Welcome to Thunderdome

Posted: **Sat Nov 22, 2014 7:10 am**

That last third not as good as the middle third.

6/10

Posted: **Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:43 am**

Finally got to watch this and I'm still trying to figure out if I liked it or not.

It was entertaining, so that's good. It also captured my imagination despite the ridiculousness of the concept.

However, there was also some REALLY stupid shit, aside from a train that travels around the world on tracks that never need to be repaired...

On a side note, I work with two train nerds and they scoff at the concept of this film. These guys go out daily to follow trains during their lunch hour. They know everything about trains. They also chuckle at movies where the train goes up on it's side like the Dukes of Hazard driving around on two wheels. They explain that it just wouldn't happen that way. Once those wheels leave the track, the train is derailing. They really mocked how Hollywood played up the wheels leaving the track bullshit in the Denzel/Chris Pine movie Unstoppable. I'm trying to make this film our topic of the week so I can hear more from them about it.

Does the stupid shit outweigh the entertainment? I don't know.

I'm a sucker for post-apocalyptic movies, especially ones with unique concepts. So I'm going to lean towards liking the film, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to ignore the stuff that was really bad...and there was a lot of it.

So I'd say that people should watch it because it does entertain, just know that you'll be ridiculing a lot of what you see.

P.S. I'm starting a spoiler thread.

Edited By Leisher on 1420472639

Posted: **Mon Jan 05, 2015 1:21 pm**

Happy New Year!

Posted: **Mon Jan 05, 2015 3:14 pm**

This movie made $86 million on a $40 million budget.

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs....yhs-001

Posted: **Mon Jan 05, 2015 4:20 pm**

Fine, I'll watch it soon. It still seems like the whole thing is based on a really stupid idea, though, good movie or not.

Why a train? Why not a building? What possible reason could there be that all humans must be on a moving platform that never stops?

I'll watch, maybe that's answered in the movie. But I doubt it.

EDIT: Oh, I should mention I've done some internet searching on this point, and all the answers I've gotten are very French like the comic this movie is based on. Like how it's an allegory about society and progress and never being able to stop because then it will all come to a bitter end. That's fine and all but this has been labeled as science fiction rather than fantasy, so I want the science answer of why this makes sense not the French hippie answer.

Edited By TPRJones on 1420493561

Posted: **Mon Jan 05, 2015 4:34 pm**

One thought for the train: How would you keep an eye on the entire continent/area to know when some part may be habitable or changed, or wahtever?

Posted: **Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:05 pm**

The film Alien features faster than light travel and artificial gravity, both of which it gives no plausible engineering explanation for. Further we are shown an android that is capable of all the actions the rest of the crew carry out which renders the human crew obsolete. Without there being a need for humans to be on the Nostromo and with no explanation of FTL travel the events of the film make no sense. Ergo Alien is a bad film.

Posted: **Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:21 pm**

Those are accepted sci-fi tropes, for which there are plenty of well-known semi-plausible explanations that aren't completely divorced from reasonableness.

I just want the semi-plausible explanation of why they have to be on a moving train. Being on a moving train is much more complex than being in stationary buildings. It means much less room to live and a much higher expenditure of energy to keep things moving, not to mention all the added risks. There must be a compelling reason for it other than "because the script said so." If it's about keeping an eye on the ice, it'd still be much simpler to have most people living in one place and send off a handful of scouts on a much smaller and simpler train for the annual circuit to see.

I'll still watch it, but I'm guessing from these responses that there's not really a reason given in the movie.

Posted: **Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:23 pm**

There are some things in the spoiler thread about it.

Posted: **Mon Jan 05, 2015 11:13 pm**

Okay, I'll be patient.

Posted: **Tue Jan 06, 2015 11:32 am**

Please watch the movie TPR.

Then you can join the spoiler thread.

Posted: **Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:53 pm**

The military chick has got to be Michael Caine in drag.

Posted: **Wed Dec 16, 2015 5:39 pm**

Malcolm wrote:The military chick has got to be Michael Caine in drag.

Tilda Swinton. I'll be damned. Anyhow, movie was 25% ok and 75% shitty, lazy writing, and preachy plot twists.

Posted: **Wed Dec 16, 2015 7:12 pm**

Funny, I was thinking about this movie this morning while working out.

You tell people, "The situation is that they are on a perpetual motion train on a frozen Earth, and the movie is about the people stuck on it." You've given them the situation, and the premise.

If they come back with, "Well it sucked because I just couldn't get past the perpetual motion train," it makes you wonder why the hell they bothered with the movie, then, if they couldn't accept the universe that was presented.

Posted: **Wed Dec 16, 2015 7:15 pm**

if they couldn't accept the universe that was presented.

The universe presented makes no fucking sense specifically because the analogy being used was stupid. It's not my fault the writers have a scattershot script and little to no talent.

Edited By Malcolm on 1450311355

Posted: **Thu Dec 17, 2015 11:35 am**

GORDON wrote:Funny, I was thinking about this movie this morning while working out.

You tell people, "The situation is that they are on a perpetual motion train on a frozen Earth, and the movie is about the people stuck on it." You've given them the situation, and the premise.

If they come back with, "Well it sucked because I just couldn't get past the perpetual motion train," it makes you wonder why the hell they bothered with the movie, then, if they couldn't accept the universe that was presented.

They created the universe, so that means it's beyond reproach?

Quentin disagress with you.

The train here doesn't work for numerous reasons that we've pointed out multiple times. Come to lunch with me and I'll let you talk to the train geeks and they will talk for the entire hour about what a bad idea the train is and how poorly the concept was executed. One of them is a published train photographer. (Not kidding)

To contrast, the Death Star worked because it was massive, like the organization that built it. It easily had the infrastructure inside to be self-sustaining. It was also believable that a weakness could be found and exploited based on stolen plans being analyzed. (Said weakness being at the end of a trench on the surface and not simply having a grate over it to prevent such an attack being beside the point.)

The film Alien features faster than light travel and artificial gravity, both of which it gives no plausible engineering explanation for. Further we are shown an android that is capable of all the actions the rest of the crew carry out which renders the human crew obsolete. Without there being a need for humans to be on the Nostromo and with no explanation of FTL travel the events of the film make no sense. Ergo Alien is a bad film.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Yes, the Alien film featured things that may not be realistic or real at this point in time, but they don't break the rules they establish. That's the key difference. There was so much about the train that just doesn't work logically within their own rules.

The rules for Snowpiercer were established in THIS reality when to counteract global warming some chemical was dropped in the atmosphere, accidentally freezing THIS world...in 2014. Thus, all of our criticisms are legit because we're debating actual real world fact as known to us at this time and applying it to the movie set in this world, in this time.

And by the way, think about Ed Harris' speech and take into account they've only been on the train for 17 years. The people on that train sure do have short memories, huh?

Again, I enjoyed the film, but the story and concept have some massive flaws.

Posted: **Thu Dec 17, 2015 11:44 am**

- "Hansel and Gretel" takes place in an enchanted forest with the central location being a house made of gingerbread.

"Bullshit, even if I accept a magical forest, there's no way a house made of sugary candy could exist in a wooded area full of bugs. It's stupid."

- "The Hunger Games" takes place in a universe where a central authority makes the subordinate communities sacrifice two of their children each year as punishment for an uprising, and the story is about when someone breaks the rules and still wins.

"Bullshit, there is no way people would give up their kids like that, I don't care who they are. It's stupid."

- "Snowpiercer" takes place on a perpetual motion train that circles the globes once every year and the movie is about the struggle of the people on it.

"Bullshit... the entire premise is stupid and......."

++++++

Sometimes you just have to suspend disbelief just a little harder and enjoy the fucking movie.

I know I enjoyed it, and I have no expectation that such a train could exist.

Posted: **Thu Dec 17, 2015 11:45 am**

The film Alien features faster than light travel and artificial gravity, both of which it gives no plausible engineering explanation for. Further we are shown an android that is capable of all the actions the rest of the crew carry out which renders the human crew obsolete. Without there being a need for humans to be on the Nostromo and with no explanation of FTL travel the events of the film make no sense. Ergo Alien is a bad film.

Yeah, but in Alien you don't find out the Nostromo's engine was running on baby xenomorphs.

"The Hunger Games" ... It's stupid."

Amen, brother.

"Hansel and Gretel" takes place in an enchanted forest with the central location being a house made of gingerbread.

"Bullshit, even if I accept a magical forest, there's no way a house made of sugary candy could exist in a wooded area full of bugs. It's stupid."

Bah, she's a witch and witches can make magical bug repellent. Furthermore, she doesn't ask Gretel to become the replacement witch at the end.

I have no expectation that such a train could exist.

It's not about the realistic possibility of the train existing. It's about that train in that imaginary world being retarded by the rules established in the movie. The idiotic decisions were made due to thematic elements. Once you warp the setting, characters, and plot in favour of that, the flick gets more and more absurd for audience members that care about the three former items.

Edited By Malcolm on 1450376314

Posted: **Thu Dec 17, 2015 1:09 pm**

GORDON wrote:- "Hansel and Gretel" takes place in an enchanted forest with the central location being a house made of gingerbread.

"Bullshit, even if I accept a magical forest, there's no way a house made of sugary candy could exist in a wooded area full of bugs. It's stupid."

- "The Hunger Games" takes place in a universe where a central authority makes the subordinate communities sacrifice two of their children each year as punishment for an uprising, and the story is about when someone breaks the rules and still wins.

"Bullshit, there is no way people would give up their kids like that, I don't care who they are. It's stupid."

- "Snowpiercer" takes place on a perpetual motion train that circles the globes once every year and the movie is about the struggle of the people on it.

"Bullshit... the entire premise is stupid and......."

++++++

Sometimes you just have to suspend disbelief just a little harder and enjoy the fucking movie. I know I enjoyed it, and I have no expectation that such a train could exist.

None of those examples counter what I said.

Welcome to Thunderdome

Snowpiercer - Yay! Netflix