ship in from behind the comet and steers it through the dangerous tail of rock and ice at a relatively high speed.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to arrive next to the comet, rather than behind it, then merge over next to it at a speed relatively close to that of the comet and, therefore, the debris creating the tail?
The movie's version of approach could be thought of as driving up a busy 60 mph freeway at 180 mph, trying not to hit any other cars as you head for a specific exit; while my version could be thought of as driving up that same freeway at 65 mph and moving slowly about the other cars with the same goal in mind.
And before you say that the ship had to catch up to the asteroid, the ship was coming from Earth, so ... there was no catching up to be done.
Yeah, yeah, I know what you're going to say: it was done for drama's sake. But couldn't they have found a more logical way to include some drama?
You trolls are free to ridicule what I have said. I expect your replies, though, I won't read it. But feel free.
I would much rather see your examples of similar illogical movie scene offerings.
Have fun.