This movie was boring and plain stupid.
-
Bladerunneru0095 — 17 years ago(July 25, 2008 05:52 PM)
If you knew anything about making nitro you'd know that your statement is stupid.
Now, what are these other "compounds" that are "easily manufactured and much more stable than nitro" (at the time in the picture)?
"nothing is left of me, each time I see her" - Catullus -
jon-gwynne — 17 years ago(July 28, 2008 12:42 AM)
If you knew anything about making nitro you'd know that your statement is stupid.
Actually, I do know how to make nitroglycerin.
Now, what are these other "compounds" that are "easily manufactured and much more stable than nitro" (at the time in the picture)?
The picture was set in the 1970s
But even if it wasn't, TNT has been manufactured commercially as an explosive since the 1900s.Idiot/block list: No_Bama_Ever, kmm39, jack_spicer, John_Merrick, dbblsanta, gallus
-
Bladerunneru0095 — 17 years ago(August 06, 2008 04:27 PM)
But even if it wasn't, TNT has been manufactured commercially as an explosive since the 1900s.
Wrong. This from Wikipedia:
TNT can be safely poured when liquid into shell cases, and is so insensitive that in 1910, it was exempted from the UK's Explosives Act 1875 and was not considered an explosive for the purposes of manufacture and storage.
It wasn't available "commercially" until the mid 20's (as far as I can tell) and it wasn't easily available everywhere.
In case you didn't know it, some products are hard to get in other parts of the world besides the USA. People still use nitro in many places that TNT isn't available because is too expensive, or they unable to obtain it (import restrictions). The point is, it is not outside the bounds of reality that TNT was unavailable in the place they were in the film.
Try suspending reality once in a while, or are you going to complain about The Dark Knight because there is no such person as Batman?
"nothing is left of me, each time I see her" - Catullus
PS What is the point of posting your block list as your signature? Are you bragging, or afraid that the people you're blocking won't know it, so you have to inform them in your sig line? Seems absurd to me, but then that's just my opinion. -
jon-gwynne — 17 years ago(August 06, 2008 04:33 PM)
Wrong. This from Wikipedia:
TNT can be safely poured when liquid into shell cases, and is so insensitive that in 1910, it was exempted from the UK's Explosives Act 1875 and was not considered an explosive for the purposes of manufacture and storage.
So what are you saying that because the British government exempted it from the Explosives Act of 1875 it wasn't an explosive?
Give me a break.
In case you didn't know it, some products are hard to get in other parts of the world besides the USA.
Yeah, but toluene, nitric acid and sulfuric acid aren't among them. In any case, TNT is only one of a bunch of options they would have had other than nitroglycerine.
Try suspending reality once in a while
I don't mind suspending reality, I just don't like being asked to suspend common sense.
It was a crap movie even when you look past the absurdity of the concept.Idiot/block list: No_Bama_Ever, kmm39, jack_spicer, John_Merrick, dbblsanta, gallus
-
Bladerunneru0095 — 17 years ago(August 06, 2008 08:08 PM)
So what are you saying that because the British government exempted it from the Explosives Act of 1875 it wasn't an explosive?
Yes. That shows that it's true potential (at that time) as an explosive wasn't KNOWN (or widely understood). This from Wikipedia:
TNT was first prepared in 1863 by German chemist Joseph Wilbrand[3] and originally used as a yellow dye. Its potential as an explosive was not appreciated for several years mainly because it was so difficult to detonate and because it was less powerful than alternatives.
Yeah, but toluene, nitric acid and sulfuric acid aren't among them. In any case, TNT is only one of a bunch of options they would have had other than nitroglycerine.
How do you know? And we aren't talking about those compounds, we're talking about manufactured DYNAMITE. Get with the program. You don't just toss those ingredients in a bowl and mix well. The ability to manufacture TNT from those compounds requires the skill (and lab to do it). It also can be very dangerous (if you don't know what you're doing).
I don't mind suspending reality, I just don't like being asked to suspend common sense.
How about not suspending the common sense it would take to realize that TNT might not have been available to the people in the movie? Try that.
It was a crap movie even when you look past the absurdity of the concept.
That is your opinion, and considering the film enjoys a 7.4 here on IMDB, it's in the grand minority. Do me a favor and add me to your gauche "block list".
"nothing is left of me, each time I see her" - Catullus -
jon-gwynne — 17 years ago(August 06, 2008 08:15 PM)
Yes. That shows that it's true potential (at that time) as an explosive wasn't KNOWN (or widely understood). This from Wikipedia:
TNT was first prepared in 1863 by German chemist Joseph Wilbrand[3] and originally used as a yellow dye. Its potential as an explosive was not appreciated for several years mainly because it was so difficult to detonate and because it was less powerful than alternatives.
(sigh)
I can understand why you'd say that if the only thing you know about TNT is what you read in Wikipedia However, you're quite wrong.
How do you know?
Because I know more about the history of explosives that what you've read in Wikipedia.
And we aren't talking about those compounds
Actually, we were.
we're talking about manufactured DYNAMITE.
No, you are talking about dynamite. I was talking about TNT.
the film enjoys a 7.4 here on IMDB
So what? Popular crap is still crap.Idiot/block list: No_Bama_Ever, kmm39, jack_spicer, John_Merrick, dbblsanta, gallus
-
Bladerunneru0095 — 17 years ago(August 07, 2008 03:29 AM)
I can understand why you'd say that if the only thing you know about TNT is what you read in Wikipedia However, you're quite wrong.
Oh, and you are an expert on TNT? If I'm so wrong, prove it.
Because I know more about the history of explosives that what you've read in Wikipedia.
We're waiting for you to impart your wisdom. (yawn)
Actually, we were.
No, actually we weren't. We were talking about the availability of TNT.
So what? Popular crap is still crap.
It's not about "popular", it's about quality. Sorcerer isn't what anyone would call a "big" movie, it's just a small movie that has been rated as excellent by those who watch it. Try to understand the difference between "popular" and "excellent" when it comes to the IMDB rating, ok?
"nothing is left of me, each time I see her" - Catullus -
jon-gwynne — 17 years ago(August 07, 2008 04:31 AM)
Oh, and you are an expert on TNT? If I'm so wrong, prove it.
I suppose I should start by explaining to you that there is a difference between TNT and dynamite.
They're two completely different things.
No, actually we weren't. We were talking about the availability of TNT.
So was I. I was talking about the ingredients to make TNT but you didn't realize that because you don't know anything about TNT.
It's not about "popular", it's about quality.
The IMDB rating is nothing to do with the "quality" of a film. There are plenty of crap films rated highly by IMDB. Why? Because the majority of people who visit this site are fanboys who don't know dick about film (or explosives).Idiot/block list: No_Bama_Ever, kmm39, jack_spicer, John_Merrick, dbblsanta, gallus
-
dangus — 17 years ago(August 11, 2008 07:05 PM)
(I thought I'd already posted something on this thread, but anyway) In retrospect, the core of the plot isn't very plausible. But, Friedkin based his film on the Wages Of Fear, which was based on a book or short story (wasn't it?).
Perhaps in a banana republic festering with guerrillas (sorry, freedom fighters) buying explosives isn't so straightforward. Maybe weather conditions prevented flying in the crates or fresh explosives.
The problem with trying to manufacture explosives from scratch is that if this town is so small that there isn't any place to buy explosives, it's rather unlikely that the local pharmacy or garage will have enough nitric and sulfuric acid to make a useful amount of explosive. And will there be enough ice available at the well site to cool the reactions?
Why not hire a few poor but brave locals to remanufacture the dynamite: cut open the old sticks, dump the keiselguhr into a bowl, add the liquid NG and knead it gently.
Or get a buttload of tarps, duct tape them into a huge balloon, and fill it with a stoich. mix of oxygen and acetylene.
Mythbusters could devote a whole episode to this movie -
jon-gwynne — 17 years ago(August 11, 2008 07:09 PM)
Mythbusters could devote a whole episode to this movie
Hey, that's an interesting idea I doubt they'd want to get too specific about how to manufacture explosives from common household items, but it would still make an interesting show even with all the ingredients pixilated.Idiot/block list: No_Bama_Ever, kmm39, jack_spicer, John_Merrick, dbblsanta, gallus
-
chriskunselman — 12 years ago(September 19, 2013 12:57 AM)
listen smart guy, this movie was a remake of a french film based on a novel. a novel, something made up. regardless, your points about explosives are idiotic mr.explosives expert. it's called expediency douche. yeah, yeah, they could have made their own nitro., they could have used other explosives, they could have eaten fruit loops, but you know what they did what humans do, they made snap decisions w/what they had at hand and using people they didn't give a beep about, to stop a crisis from escalating. the fact that you find this scenario so implausible makes me believe you're not familiar w/human behaviour. what planet are you from?