still doesn't work mater can't overlap (I personally don't adhere to the multiverse theory and nor does the vast majority of the scientific community and such names as Stephen Hawking) and it's common knowledge nowadays that bending space requires an amount of energy equivalent to the amount produced by several suns. (again time reversal is something the scientific community frowns upon only time speeding or slowing down is allowed with again these same quantities of energy)
Saw Ant-Man (in 3D!). I liked it. It was pretty fun. Yeah the science doesn't really hold up too well but once you throw a fictional particle into the mix anything's possible. I still think it sits on the "good enough" side of the scale of sci-fi explanations. Also saw the second Star Wars trailer, in 3D. IT WAS BEAUTIFUL.
Yea i won't watch ant-man because of all the possible crazy stuff in Marvel, the idea of a shrinkray has so utterly many problems that i can't possibly watch it and enjoy it. I mean, the applications alone. Take a Helicarrier, shrink it, mail it to russia. SURPRISE MOTHAFUCKA. Shrink nukes. Shrink entire armies. Make anything small and it allows to you do truly ridiculous stuff like a handgun shooting Tsar Bombas. Captain America, Iron Man, Black Widow, Hawkeye. They fall under generic Action Hero Physics. Thor is a Sufficiently Advanced Alien. Hulk is the closest to fantasy physics but his MO is basically "extreme Action Hero Physics". But a Shrinkray technology is just downright reality-breaking.
Give it a try. I don't think it's anymore BS than Iron Man's magic nuclear-fusion-perpetual-motion-fist-sized-power-generator thingy. Not to mention what kind of horrible things inertia should be doing to Iron Man... Seriously, that guy should've turned to jelly in the first movie.
Finally! someone who thinks like me! that scene where he's thrown against a wall in the first movie. HUMAN. JELLO. DEAD. yeah iron man has to be the least realistic of all.
Forget the wall. His escape plan was "rocket boot to thermosphere, walk away from landing". ...I just realized how similar the Hulk is to super mutants from Fallout. Big, green, strong, birthed by radiation, both a result of an experiment attempting to create supersoldiers....
All I'll say is at one point in the film we had about 3 kids crying, which made the rest of the audience unanimously 'awww' lol.
You see, that's where i disagree. Iron Man falls under Action Hero Physics. Physics which include flexible inertia and superhuman bone strength. Kind of the same as Bruce Willis being punched 100 times to the head and still not being reduced to a vegetable. There are literally videos on youtube that explain just how often some action heroes should've died. Iron mans power source is essentially microfusion, which is so-so. His action hero physics apply to the other guys too. The hulk is that, to the extreme (and imho the least believable of all). Thor is a sufficiently advanced alien. But Ant-Man has a technology that doesn't just spit in the face of the fundamental nature of matter, it also opens up a can of worms far beyond any other can of worms ever opened by any other avenger. Miniaturization, as i pointed out earlier, is just a bad idea to introduce. Especially if you were to add that stuff to a Helicarrier. Inside Out is on my "ill keep that in mind" list.
I expected that whole thing to end differently and a bit more darkly xD. Spoiler I thought that since volcanoes like that are made in the sea because of moving weak spots in the crust, in real life they form chains. So what I expected was for the girl volcano to die just like the first one did, and then it shows all the dead volcanoes that were there the whole time behind the first volvano.
Essentially super hero movies are all bs when it comes to physics Lol. Ant man is actually a great and rather funny film, as good as any of the other marvel films imo. Yes the sience bit is dodgy, I just don't see why that's a problem as were basically talking a sci fi fantasy flick here. Also some of the camera work they did with perspectives and the switching between tiny and full size was just brilliant.... I agree the premise is pretty bad, I actually expected the film to be terrible, however it was quite the opposite
I realize it's pointless to argue much further but.. it's not about realism. It's about immersion. It's about the movie saying "these are the rules" and (more or less) sticking to them. Unlike most Marvel heroes who follow the Action Movie Hero trope (e.g. being able to stand up to ridiculous amounts of damage) it's basically that Ant Man introduces a new rule (any stuff can get small) that opens up a can of worms (e.g. why not use the tech on Helicarriers?). When people debate realism, i roll my eyes when they see sci fi and say "it's so unrealistic" and then happily watch Die Hard where a man survives stuff he absolutely would not in real life, where cars explode where they would not in real life, and where everything goes according to plot rather than logic or any form of reality. That's really all i want to say about the matter. Shrinky tech is a giant can of worms.
