this movie was a remake of a french film based on a novel. a novel, something made up.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Sorcerer
jon-gwynne — 12 years ago(September 19, 2013 06:43 AM)
this movie was a remake of a french film based on a novel. a novel, something made up.
"The Core" was made up too. Doesn't mean it wasn't stupid crap.
regardless, your points about explosives are idiotic mr.explosives expert.
You don't have to be an explosives expert to know it is stupid to transport nitroglycerine by truck - that it would be infinitely preferable to transport the raw materials to site and then brew up the explosive as needed.
the fact that you find this scenario so implausible makes me believe you're not familiar w/human behaviour
Ummm I hate to break it to you but this wasn't a documentary. If these events had actually occurred, then you might have a point here but since they didn't you're just talking nonsense.
There are many ways to show that it is possible to manipulate desperate people to do dangerous things by threats and promises. Many great films have been made along these themes "Sorcerer" isn't one of them.Fox "News": We lie, you panic!
-
chriskunselman — 12 years ago(September 19, 2013 01:02 PM)
you ignored the true main thrust of my argument cause you are a douche. it doesn't matter that it doesn't really make sense to you. they didn't give a beep about these men. they didn't care if they might have someone at the fire site to mix up nitroglycerine, someone in charge had this idea and they went w/it. how hard is this for you to understand? it doesn't make the whole movie stupid. people have been making poor or irrational decisions since decisions started being made, even people in positions of power or authority. i'm sure now you are an a*shole who is just too stubborn to come off his original position. that's fine, you have to live with you. and p.s. you're documentary angle is what's nonsense. so what, a novelist doesn't write about humans and the human condition as he's familiar w/it. there can be more truth in fiction than you might think. the author assigns motivations to his characters based on what he's observed of human behaviour. you honestly don't think their haven't been way worse decisions made in situations similar to this in real life? it's so easy to sit there after the fact, whether while you're watching a movie or the news, and say oh i would have done this or that, what purpose does that serve but to boost your own ego? there are many implausible things done in movies, just plain stupid things that take you out of the constructed reality, this isn't a case like that. a challenge for you, in the history of the substance of nitroglycerine you find me anecdotal evidence that it's never been transported by truck, i just visited a site about explosives where they write that the transport of nitro. was problematic for years and killed many, but that means they had to transport it.
-
jon-gwynne — 12 years ago(September 19, 2013 05:01 PM)
you ignored the true main thrust of my argument cause you are a douche.
Your main argument is idiotic and you're entirely missing the point.
The film is what's called "writer's construct" that is, it contains a plot that exists only to allow the story to proceed. In other words, the writer said "let's create a lot of tension how about some guys who have to drive a truck loaded with nitroglycerine on a bumpy road? Never mind that it is a dumb idea that nobody in the real world would even think about trying to attempt"
It is the ultimate expression of the narcissism of writers - to create a script whose only reason to exist is to justify its own existence.
it doesn't matter that it doesn't really make sense to you. they didn't give a beep about these men. they didn't care if they might have someone at the fire site to mix up nitroglycerine, someone in charge had this idea and they went w/it. how hard is this for you to understand?
You keep talking about this movie like it is a documentary or a re-enactment of actual events. It isn't. It is pure fiction and stupid, pointless fiction at that.
a challenge for you, in the history of the substance of nitroglycerine you find me anecdotal evidence that it's never been transported by truck
You want me to prove a negative with anecdotal evidence??!! ROTFLMAO
What a tool.
Listen genius, there was a reason Alfred Nobel developed dynamite and then went on to develop the even safer compound gelignite. Because nitroglycerine is unsafe to transport. Forgot about transporting it by truck, it can't even safely be transported by boat. I grew up in California and there were many infamous examples during the history of the Gold Rush of idiots trying to transport nitroglycerine by various methods and causing massive death/destruction.
http://railroad.lindahall.org/essays/black-powder.htmlFox "News": We lie, you panic!
-
chriskunselman — 12 years ago(September 19, 2013 09:37 PM)
you proved my point when you said idiots tried to transport nitro. it has happened and happened plenty. so the writer didn't choose something that was beyond the realm of possibility. so you would have done it differently, sfw. what the beep does what you would have done have to do w/anything jackass?
-
jon-gwynne — 12 years ago(September 20, 2013 07:36 AM)
You're really impervious to reason, aren't you?
Let me see if I can explain this to you in short declarative sentences
Nitroglycerine cannot be transported by truck. In the real world, those trucks wouldn't have gotten a hundred yards.
In any case, it is stupid idea. Anyone who knows anything about nitroglycerine would have understood that the only way to get nitroglycerine to the site of the fire would have been to transport the ingredients to site and mix them there. Thus, the entire premise of the film is artificial and ultimately self-nullifying.
It would be like someone writing a film about a murder which takes place at the California/Nevada border - the murder standing on the California side and firing a gun at the victim who is standing in Nevada and killing him. Then constructing a whole film around officials from California and Nevada wrangling over the legal jurisdiction to prosecute the murderer.
California: But the murderer was in California!
Nevada: So what? The murder took place in Nevada!
California: But the precipitating act occurred in California, if the gun hadn't been fired, the victim wouldn't be dead!
Nevada: Where was the dead guy again?
In reality the federal government could step in and prosecute since whatever legalistic argument about which state can prosecute would be rendered moot by the fact that the crime occurred in the federal jurisdiction - regardless of where the shooter and victim were standing.
Like I said, trying to artificially construct a conflict between California and Nevada would be stupid. - just like artificially constructing a situation which four poor saps would be bamboozled into driving trucks loaded with nitroglycerine over bumpy roads.
The only thing such a story serves to do is demonstrate the ignorance of the writer and director.Fox "News": We lie, you panic!
-
chriskunselman — 12 years ago(September 20, 2013 01:10 PM)
your the one impervious to reason jackass. yeah, i get that transporting nitro. by truck isn't done in california, i get that it isn't done anywhere they know better, but at one time it was transported by truck, train, whatever. now this was in the 1800's here in the US, but the movie isn't set in the US is it? and they knew it was a bad idea to transport it by truck, why do you think they picked people they didn't care about and packed the nitro. containers in sand so they hopefully wouldn't move. your previous post mentioned "writer's construct" condescendingly, i know what it means, i'm in the trade a*shole, but once again sfw. you write that as if it has to be a bad thing, it's not like it's a deus ex machina. you just decided you're such an expert on these matters your not going to like the film, fine. you probably don't like movies on douches either.
-
jon-gwynne — 12 years ago(September 20, 2013 04:49 PM)
You may have heard the term "writer's construct" eavesdropping on a conversation while you were filling a writer's coffee cup or handing them their car keys at the valet parking stand but until you actually demonstrate some understanding of what it means (or "deus ex machina" for that matter) you should pipe down. Based on the quality of your writing here, getting coffee or parking cars is about all you're qualified to do.
How's that for condescension?
By the way, since you brought it up, the first time I got paid to write was 1977. But, as you said, summoning all the eloquence at your command: "sfw".
To quote George Carlin "If that's your 'best', maybe you'd better keep it to yourself.
Packing nitro in sand was pointless. If what was in those containers was actually nitroglycerin, it would have detonated before the trucks ha gone 50 yards. When I was in college, I knew a guy who made the stuff for fun. He would shatter bricks with an eyedropper loaded with nitroglycerin. As I said before, there was good reason for Nobel (and many others who tried to do the same thing but failed) to develop a method of stabilizing it. First dynamite and the gelignite. It is an interesting story - far more so than that pompous crap that called itself the "Sorcerer" screenplay.
There were a dozen different ways the same basic plot could have been played out - the idea of desperate men being Shanghaid into performing a likely suicide mission isn't particularly original. It wasn't necessary to resort to fantasy as well as cliche to make that film.Fox "News": We lie, you panic!
-
chriskunselman — 12 years ago(September 20, 2013 08:41 PM)
by the way genius, i looked you up on google and if you're using your real name you haven't written anything of note, and if i'm wrong please give me titles. i've looked over your post blog and i realize you don't even really care about movies, you're a politics junkie, so i'm sorry i wasted my time on you.
-
tstraton — 17 years ago(July 08, 2008 08:31 PM)
The process of making nitro is extremely dangerous (much more than transporting it) and requires special equipment to keep the reaction from "running away". Poisonous fumes are released throughout the process. So you can't simply make the nitro by mixing a few compounds together when you need it. Or you can try, and blow your butt into the next state.
-
tali1 — 14 years ago(November 27, 2011 09:25 AM)
Other way around for me - boring start then picks ups
Strangely , this film reminds me of The Exorcist -where Friedkin could really do with a Editor who knew how to use a pair of scissors.Frequently.
Hey Witchdoctor, give us the magic words.
ooh ee ooh ah ah, ting tang wallawallabingba -
lesabl2003 — 13 years ago(October 09, 2012 03:23 PM)
''They call this entertainment!?!'', synapse256 said. Who call that entertainment synapse256!?!
It's not ''Bad Boys''! Why would you watch this movie to enetrtain yourself?!
P.S. Watch ''The Wages of Fear''. Maybe that will satisfy you. Dig deeper in the times when you wasn't around. Or you can always can back to ''High School Musical 2''. -
Defenseman13 — 12 years ago(July 11, 2013 04:50 PM)
It's 2013 now, I'm hoping that the OP hasn't reproduced.
http://us.imdb.com/board/22339870/ -
ChazzJazz — 11 years ago(April 14, 2014 04:12 PM)
lol guess i have to watch it to see what the fuss is all about LOL
http://myimpressionz.tk -
fulci_fan2000 — 11 years ago(April 14, 2014 08:51 PM)
Sure, it's over rated like most things but stupid is a little harsh. I'd say the lack of character devlopment was the main draw back. Not sure why anyone would agree to do a job like this and maybe knowing more about the guys involved would have helped.