Hey longtime lurker, new member. This convo caught my eye so I googled Anti- Gravity.
Found this on wikipedia after searching around: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force#Explanation
I don't know the physics but the entry references "tearing things apart".
Any thoughts?
hope I'm not wasting time!
according to "september11" the EMP causes earthquakes
Well, a vague rumor from an unnamed friend who works at an unnamed post house. Its possible. But it conflicts with the news story I found. Anti-gravity is interesting. But anti gravity wouldn't necessariy cause buildings to "fall" would it? And how does the anti-gravity device work? Is Nolan going Star Wars on us?
not anti - gravity....he said it causes a disruption in gravity....if you're familiar with how gravity behaves, more specifically according to how Einstein defined it. It occupies space around us...like molecules...with this device triggered, every molecule of gravitational would have a different gravitational component...resulting in a chaotic ripping effect
Leftover tricks..." ? I mean, is there a law that says a director can't use the same method more than once? Besides, the "effect" of the machine isn't as important as its implications for the plot.
Well, I specifically stated that I don't have a problem with him using the method more than once, just not back to back. It's uninspired and less interesting to me as a viewer, since, Nolan literally just used the idea in his last film. Essentially, anything Nolan would relate to TDKR's plot with the use of shifting gravity would seem redundant to me at this point, given how that was a huge selling point for Inception. I'd prefer something more fresh.
The anti-gravity sequence was a huge selling point for you for Inception? Jeez, if you're going to see a movie as deep-sci-fi as Inception, I'd hope you were paying a little more attention to the plot and enjoying the rabbit-hole aesthetic.
Well, I specifically stated that I don't have a problem with him using the method more than once, just not back to back. It's uninspired and less interesting to me as a viewer, since, Nolan literally just used the idea in his last film. Essentially, anything Nolan would relate to TDKR's plot with the use of shifting gravity would seem redundant to me at this point, given how that was a huge selling point for Inception. I'd prefer something more fresh.
The anti-gravity sequence was a huge selling point for you for Inception? Jeez, if you're going to see a movie as deep-sci-fi as Inception, I'd hope you were paying a little more attention to the plot and enjoying the rabbit-hole aesthetic.
+ 1,000,000
Inception had cool special effects. But it was the excellent writing and philosophic undertones that made it so awesome. Is Nolan unoriginal because he used ninjas? Explosions? I mean, the fx and everything are great but its his writing and visual storytelling that gets me.
An EMP would be like the unabomber's manifesto against civilization. But an anti-gravity device is just destructive. Insert WMD here.
Well, I specifically stated that I don't have a problem with him using the method more than once, just not back to back. It's uninspired and less interesting to me as a viewer, since, Nolan literally just used the idea in his last film. Essentially, anything Nolan would relate to TDKR's plot with the use of shifting gravity would seem redundant to me at this point, given how that was a huge selling point for Inception. I'd prefer something more fresh.
The anti-gravity sequence was a huge selling point for you for Inception? Jeez, if you're going to see a movie as deep-sci-fi as Inception, I'd hope you were paying a little more attention to the plot and enjoying the rabbit-hole aesthetic.
I never said it was a selling point for me- it was a selling point for the audience. The rotating hallway scene is second to only the final frame as the most culturally noted scene in the film. It was featured in nearly all the trailers and is easily the most memorable action set piece in the film.
Damn, I think the EMP-Bomb would be much better than an earthquake-machine. An earthquake (which is an uncontrollable force, even if you have a machine to make one) would cause just destruction. But if you shut up a city, that has no electricity, you would create chaos. The people in it would destroy each other. This would fit perfect into the actions of the LoS in BB.
I know it's just speculation and I don't want to be disappointed at the end, but for me it sounds perfect.
And if you want to go for realism (even the vaporizer in Begins is a viable weapon) then I'd say an EMP-bomb is much more realistic than an earthquake/anti-grav device.
EMPs are very much the near-future of warfare (along with sonic disruption), whereas any such anti-grav devices that may be developed following studies at CERN (etc.) will be decades, if not a century, away.
Let's not argue again about how realistic (or not) Nolan's Batman films are again though.
When I first saw the Heinz Field footage, I thought 'earthquake' too. Especially as the extras were told to be shocked by 'a smoking crater for a field'. The ground burst, crumbled and then fell (if we're to believe that football players were disappearing into the field).
An EMP wouldn't do that. Not unless there is something else underneath the stadium.
I'm actually a little let down by the design of the device (and it's inclusion at all). I thought the maguffin from Begins was actually the movies weakest element. TDK didn't have anything similar; the Joker had a couple of plans to cause chaos.
I'm just hoping that the whole movie isn't focussed around this fantasy (and unrealistic-looking) object, and that it perhaps only appears in the final 1/3 of the movie like the vaporiser in Begins.
Unless Nolan is falling victim to a really annoying plot hole in sci-fi movies that use EMP devices, it makes no sense. How would vehicles work if it disabled everything? Sure, Batman and the League of Shadows could have some kind of crap that permits them to use their stuff without electricity, but that's a stretch for Nolan. And guns seem to be working just fine...
Though I will say this... If it is an EMP device and they detonate it LATE in the film, that could be why hundreds of cops with guns are fist-fighting in those first set photos we saw. I found that weird at the time.
eisentower30 wrote:
Though I will say this... If it is an EMP device and they detonate it LATE in the film, that could be why hundreds of cops with guns are fist-fighting in those first set photos we saw. I found that weird at the time.
Could be possible except that...
Catwoman rides the Batpod out of the building right after that massive fight presumably.
Also...
You can tell from the ninja photos from NY last week that the device still has 20 seconds on the timer. So assuming that those scenes take place near the very end of the film, it's quite possible that the device hasn't even went off yet.
Unless there is more than one.
"It doesn't matter how you get knocked down in life because that's going to happen. All that matters is you gotta get up."
eisentower30 wrote:Unless Nolan is falling victim to a really annoying plot hole in sci-fi movies that use EMP devices, it makes no sense. How would vehicles work if it disabled everything? Sure, Batman and the League of Shadows could have some kind of crap that permits them to use their stuff without electricity, but that's a stretch for Nolan. And guns seem to be working just fine...
Though I will say this... If it is an EMP device and they detonate it LATE in the film, that could be why hundreds of cops with guns are fist-fighting in those first set photos we saw. I found that weird at the time.
You seem to be a bit unclear on how EMP devices work. Although it would affect vehicle performance and make it impossible for some cars to turn on (this was portrayed well in the most recent War of the Worlds), not all cars would necessarily be stopped. See page 115: http://www.empcommission.org/docs/A2473 ... on-7MB.pdf. Furthermore, it wouldn't affect guns at all. Those operate based almost entirely on mechanical functions, not electronics.
