Physics FAIL in the Avengers movie? (SPOILER ALERT)

[CZroe]

I never saw the movie but I see no reason to believe it is in deep space and beyond Earth's significant influence. The link to that scene in this thread even seems to show atmosphere, though that isn't necessary. There is nothing that indicates how far away the portal puts him. Also, I do not see why light can pass through but not whatever signals his devices need to operate. I'm sure that the strength diminished exponentially with distance, but they worked for a moment after exiting and he clearly was not very far away.

[zerocool84]

Originally Posted by Puppies04

So there is a giant freaking portal to another part of the universe open above earth which thousands of aliens just used to invade us and you are worried about the "realism" of the gravity???

This response should have ended the thread a long time ago.

[AustinInDallas]

If he were in space the vacuum would start pulling air from our atmosphere into the vacuum. Thus he would be falling "up stream"
In other words....it's a fucking movie

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by FrysAssociate

If he were in space the vacuum would start pulling air from our atmosphere into the vacuum. Thus he would be falling "up stream"
In other words....it's a fucking movie

*facepalm*
OK, why isn't it being sucked right off our planet then? Gravity. It would need to overcome the very same gravity that is holding it on our planet. Sure, the air on the surface is higher pressure, but we don't know what kind of gravity was below the portal on the other side or how it affects anything, It's all meaningless.

In Stargate SG-1, they said that the gates had some way to detect constant pressure to prevent atmospheric or fluidic exchange and allowed them to step through and end up underwater on the other side without water rushing back. It's one reason why they always sent a probe through first.

[Ichinisan]

Originally Posted by her209

No, if the shuttle went straight up, it would escape Earth and fly out into space.

For a moment, assume that Earth and the shuttle are the only two masses in the universe. There's not even a Sun for the Earth to orbit. The shuttle flies straight away from Earth until it runs out of fuel.

When the shuttle runs out of fuel, it doesn't matter if it had some amazing un-possible fuel that allowed it to travel trillions of light years away, Earth's gravity is still pulling it. The shuttle will slow more and more and eventually get pulled back toward Earth. Likewise, Earth will be pulled slightly toward the shuttle.

I haven't read this thread, but I really hope you came to realize this by now.

[Ichinisan]

Originally Posted by The Boston Dangler

i remember when "fail" was a verb and nouns were always "a thing"

I think nouns have always included people, places, things, and ideas.

[loki8481]

Doctor Strange did it

[DrPizza]

Originally Posted by Ichinisan

For a moment, assume that Earth and the shuttle are the only two masses in the universe. There's not even a Sun for the Earth to orbit. The shuttle flies straight away from Earth until it runs out of fuel.

When the shuttle runs out of fuel, it doesn't matter if it had some amazing un-possible fuel that allowed it to travel trillions of light years away, Earth's gravity is still pulling it. The shuttle will slow more and more and eventually get pulled back toward Earth. Likewise, Earth will be pulled slightly toward the shuttle.

I haven't read this thread, but I really hope you came to realize this by now.

This is not true. Look up escape velocity for an explanation.

[SparkyJJO]

So much physics fail in this thread it hurts. What's worse is most of it is by the person who claims to know it all. OP is mega fail.

Also, it's a friggin' movie. Sit back and enjoy it!

[Mr. Pedantic]

It's a superhero movie. Maybe you should go back and ask about how someone created a portal like that in the first place. Or maybe you could go back further, and ask about Thor's whole otherworld-god thing, or the Hulk's whole radiation-poisoning-not-killing-him thing.

Originally Posted by Printer Bandit

i'd like to see a superhero movie where the superhero dies in the first 5 minutes and the rest of the movie is about WTF just happened.

You mean like Shakespeare's Julius Caesar?

Yeah, a superhero about the villians' guilt and tragic demise would be a real blockbuster.

Originally Posted by DrPizza

This is not true. Look up escape velocity for an explanation.

Really? Even if they were the only two masses in the universe, and we assumed the universe lasted infinitely long?

[mikeymikec]

I think a fair number of people on this thread need to read up about suspension of disbelief. Just because a movie makes a few demands to suspend disbelief (Hulk's radiation exposure, a good few others as well in The Avengers), it doesn't mean that it can just drop all pretence of realism because that causes the audience to disconnect because with every departure from what the average audience member regards as normal/realistic, the less likely that they're going to "get" that film. It's one reason why you don't get many films that are entirely about aliens from another planet (though that one is mostly about having enough points of reference with the characters).

If, for example, Black Widow started flying around without any equipment for no apparent reason, this would be pushing that principle a bit too far for most people. The line that such a movie can cross is at a different point for many people.

The computer element in Skyfall made me roll my eyes because it was blatantly unrealistic in a "meant to be mostly realistic" movie.

For me the Hulk's sudden difference in character that he hasn't got any problems keeping his temper in check or how all the enemy soldiers fell over Phantom Menace style was what got on my nerves with The Avengers.

[DrPizza]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

Really? Even if they were the only two masses in the universe, and we assumed the universe lasted infinitely long?

Yes, really. I know it's non-intuitive.

These aren't the correct numbers, but consider the following series to illustrate how something could be slowing down forever, but never come to a stop:

2 - 1/2 - 1/4 - 1/8 - 1/16 - 1/32 - 1/64 - 1/128 - 1/256 - ...

Notice how I'm subtracting forever and forever. The total never drops below 1 though. [I chose these numbers, because it's easy to see that on each step, you're getting half way closer to 1.] So, consider at some point in time, the speed is 2 units. As it's moving further away from the Earth, the force due to gravity is dropping off proportional to the distance squared. This doesn't, of course, even factor in the expansion of space-time.

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally Posted by mikeymikec

I think a fair number of people on this thread need to read up about suspension of disbelief. Just because a movie makes a few demands to suspend disbelief (Hulk's radiation exposure, a good few others as well in The Avengers), it doesn't mean that it can just drop all pretence of realism because that causes the audience to disconnect because with every departure from what the average audience member regards as normal/realistic, the less likely that they're going to "get" that film. It's one reason why you don't get many films that are entirely about aliens from another planet (though that one is mostly about having enough points of reference with the characters).

If, for example, Black Widow started flying around without any equipment for no apparent reason, this would be pushing that principle a bit too far for most people. The line that such a movie can cross is at a different point for many people.

The computer element in Skyfall made me roll my eyes because it was blatantly unrealistic in a "meant to be mostly realistic" movie.

For me the Hulk's sudden difference in character that he hasn't got any problems keeping his temper in check or how all the enemy soldiers fell over Phantom Menace style was what got on my nerves with The Avengers.

I don't understand why people have such a hard time understanding the hulk being controllable. In the end of the hulk movie, you see Banner meditating to bring the hulk out naturally.

In the Avengers, he comes out twice, the first time his life was in danger so he forcefully changed which along with anger, is what causes a forceful transformation into uncontrollable hulk. However, when he changes the second time, he drops a lampshade and says "im always angry" which is a pretty obvous way to me, of him saying that he can induce the transformation in a natural controlled way because he accepts the hulk as part of him.

I just thought the entire dual hulk personality was pretty obvious.

[mikeymikec]

Originally Posted by NikolaeVarius

I don't understand why people have such a hard time understanding the hulk being controllable. In the end of the hulk movie, you see Banner meditating to bring the hulk out naturally.

In the Avengers, he comes out twice, the first time his life was in danger so he forcefully changed which along with anger, is what causes a forceful transformation into uncontrollable hulk. However, when he changes the second time, he drops a lampshade and says "im always angry" which is a pretty obvous way to me, of him saying that he can induce the transformation in a natural controlled way because he accepts the hulk as part of him.

I just thought the entire dual hulk personality was pretty obvious.

1) It's the only thing that makes the character more human and more worthwhile/interesting (not being able to control his condition properly).

2) It's his only weakness. If he can control it, he has no weaknesses. Therefore he is less human in nature and so the audience has less of a frame of reference with him.

3) Was he only pretending to get angry earlier in the film, to intimidate Black Widow? (When she asks him to come in)

The Hulk is potentially an interesting character if he cannot properly control his condition, it makes him very human in a way. Most superheroes don't have that much of a problem with their moral compass; they do good, that makes them happy, the world carries on turning (and every superhero being like that gets dull after a while). On the other hand, some of the most interesting villains in general literature are people who have high positions of responsibility but not "doing good" any more. Take Hannibal Lecter for example, if he wasn't a psychiatrist, he wouldn't be able to get into Agent Starling's head and scare the crap out of her in the way he did. The whole scene with her walking into the cell block with the worst cases in for the first time serves up exactly what the audience expects to begin with, deranged serial killers acting crazy, then there's a guy who could pass visibly as a normal person, he's extremely intelligent (either compared to humanity or the average serial killer), and he ought to know better. The idea for example that a qualified doctor who is about to do an operation on you is actually an absolute nut who is about to do something horrific to you is something that would scare the living crap out of most people.

Real humans are not completely good or completely evil. One significant challenge in life is determining one's own moral compass alignment (for some people more than others depending on their character to begin with and what opportunities they have come their way in life). If you throw in a massive advantage over other humans into the equation, balancing up your desires with what kind of person you would like to be suddenly becomes a lot more difficult. Even if Bruce Banner tries to be very good, when the Hulk comes out he could do unspeakable things and not have his usual control over his actions. There's the potential guilt of the situation and the constant desire to maintain control (one way or another, one might say one would prefer to control one's self better as the Hulk, another might say avoid becoming the Hulk).

He looked and acted exactly the same on either occasion, in terms of capabilities. The first time was with slightly more RARGH! and that was about it. It might have been interesting that when he can completely control the Hulk, the Hulk is less powerful, so the dilemma of unleashing the Hulk completely remains to some extent.

Then after the interesting point that the Hulk tried to avoid crashing into something that might have hurt people, you know what, there wasn't any danger anyway because he can control himself perfectly well. Ok, so maybe I'm being a bit black/white with my logic here, but it coming out that he can control himself perfectly well completely de-values any character development on the point of him being a flawed human being. He's almost a Mary Sue character by the end of the movie.

Without any weakness, the Hulk was a total plot device. He was needed to take down those alien wormy transport vehicle things and to provide an element of danger for a while on the ship. He becomes the Hulk at the crucial second to take down the transport ship, how convenient.

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally Posted by mikeymikec

1) It's the only thing that makes the character more human and more worthwhile/interesting (not being able to control his condition properly).

2) It's his only weakness. If he can control it, he has no weaknesses. Therefore he is less human in nature and so the audience has less of a frame of reference with him.

3) Was he only pretending to get angry earlier in the film, to intimidate Black Widow? (When she asks him to come in)

The Hulk is potentially an interesting character if he cannot properly control his condition, it makes him very human in a way. Most superheroes don't have that much of a problem with their moral compass; they do good, that makes them happy, the world carries on turning (and every superhero being like that gets dull after a while). On the other hand, some of the most interesting villains in general literature are people who have high positions of responsibility but not "doing good" any more. Take Hannibal Lecter for example, if he wasn't a psychiatrist, he wouldn't be able to get into Agent Starling's head and scare the crap out of her in the way he did. The whole scene with her walking into the cell block with the worst cases in for the first time serves up exactly what the audience expects to begin with, deranged serial killers acting crazy, then there's a guy who could pass visibly as a normal person, he's extremely intelligent (either compared to humanity or the average serial killer), and he ought to know better. The idea for example that a qualified doctor who is about to do an operation on you is actually an absolute nut who is about to do something horrific to you is something that would scare the living crap out of most people.

Real humans are not completely good or completely evil. One significant challenge in life is determining one's own moral compass alignment (for some people more than others depending on their character to begin with and what opportunities they have come their way in life). If you throw in a massive advantage over other humans into the equation, balancing up your desires with what kind of person you would like to be suddenly becomes a lot more difficult. Even if Bruce Banner tries to be very good, when the Hulk comes out he could do unspeakable things and not have his usual control over his actions. There's the potential guilt of the situation and the constant desire to maintain control (one way or another, one might say one would prefer to control one's self better as the Hulk, another might say avoid becoming the Hulk).

He looked and acted exactly the same on either occasion, in terms of capabilities. The first time was with slightly more RARGH! and that was about it.

Then after the interesting point that the Hulk tried to avoid crashing into something that might have hurt people, you know what, there wasn't any danger anyway because he can control himself perfectly well.

Without any weakness, the Hulk was a total plot device. He was needed to take down those alien wormy transport vehicle things and to provide an element of danger for a while on the ship. He becomes the Hulk at the crucial second to take down the transport ship, how convenient.

Another question is, would Nick Fury honestly stick Bruce Banner in a situation where he could do as much damage due to lack of control as the aliens are about to do? If you're playing some sort of strategy game, when would you introduce a unit willingly that can stomp possibly more over your team than the opposing team? How would you deploy such a unit? The Hulk is a million times more dangerous than all of the Avengers put together with the lack of control. With control, he may as well be Superman and Superman really is a dull character.

Having said that, I have Superman Returns on DVD, I quite enjoy it

You don't get the point of the hulk. Hell, they even DISCUSS THIS VERY POINT, in the movie. Between Stark and Bruce, Bruce says that the hulk is a curse and its a wild beast begging to get unleashed. Start says that the hulk can still be useful because it saved his life.

The fact is that, he can call the hulk out because of his training when needed to. However, its still an extremely unsafe thing to have inside him, because still even with his training, if his heart starts racing or he gets into a unsafe scenario, he will go berserk, and he can't stop that. Its still a massive weakness because it still exists inside him. He still desperately takes precautions in order to never allow the hulk to accidentally escape,.

And with the BW, that was obvious. He even apologizes to her and tells her that was mean when she starts freaking out. Not sure where you had a problem there.

And also, the only difference with the hulk being angry is the ENTIRE POINT of the hulk. The hulk is MASSIVELY more powerful the angrier he gets. A "controlled" hulk is very very very weak compared to out all out outraged hulk. And in his outraged form, you can see him having no control at all and mid transformation, he has that look of fear in his eyes because he knows he can't stop himself, and will mercilessly kill anyone near him, aka BW.

And the hulk being a plot device, yes he is a plot device. The movie outright comes out and says "he is a plot device". But it was a good one, because it shows the entire "the avengers are not a team" aspect because their powers were so uncontrollable. He came on but didn't want to fight. We don't know what nick furies intentions are because fury never really explained if he wanted Bruce to fight, because he knew that Bruce 100% did not want to fight because Bruce was too afraid of what he might do and was going to leave as soon as he found what he was looking for.

As for the hulk being very very strong, they have 3 hard hitters on the team. His strength isn't all that surprising.


You really need to watch the movie closer, your issues with the Hulk are pretty much explained in the movie or if you just took about 10 seconds to think about it, its not really an issue.

[mikeymikec]

And with the BW, that was obvious. He even apologizes to her and tells her that was mean when she starts freaking out. Not sure where you had a problem there.

I had forgotten that he apologised, fair point.

And also, the only difference with the hulk being angry is the ENTIRE POINT of the hulk. The hulk is MASSIVELY more powerful the angrier he gets. A "controlled" hulk is very very very weak compared to out all out outraged hulk. And in his outraged form, you can see him having no control at all and mid transformation, he has that look of fear in his eyes because he knows he can't stop himself, and will mercilessly kill anyone near him, aka BW.

Except that absolutely nothing bad happened in the final fight sequence to suggest that he had any problems controlling the Hulk or that the Hulk seemed any less powerful for it.

You really need to watch the movie closer, your issues with the Hulk are pretty much explained in the movie or if you just took about 10 seconds to think about it, its not really an issue.

I disagree. They talked a lot, then the ending almost completely reversed all of the character development.

And please skip your antagonism, I *really did* watch the movie and I *really did* think about it for more than ten seconds.

[Jaskalas]

Originally Posted by Northern Lawn

ANd his pants not breaking apart when he transforms into Hulk.

Kids movie, Hulk's package is in the adult version.

[BladeVenom]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

You mean like Shakespeare's Julius Caesar?

Yeah, a superhero about the villians' guilt and tragic demise would be a real blockbuster.

I think a Citizen Kane scenario would work. You can start at movie at the "ending."

The Watchmen start with one of the heroes being killed.

Rocky 4, Apollo gets killed in the beginning.

Janet Leigh's character gets killed at the start of Psycho.

[jagec]

Originally Posted by BladeVenom

I think a Citizen Kane scenario would work. You can start at movie at the "ending."

The Watchmen start with one of the heroes being killed.

Rocky 4, Apollo gets killed in the beginning.

Janet Leigh's character gets killed at the start of Psycho.

Memento.

[dethman]

this thread is so full of troll.