<![CDATA[The Shipwreck]]>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Shattered

dcavalli — 15 years ago(August 06, 2010 10:36 AM)

Why would a shipwreck filled with toxic waste be near land in San Francisco?

  1. How did the ship get there?
  2. Wouldn't the federal, state, and local authorities get the company that owned the ship to move it, dismantle it, or get rid of it themselves? Even if they didn't know about the chemicals on board (or were they just dumped afterward?), why let a large ship stay there for years? Wouldn't it be an eyesore even if it's in a remote area? (I don't know San Francisco's geography that well.) Even if a private company owned the land, which seems to be the case, the authorities could still tell them to move the ship for safety and environmental reasons.
  3. Wouldn't some type of security be there to prevent the curious from going in and possibly hurting themselves?
]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/211980/the-shipwreckRSS for NodeTue, 12 May 2026 15:16:52 GMTFri, 01 May 2026 12:32:27 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to The Shipwreck on Fri, 01 May 2026 12:32:29 GMT]]>dcavalli — 15 years ago(August 29, 2010 11:21 AM)

Yes, highly unlikely in liberal San Francisco and environmentally-conscious California.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1781593https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1781593Fri, 01 May 2026 12:32:29 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The Shipwreck on Fri, 01 May 2026 12:32:28 GMT]]>Thorzul — 15 years ago(August 28, 2010 03:54 PM)

i thought the same exact thing. That one shot from under the Golden Gate Bridge had me wondering how could they just let those barrels and everything just sit there in plain sight?

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1781592https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1781592Fri, 01 May 2026 12:32:28 GMT