2012
Vince M Hudd
The Mayan "Long Count Calender" comes to an end in December 2012, and there
is a school of loony thought which holds that the end of that calender
indicates the end of civilisation.
So, the logical thing to do is make a big disaster movie based on that
premise - which is great for those of us that like watching civilisation
being brought to an untimely end.
However, when making a film on that scale - and especially when teasing the
potential paying customer with a scene from the film, it's probably a good
idea to make it a good one. Unfortunately, they didn't:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZxBYItj2sM
The rush to get away in the car - with the ground literally collapsing right
behind them as they drive - is bad enough. But then the same thing is done
when they're taking off in the place; the runway immediately behind them
collapsing as they rush along it.
But then... they keep the plane low, flying through all the destruction
instead of getting it up out of the way.
How to dissuade me from wanting to see the film in one easy step.
--
Vince M Hudd
Soft Rock Software
FP
Well, they did make a thing out of having barely enough speed to get off
the ground at all. I dunno, maybe it's not possible to make a plane like
that go up like a rocket.
Don't think I'll be watching the film, though.
Frank
John W Kennedy
> Well, they did make a thing out of having barely enough speed to get off
> the ground at all. I dunno, maybe it's not possible to make a plane like
> that go up like a rocket.
It's /possible/. It's just expensive and results in a lousy payload
ratio. And, if you literally mean "like a rocket", they're also
suicidally difficult to land.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Vince M Hudd
> FP wrote:
> > Well, they did make a thing out of having barely enough speed to get off
> > the ground at all. I dunno, maybe it's not possible to make a plane like
> > that go up like a rocket.
>
> It's /possible/. It's just expensive and results in a lousy payload ratio.
Indeed - but in the situation presented in that clip, using the fuel
expensively and possibly being forced to ditch in water sooner rather than
later versus having a building fall on you only a few minutes after take
off, I know which I'd go for.
Besides which, why couldn't they have circled around over what was left of
the airfield once they were off the ground even a small amount? While the
ground there was a mess having did its collapsing behind them thing, at
least it was open space to begin with, which would mean no major
obstructions or falling buildings.
Having said all that, I've just looked at the clip again just from the point
they're in the plane (so I conveniently ignored that the collapse was
chasing *them* and that they were the *only* people who could find a way to
get away from it. ;)
The take off doesn't seem so bad on a second viewing because it's cut such
that the first of the buildings looks like they are right at the end of the
runway. Whether that really is the case I wouldn't know, obviously. It seems
a bit of a silly place to put a multi-story building, but I'm not an expert
on how to plonk buildings in flight paths! It does make the thing seem a
touch less ludicrous on second viewing, though. Not watching the first half
probably helped here - I suspect the repetition of the ground collapse
chasing the car and then the plane (after giving them a headstart to get on
board) probably made it harder for me to accept the clip as a whole.
> And, if you literally mean "like a rocket", they're also suicidally
> difficult to land.
Heh.
John W Kennedy
> John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> FP wrote:
>
>>> Well, they did make a thing out of having barely enough speed to get off
>>> the ground at all. I dunno, maybe it's not possible to make a plane like
>>> that go up like a rocket.
>> It's /possible/. It's just expensive and results in a lousy payload ratio.
>
> Indeed - but in the situation presented in that clip, using the fuel
> expensively and possibly being forced to ditch in water sooner rather than
> later versus having a building fall on you only a few minutes after take
> off, I know which I'd go for.
You said "make", not "fly". Hawker-Siddeley Harriers don't exactly lie
around like Cessnas, let alone Convair XFY-1s.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Though a Rothschild you may be
In your own capacity,
As a Company you've come to utter sorrow--
But the Liquidators say,
'Never mind--you needn't pay,'
So you start another company to-morrow!"
-- Sir William S. Gilbert. "Utopia Limited"
Vince M Hudd
> Vince M Hudd wrote:
> > John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> > > FP wrote:
[...]
> You said "make", not "fly". Hawker-Siddeley Harriers don't exactly lie
> around like Cessnas, let alone Convair XFY-1s.
Umm. My initials aren't FP. :p
Charlie Pearce
wrote:
They took off at a scarily low speed - my instinct would also have
been to keep the wings level until at a decent speed rather than raise
the nose and risk stalling.
Charlie
--
Email killed by spammers - please ask for the real one.
Vince M Hudd
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 19:59:30 +0100, Vince M Hudd <sp...@softrock.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > But then... they keep the plane low, flying through all the destruction
> > instead of getting it up out of the way.
> They took off at a scarily low speed
Did they? IIRC, it was simply not as high as it should be, because the pilot
wanted to take off by the book. I'm not sure they showed *how* low, just
that the other guy forced a take off before the pilot wanted. For all we
know the difference could've been tiny. (Unless, as I guess you've only
recently seen it, they did show how low and I just can't remember).
(Also, my original comment was based on an early trailer. I can't remember
how clear this was in the trailer compared with the film.)
> - my instinct would also have been to keep the wings level until at a
> decent speed rather than raise the nose and risk stalling.
But surely, if you risk the plane stalling by trying to climb, you are
taking just *one* risk with your life - the plane might stall, and as a
result you might come crashing back to an Earth which is being desstroyed.
However, if you stay level and fly into the paths of numerous falling
buildings, then you are taking *as many* risks with your life as there are
falling buildings that come down perilously close to where your plane was
moments ago when you flew under the paths of those falling buildings.
One risk of being splatted versus multiple risks of being splatted.
On balance I think the risk of stalling presented a better risk of
surviving, since it presented fewer opportunities to die.
--
Vince M Hudd ::: Soft Rock Software
http://misc.vinceh.com ::: http://www.softrock.co.uk
Is there any scope for a new Bristol RISC OS user group?
See: http://www.riscository.com
Charlie Pearce
wrote:
>Charlie Pearce <charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 19:59:30 +0100, Vince M Hudd <sp...@softrock.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>
>> > But then... they keep the plane low, flying through all the destruction
>> > instead of getting it up out of the way.
>
>> They took off at a scarily low speed
>
>Did they? IIRC, it was simply not as high as it should be, because the pilot
>wanted to take off by the book. I'm not sure they showed *how* low, just
>that the other guy forced a take off before the pilot wanted. For all we
>know the difference could've been tiny. (Unless, as I guess you've only
>recently seen it, they did show how low and I just can't remember).
The last shot of the airspeed indicator showed 70 knots (as Cusack's
character shuoted "80's good!" and lunged for the throttles), so I'm
guessing they lifted off at around 75. That plane looks a lot like
(but might not be) a King Air, which according to Wicky Wacky Woo has
a stall speed of 78 knots with flaps down. As I said, my gut reaction
watching that clip was "Don't raise the nose yet!".
Of course, as long as he did that, once airborne the plane would have
continued to accelerate and generate lift, and would have been at a
perfectly safe speed to climb and turn by the end of the runway 10-15
seconds later (that's why runways are long, after all), so I totally
accept your point about "flying through all the destruction". Film
time is a lot quicker than real time, after all.