Originally Posted by Marvin
I've just never really seen film as documentary, if they say nasa has a space craft that can do ground to air lift offs from the surface of a comet, i chalk it up to science fiction and i'm done with the matter. Especially in a disney movie. Now when all if said and done, they went and said based on a true story that would be another matter.
Just about all the jargon in even the best of star trek is made up science fiction so I can't even begin to imagine where one would logically start to cry foul. I thought that space jump was dope, almost as cool as the wing suits actually. (I think bay ripped it off but one up'd it in the process so it's all good).
My problem is, if you are going to use an event that is well known and documented and use the moon landing which is very well known and the science behind it is well known, why change it to something that is impossible with the technology available at the time? How hard would it have been to just have the craft land in a crater on this side of the moon? Or was Bay set on the "Dark of the Moon" title?
Hmmm...I think it's not so much abiding by "rules" per se (rather than the ones the movie itself sets in place), but rather the "suspension of disbelief". As in, how much do we as the audience need to suspend our reflex to not believe what is happening on the screen to accept it in the story.
Couldn't have said it any better. I loved The Rock. Maybe it's because I didn't know crap about biological warfare or Alcatraz prison.
I loved the first Bad Boys, the second got annoying when the movie could have ended 45 minutes earlier than it did.
Armageddon was good the first time I watched it. After I got into aerospace engineering and really learned about the space shuttle, propulsion and rocket theory, I realized how much BS the movie was full of.
Bay just doesn't seem to try and sell the unbelievable. He puts it out there without explanation and either you buy it or you don't.