www.ditl.org

It is the movies that you know that have glaring plotholes or scientific or logical errors in the movie. Big ones but the overall movie was just that good to allow you to say "I don't care" or "Fuck it".

My example: Jurassic Park. The whole DNA lasting for 65 million years is bullshit. In the movie even the plants have been recreated too which is bullshit too. Where did they find plant material? Goldblum, a mathematician or whatever. Why is he there? But overall, the movie is such a great movie that I will suspend my disbelieve

To be fair, the fact DNA doesn't last that long was proved after the movie was made.

Something like that doesn't bother me because it's the basic premise of the film, rather than an error in the execution. Jurassic Park isn't so much saying "this is plausible" as "what if this was plausible?" To me it's no different from a vampire movie where you have to accept the premise that vampires are real.

What bothers me more are when they do things in the movie that are just plain nonsensical within the context of the movie. Jurassic Park II is full of this stuff - in fact it's almost nothing BUT a series of plot holes strung together. An example being Sarah Harding - we're introduced to her with a little speech from her about how tough and competent she is. She then proceeds to act like an utter fool for the entire rest of the movie, getting many people killed in the process. As do most of the good guys, incidentally. Seriously, almost every bad thing that happens in the film is a direct result of the incompetence of the good guys.

But I give it a pass mostly, because... dinosaurs! Dinosaurs are cool.

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. The Joker's plans are all executed to perfection even when he uses mental-hospital escapees to execute these plans.

Well given the nature of this website, you've got to say Star Trek. After all faster than light travel, ha!

IanKennedy wrote:Well given the nature of this website, you've got to say Star Trek. After all faster than light travel, ha!

And aliens look like humans except for a bump on the forehead? Ha!

I side on the "I don't care" for most movies, unless it is taking itself seriously. Star Trek, Star Wars, superhero films... I try to go for the escape into another "world" and just enjoy.

One recent movie that I could not suspend for was "Olympus Has Fallen" The ease in which they took down the White House was a joke.
* A C130 with 4 mini's takes out two of the DUMBEST fighter pilots ever, no other air support around DC for 5+ minutes
* Then the same C130 takes out the ONE AND ONLY anti-air missile battery in all of DC. ONE!?!?! And, that one battery fires missiles that are easily defeated with flares.
* Secret service stand out in the open with their 9mm's, no heavy backup and very little ducking for cover. There is more security at a ball game.
* No military ground support for 5+ minutes.

It just seemed like whoever wrote the takeover art was either anti-government or put that part off until last and just ran out of time so they threw something together real quick.

The fighter jets flying about 100 feet off each wing of the C130... ugh...

Nutso wrote:

IanKennedy wrote:Well given the nature of this website, you've got to say Star Trek. After all faster than light travel, ha!

And aliens look like humans except for a bump on the forehead? Ha!

The universal translators translating Klingon into English unless the person meant to say something in Klingon then it knows that and does not translate... ?

Jim wrote:no other air support around DC for 5+ minutes

Well, there really aren't all that many fighters on high alert along the coastline. It's not like we have constant coverage along the entire eastern seaboard. In fact if memory serves there might be only 2 or 4 fighters on the entire Eastern seaboard at any given time with a similar number on 15 minute alert.

* Then the same C130 takes out the ONE AND ONLY anti-air missile battery in all of DC. ONE!?!?! And, that one battery fires missiles that are easily defeated with flares.

Believe it or not prior to 9/11 the only surface to air missiles in DC were the man portable Stingers the secret service kept at the White House. After 9/11 a few Hawk systems were moved in but I'm pretty certain they've all been removed.

* No military ground support for 5+ minutes.

Again, we don't really have M1A2 Abrams stationed throughout Washington DC just in case. Even infantry units. Too much coast, too many cities, not enough men. Not to mention people wouldn't want them. I'd be surprised if you could get a military ground response in under an hour.

If anything the SOD issue with that movie is that there's too much of a military presence. I know it's hard to believe but there's really not much of a permanently on station, ready to go military force on the East Coast. Unless you count the Coast Guard.

Tyyr wrote:If anything the SOD issue with that movie is that there's too much of a military presence. I know it's hard to believe but there's really not much of a permanently on station, ready to go military force on the East Coast. Unless you count the Coast Guard.

I am willing to accept that for most places (even NYC, Boston, etc), but I find it hard to believe for DC, especially the White House and Capital buildings. I would find it easier to believe that there are a dozen Abrams "hidden" within a block of the White House than there not being even 1 period.

But... I do not mean to make this into a terror/military/perceived safety/real safety discussion... so I concede the point for this thread topic.

Jim wrote:I am willing to accept that for most places (even NYC, Boston, etc), but I find it hard to believe for DC, especially the White House and Capital buildings. I would find it easier to believe that there are a dozen Abrams "hidden" within a block of the White House than there not being even 1 period.

Why? You're not fighting a war anywhere near DC and you're not facing any sort of insurgency, so there's no threat to warrant such a deployment. For that matter you're not facing a particularly serious terrorist threat. There's no reason to turn the place into a fortress on the off chance that someone might repeat an attack that's been done precisely once, and against which far more sensible and effective precautions have been in place for over a decade.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Jim wrote:I am willing to accept that for most places (even NYC, Boston, etc), but I find it hard to believe for DC, especially the White House and Capital buildings. I would find it easier to believe that there are a dozen Abrams "hidden" within a block of the White House than there not being even 1 period.

Why? You're not fighting a war anywhere near DC and you're not facing any sort of insurgency, so there's no threat to warrant such a deployment. For that matter you're not facing a particularly serious terrorist threat. There's no reason to turn the place into a fortress on the off chance that someone might repeat an attack that's been done precisely once, and against which far more sensible and effective precautions have been in place for over a decade.

I guess. But it does seem like our capital should be bristling with defenses.


I know mine would but I guess that's just how I roll.

Defenses cost money, a lot of it. Your average fighter has dozens of man hours of maintenance expended on it for every hour it's in the air. Fuel costs money, weapons cost money and need more fuel to be carried, your pilots are spending hours flying circles in the air instead of doing something useful like training. Plus the shear number of aircraft you'd have to have to give meaningful coverage to the eastern seaboard. The US isn't overflowing with free aircraft for this kind of duty either. With our commitments to the Middle East and other places finding a dozen squadrons to set up this kind of patrol isn't going to be easy and ultimately... why? After 9/11 people know the consequences of an airplane getting hijacked which makes the odds of a similar attack happening again just about zero. So... why?

As far as anti-aircraft missiles you've got two problems, the first being a crowded airspace. Which of the aircraft or helicopters in the air do you shoot down? In wartime that's not that hard as friendlies have IFF and the enemy doesn't and you still see plenty of blue on blue friendly fire incidents. Now when you've got dozens of civilian aircraft in the area you want to start popping off SAM's? Even if you can ID the target most SAM's are not going to stop a commercial airliner in it's tracks. They're too big. By the time a Stinger or Hawk got a clear shot at an incoming aircraft even if they hit it the odds they'll be able to stop it are incredibly low. Oh sure, they'll hit it, but they just don't have the oomph necessary to blow an aircraft that size to pieces. Given that a suicide pilot doesn't care about flying an engine being shot off is a minor inconvenience. He's going into the ground anyways and by the time you can shoot he's close enough and fast enough he's going to hit you even if he's on fire and in one or two pieces.

As for ground forces, why? When was the last time the US Capitol was in serious danger from an outside aggressor? 1812? Hell, the guys INSIDE the capital building are a bigger danger to the country. Terrorists are not a threat that the military is any real use against. An M1A2 is about the most useless response you can have to a guy with a Semtex trench coat or an active shooter. Even ground troops are minimally useful. In almost all cases local SWAT is going to be as well equipped as the military, if not better given the territory, as well as better trained in the terrain and tactics for it. They are also going to be local and easy to get your hands on, and can be used for regular policing the rest of the time.

The kind of scenario played out in Olympus has Fallen is the kind of idea that you'd only ever get in a Hollywood action movie. It's just too ridiculous so yeah... we're not prepared to repel that kind of threat. Because no one would be that insane.

In reality, I'd think if you're in a situation where you are seriously contemplating fighting even small scale infantry battles in your capital city then you've already lost.

Tyyr wrote:When was the last time the US Capitol was in serious danger from an outside aggressor? 1812?

1863.

In reality, I'd think if you're in a situation where you are seriously contemplating fighting even small scale infantry battles in your capital city then you've already lost.

It depends on the context. Given the sort of firepower that's been deployed in London in the not so distant past (mortars, RPGs and a few good-sized IEDs spring to mind), robust patrolling can be appropriate under certain circumstances. Not to mention that time the army sent light tanks to Heathrow. It would require either specific intelligence or a far more serious standing threat than the US has faced since 1860s, but it can happen.