![Bravo Company BCM](/images/2016/banners/sticky/BCM_StickyBarAd_225x40.gif)
![Login](/images/2016/spacer.gif)
|
Quoted: Then you will have to wait till it hits prime in the U.S. It was released overseas and has not officially got here yet. Amazon is probably holding it to release for Christmas. There may be a way to use a vpn set for a euro country where it is being shown. View Quote It's out on the 18th on Prime. |
|
Quoted: What was unrealistic? The engine noises on the exterior shots in-flight were wrong for turbines, losing engines due to a shockwave... hell, a Twin Otter surviving a shockwave... it's a mooooovie. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: The flying scenes in 2012 were more realistic What was unrealistic? The engine noises on the exterior shots in-flight were wrong for turbines, losing engines due to a shockwave... hell, a Twin Otter surviving a shockwave... it's a mooooovie. All the scenes involving aircraft were totally unrealistic. Yes the engine noises of the Otter were really annoying. But the way they tried to get across the dodgy takeoff while overloaded was dumb. The worst part (other than the fact the Otter survived the shockwave) was the engine out. You don't pitch down to gain speed like they showed. You pitch for best glide speed. Think of altitude as stored energy. You need energy to stay aloft. You either need engine power to maintain or gain altitude, or you need to lose altitude to remain aloft. Either way, energy is spent. So with an engine out, you lose altitude, but you don't pitch down to gain as much speed as possible because as speed increases, so does drag. Aircraft have a speed specification at which gliding is most efficient, where you will get the farthest distance with the least amount of altitude lost. It's called best glide. When you experience complete engine loss, literally the first thing you do is pitch and trim for best glide speed. Then when it comes to actually landing, the pilots did nothing to shed energy, and ended up nosing into a glacier. You have options to shed energy when coming in for a landing. The most often used is of course flaps. Probably the second most often used is what's known as a "slip". Basically, you kick in full rudder to yaw the plane sideways, then you bank the wings to compensate for the yaw. This adds a lot of extra drag and slows the aircraft down dramatically. It's what all pilots used before flaps were invented. But third, which would be hard to show on film is to just pitch for a slower speed. The slower you go, the faster you'll descend. In short, they could have dropped full flaps, and slipped it in at just above stall speed and it would have dropped like a rock and had no trouble stopping in time. There's a lot of shitty videos of slips on youtube, but this one isn't too bad. I would add that I would just slip the entire approach, not just use it to slow down before touchdown There's also the annoying part of the C5 Galaxies getting blown up by spilled fuel and a stray bullet. Jet's don't burn gasoline they burn what is essentially kerosene. It would never have ignited and blown up like that. Totally ridiculous. |
|
|
Quoted: It all depends, is the crust cut off? Is the mustard spread from edge to edge or just plopped in the middle? Is it cut diagonally or just in half? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
Quoted: Might be good, but looks pretty darned cookie-cutter. View Quote I was looking for something to watch last night then I saw this thread. Was worried about finding a Stream, but Lord only knows how much I love these sort of apocalyptic end of the world type movies so I made it happen. It was cookie cutter as you would expect, but they hired decent actors and had a shit ton of money to throw into production value so I strongly recommend this flick for those who like the genre. It's not a very clever movie but the entire thing is non-stop suspense flick so it's worth the watch. A couple small call outs; -I thought the mom/wife character seemed like a bad casting choice. Her part required the typical determination/grit necessary to make it through this sort of event but they cast her based on the necessity of this guy having a trophy wife. She was smoking hot but not believable . . . hell, the child didn't even look like hers. Seemed like they just wanted to cast a MILF and that's all they got. In reality you know she'd be in a corner having a panic attack and the movie wasn't able to mask that very well. -A couple scenes made no sense at all from the lens of an actual survivor flick. For example the freeway is totally blocked off with cars and predictably so during a crazy extinction event that's been announced by the government. The hero needs to drive somewhere important and since the freeway is backed up for miles with dead cars he instead makes a difficult choice. . . . he takes a quick reverse out and proceeds to travel on the adjacent (clearly within view/feet) 4 lane highway which for some reason has less traffic than a 3AM rural back country road ![]() -Also, and I know this is a prerequisite to being able to commercialize a blockbuster film, but Greenland had a couple awkward diversity cameos. Not a cameo as in anyone famous but essentially due to the fact all of the main actors were white the studio clearly found the need to randomly and awkwardly inject helpful (completely random) black characters into the mix without any character development -Worth mentioning as other posters stated, the way the airplanes were done with CGI (specifically the take off) was incredibly poorly done. Like made for TV poorly done. With this movie's budget I'm not sure how that made it through. Was awful to anyone looking. Small things, but def a cool flick and worth watching! |
|
Quoted: All the scenes involving aircraft were totally unrealistic. Yes the engine noises of the Otter were really annoying. But the way they tried to get across the dodgy takeoff while overloaded was dumb. The worst part (other than the fact the Otter survived the shockwave) was the engine out. You don't pitch down to gain speed like they showed. You pitch for best glide speed. Think of altitude as stored energy. You need energy to stay aloft. You either need engine power to maintain or gain altitude, or you need to lose altitude to remain aloft. Either way, energy is spent. So with an engine out, you lose altitude, but you don't pitch down to gain as much speed as possible because as speed increases, so does drag. Aircraft have a speed specification at which gliding is most efficient, where you will get the farthest distance with the least amount of altitude lost. It's called best glide. When you experience complete engine loss, literally the first thing you do is pitch and trim for best glide speed. Then when it comes to actually landing, the pilots did nothing to shed energy, and ended up nosing into a glacier. You have options to shed energy when coming in for a landing. The most often used is of course flaps. Probably the second most often used is what's known as a "slip". Basically, you kick in full rudder to yaw the plane sideways, then you bank the wings to compensate for the yaw. This adds a lot of extra drag and slows the aircraft down dramatically. It's what all pilots used before flaps were invented. But third, which would be hard to show on film is to just pitch for a slower speed. The slower you go, the faster you'll descend. In short, they could have dropped full flaps, and slipped it in at just above stall speed and it would have dropped like a rock and had no trouble stopping in time. There's a lot of shitty videos of slips on youtube, but this one isn't too bad. I would add that I would just slip the entire approach, not just use it to slow down before touchdown There's also the annoying part of the C5 Galaxies getting blown up by spilled fuel and a stray bullet. Jet's don't burn gasoline they burn what is essentially kerosene. It would never have ignited and blown up like that. Totally ridiculous. View Quote I know how to fly an otter. You're way too anal. It's a movie. |
|
Quoted: -Worth mentioning as other posters stated, the way the airplanes were done with CGI (specifically the take off) was incredibly poorly done. Like made for TV poorly done. With this movie's budget I'm not sure how that made it through. Was awful to anyone looking. Small things, but def a cool flick and worth watching! View Quote FWIW, the flyby when they're approaching the airport is real. The taxis and turns are real. There was more footage of the truck playing chicken with the moving plane that they didn't use, which is lame. Not sure why they did a fake, sped-up takeoff, but they filmed real ones. Otters can easily take off with 24 souls, legally. More if needed. I'm not the plane guy, but they did better than most when it comes to getting it right. Not sure why no one tells them the difference between turbines and pistons though. |
|
|
Quoted: Just watched it. Great movie. Scary. ETA: RIP Florida View Quote Florida is nothing, look what happened to California! **HUGE SPOILERS** https://i.imgur.com/JPIFMFO.jpg The craters are WAY too fucking big for anyone to survive, the one problem I have with the movie. The one that wiped out the dinosaurs in Mexico isn't even as big as the Florida crater! |
|
Quoted: I know how to fly an otter. You're way too anal. It's a movie. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: All the scenes involving aircraft were totally unrealistic. Yes the engine noises of the Otter were really annoying. But the way they tried to get across the dodgy takeoff while overloaded was dumb. The worst part (other than the fact the Otter survived the shockwave) was the engine out. You don't pitch down to gain speed like they showed. You pitch for best glide speed. Think of altitude as stored energy. You need energy to stay aloft. You either need engine power to maintain or gain altitude, or you need to lose altitude to remain aloft. Either way, energy is spent. So with an engine out, you lose altitude, but you don't pitch down to gain as much speed as possible because as speed increases, so does drag. Aircraft have a speed specification at which gliding is most efficient, where you will get the farthest distance with the least amount of altitude lost. It's called best glide. When you experience complete engine loss, literally the first thing you do is pitch and trim for best glide speed. Then when it comes to actually landing, the pilots did nothing to shed energy, and ended up nosing into a glacier. You have options to shed energy when coming in for a landing. The most often used is of course flaps. Probably the second most often used is what's known as a "slip". Basically, you kick in full rudder to yaw the plane sideways, then you bank the wings to compensate for the yaw. This adds a lot of extra drag and slows the aircraft down dramatically. It's what all pilots used before flaps were invented. But third, which would be hard to show on film is to just pitch for a slower speed. The slower you go, the faster you'll descend. In short, they could have dropped full flaps, and slipped it in at just above stall speed and it would have dropped like a rock and had no trouble stopping in time. There's a lot of shitty videos of slips on youtube, but this one isn't too bad. I would add that I would just slip the entire approach, not just use it to slow down before touchdown There's also the annoying part of the C5 Galaxies getting blown up by spilled fuel and a stray bullet. Jet's don't burn gasoline they burn what is essentially kerosene. It would never have ignited and blown up like that. Totally ridiculous. I know how to fly an otter. You're way too anal. It's a movie. I’m a software engineer. I’m incapable of ignoring details. I can’t help but feel you should expect more from movies. |
|
Quoted: I’m a software engineer. I’m incapable of ignoring details. I can’t help but feel you should expect more from movies. View Quote There are budgets. As far as I know, the budget for Greenland was around $40M. That's not considered big, by Hollywood standards. They get what they pay for. That said, I didn't think the plane CGI was really all that bad. If they'd had more time and money, I'm sure the plane guys could have made the scenes perfect, but that literally never happens in movies. Ever. |
|
Quoted: There are budgets. As far as I know, the budget for Greenland was around $40M. That's not considered big, by Hollywood standards. They get what they pay for. That said, I didn't think the plane CGI was really all that bad. If they'd had more time and money, I'm sure the plane guys could have made the scenes perfect, but that literally never happens in movies. Ever. View Quote Watch when they are flying to Greenland and the shockwave hits them. The History Channel's CGI team would be laughing at this movie ![]() |
|
Where are you guys watching this. Doesn’t seem to be available to buy on prime.
|
|
|
|
Quoted: Just curious, what scenes with the plane do you think were CGI? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Watch when they are flying to Greenland and the shockwave hits them. The History Channel's CGI team would be laughing at this movie ![]() Just curious, what scenes with the plane do you think were CGI? The one you are quoting. I re-watched it last night. When they are flying to Greenland and the shockwave hits the plane. Watch it, like Made for TV 1990's level of GCI. |
|
The ending could have been much better. It seems like it was rushed. Otherwise a pretty good movie.
|
|
|
Heartwarming and comforting...edifying for the whole family...
|
|
|
|
Watched it last night. I'd give it a 6.5. It was entertaining.
I also watched 'Fatman' last night. I'd give that one an 8.0. I got a kick out of it. |
|
Quoted: Florida is nothing, look what happened to California! **HUGE SPOILERS** https://i.imgur.com/JPIFMFO.jpg The craters are WAY too fucking big for anyone to survive, the one problem I have with the movie. The one that wiped out the dinosaurs in Mexico isn't even as big as the Florida crater! View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Just watched it. Great movie. Scary. ETA: RIP Florida Florida is nothing, look what happened to California! **HUGE SPOILERS** https://i.imgur.com/JPIFMFO.jpg The craters are WAY too fucking big for anyone to survive, the one problem I have with the movie. The one that wiped out the dinosaurs in Mexico isn't even as big as the Florida crater! This. One of those craters would be an ELE. Two of those craters on a single continent would be REALLY bad. The Europe crater would mean no life bigger than a bacterium for a few million years. |
|
View Quote Never seen that- looks good |
|
California annihilated. Texas survives. Only have to survive 9 months? Easy.
oh wait, this movie is unreleased? lmk when I can discuss it. |
|
|
Started it last night after this thread, finished it today. I liked it but want to see the followup.
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted: Its all bootleg haji websites, no one will say where they fuck theyre all watching an unreleased movie ![]() View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Where are you guys watching this? ![]() you need to look on plex |
|
Bump for Dec. 18th release date! Looks like it’s on-demand for renting at $19.99, pretty much everywhere today:
![]() |
|
Quoted: Bump for Dec. 18th release date! Looks like it’s on-demand for renting at $19.99, pretty much everywhere today: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/301438/CEF4F6D1-76D5-434C-943B-571E5DB0C3D2_jpe-1736800.JPG View Quote Blows my mind that the RENTAL cost for a fucking movie is $20 now... |
|
Quoted: Blows my mind that the RENTAL cost for a fucking movie is $20 now... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Bump for Dec. 18th release date! Looks like it’s on-demand for renting at $19.99, pretty much everywhere today: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/301438/CEF4F6D1-76D5-434C-943B-571E5DB0C3D2_jpe-1736800.JPG Blows my mind that the RENTAL cost for a fucking movie is $20 now... Cheaper than $100 at the theaters. |
|
|
Quoted: @Bama-Shooter I bet it is stuck in development hell, but looks like the American Remake was supposed to be a series (like they did with Taken) and from the synopsis, it doesn't sound interesting at all. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: These Final Hours is my favorite. I theorize they didn't let it into the US because they planned to make a version based here. @Bama-Shooter I bet it is stuck in development hell, but looks like the American Remake was supposed to be a series (like they did with Taken) and from the synopsis, it doesn't sound interesting at all. These Final Hours, set after a world-ending meteor strike, follows three siblings in the San Francisco Bay Area as they race to get to their estranged father’s bomb shelter that can withstand the end of days. The series tackles the question of not only what would you do, but how would you want to remember yourself if the world was ending. Wasn't there a Brit-US comedy miniseries about that? |
|
|
I paid the $20 to see it, and it's pretty good. I still think These Final Hours is the best apocalypse movie though.
Click To View Spoiler I think it would have been better to end it after the flashbacks and leave it ambiguous whether they survive it not. |
|
Based on the trailer I won't watch it unless quarantined by the Wuhan flu.
|
|
Quoted: Blows my mind that the RENTAL cost for a fucking movie is $20 now... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Bump for Dec. 18th release date! Looks like it’s on-demand for renting at $19.99, pretty much everywhere today: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/301438/CEF4F6D1-76D5-434C-943B-571E5DB0C3D2_jpe-1736800.JPG Blows my mind that the RENTAL cost for a fucking movie is $20 now... I wanted to watch Fatman last weekend. Stream rental was like $8, Bluray at the Redbox $2. |
|
Quoted: All the scenes involving aircraft were totally unrealistic. Yes the engine noises of the Otter were really annoying. But the way they tried to get across the dodgy takeoff while overloaded was dumb. The worst part (other than the fact the Otter survived the shockwave) was the engine out. You don't pitch down to gain speed like they showed. You pitch for best glide speed. Think of altitude as stored energy. You need energy to stay aloft. You either need engine power to maintain or gain altitude, or you need to lose altitude to remain aloft. Either way, energy is spent. So with an engine out, you lose altitude, but you don't pitch down to gain as much speed as possible because as speed increases, so does drag. Aircraft have a speed specification at which gliding is most efficient, where you will get the farthest distance with the least amount of altitude lost. It's called best glide. When you experience complete engine loss, literally the first thing you do is pitch and trim for best glide speed. Then when it comes to actually landing, the pilots did nothing to shed energy, and ended up nosing into a glacier. You have options to shed energy when coming in for a landing. The most often used is of course flaps. Probably the second most often used is what's known as a "slip". Basically, you kick in full rudder to yaw the plane sideways, then you bank the wings to compensate for the yaw. This adds a lot of extra drag and slows the aircraft down dramatically. It's what all pilots used before flaps were invented. But third, which would be hard to show on film is to just pitch for a slower speed. The slower you go, the faster you'll descend. In short, they could have dropped full flaps, and slipped it in at just above stall speed and it would have dropped like a rock and had no trouble stopping in time. There's a lot of shitty videos of slips on youtube, but this one isn't too bad. I would add that I would just slip the entire approach, not just use it to slow down before touchdown There's also the annoying part of the C5 Galaxies getting blown up by spilled fuel and a stray bullet. Jet's don't burn gasoline they burn what is essentially kerosene. It would never have ignited and blown up like that. Totally ridiculous. View Quote And if you get that upset at aircraft in movies, just think about everything else that Hollywood gets wrong in the interest of advancing the narrative of the typical film |
|
Watched it last night. The subdivision scenes were hilarious the watch by themselves lol.
Movie needed less character development and more comet smashing shit. Just my .02 |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.