Quake3World

R00k wrote:You were right that vehicles don't blow up that easily.

But you were wrong that they don't catch fire that easily.

Either way, you've made your opinion abundantly clear already.

Yet you persist.

So you think that the vehicle catching fire in that clip was realistic?

I know you said "Yet you persist", but I want to know the answer to this.

andyman wrote:

DTS wrote:

Ryoki wrote:...are you trolling?

No.

I'm not.

Is he? Now that you mention it.

are you for real here? gasoline explodes. babies know this.

No. The fumes cause the explosion. Not the liquid itself.



Babies know this.

SOAPboy wrote:

andyman wrote:are you for real here? gasoline explodes. babies know this.

No. The fumes cause the explosion. Not the liquid itself.



Babies know this.

The fumes catch fire, as a fireball, if I'm not mistaken. The cause is a spark or a flame. Also the liquid would catch fire.

You're like a turd that won't flush.

DTS wrote:

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:dude, it's a live action film spawned from a cartoon. get over it.

It's not this film in particular, it's Hollywood films in general. I'm just bored of seeing explosions happen at nothing in films, and other unrealistic things happening.

It's like how can one be interested in a film like Fast and Furious if one knows anything about racing?

(I haven't seen it, btw.)

How can one be excited by the minigun scene in Predator when one knows that that isn't how a minigun sounds? (The director said (in the directors commentary) they used a cannon of some kind (maybe he said an assault cannon) that goes on the back of a vehicle, or is towed, for the sound.)

How can one enjoy the bit in Die Hard where he jumps off the building and has his fall stopped by the hosepipe wrapped around him if one knows that it's been calculated by scientists that the force would rip him in half?

Needless explosions, wrong sounds, impossible stunts.
What's to enjoy in a film if those things are supposed to be the main entertainment?

As regards sound effects, I will say I don't mind the sound effects that are put in kung fu films, though I might soon tire of those. I'm all for realism, now.

tell me just what the fuck you know about realism please. if your all for realism, go outside and don't watch transformers.

DTS wrote:

SOAPboy wrote:

andyman wrote:are you for real here? gasoline explodes. babies know this.

No. The fumes cause the explosion. Not the liquid itself.



Babies know this.

The fumes catch fire, as a fireball, if I'm not mistaken. The cause is a spark or a flame. Also the liquid would catch fire.

AND THEN EXPLODE IN A BIG FIREBALL.

so uh, yeah. this movie is gonna be way super cool huh?

DTS wrote:

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:dude, it's a live action film spawned from a cartoon. get over it.

It's not this film in particular, it's Hollywood films in general. I'm just bored of seeing explosions happen at nothing in films, and other unrealistic things happening.

It's like how can one be interested in a film like Fast and Furious if one knows anything about racing?

(I haven't seen it, btw.)

How can one be excited by the minigun scene in Predator when one knows that that isn't how a minigun sounds? (The director said (in the directors commentary) they used a cannon of some kind (maybe he said an assault cannon) that goes on the back of a vehicle, or is towed, for the sound.)

How can one enjoy the bit in Die Hard where he jumps off the building and has his fall stopped by the hosepipe wrapped around him if one knows that it's been calculated by scientists that the force would rip him in half?

Needless explosions, wrong sounds, impossible stunts.
What's to enjoy in a film if those things are supposed to be the main entertainment?

As regards sound effects, I will say I don't mind the sound effects that are put in kung fu films, though I might soon tire of those. I'm all for realism, now.

youre one of those people who create all their problems themselves, innit

MKJ wrote:youre one of those people who create all their problems themselves, innit

No

DTS wrote:

R00k wrote:You were right that vehicles don't blow up that easily.

But you were wrong that they don't catch fire that easily.

Either way, you've made your opinion abundantly clear already.

Yet you persist.

So you think that the vehicle catching fire in that clip was realistic?

I know you said "Yet you persist", but I want to know the answer to this.

I didn't say that the exact way the vehicle caught fire in the film was realistic, okay? Nothing about the movie is realistic.

However, it's not hard for a car to turn into a big ball of fire very quickly, if the gas tank is ruptured and has a lot of fuel in it.

I am in no way trying to say that what happened in that trailer was remotely realistic.

Do you want to know exactly how gasoline behaves - is that what this thread is about to you?

Liquid gasoline is highly flammable -- very highly. But not combustible, in a strict sense of the word. Gasoline FUMES are only combustible (meaning explosive) if they are under pressure and some sort of impetus (a spark or a flame) is introduced.

But the combustible force in gasoline is not a high-energy explosion in the way that something like dynamite is. Gasoline in a container simply catches fire, heats up, and expands. The explosion merely comes from the outward force exerted on the container.

Does that clear things up?

I'm sorry your tastes regarding realism in movies has changed, and yet Hollywood's hasn't changed right along with you. It's a movie about giant alien robots battling each other on our planet -- if you don't like explosions, then yea, it stands to reason that this one probably isn't up your alley.