Well, as the title says. Doesn't it seem pretty silly? I mean, the sun isn't a perpetual energy source either. It will die out in a few billion years.
I mean, I know that the general public's understanding of science is minimal and movies use silly plot devices all the time. But really? Must you pick this in particular?
" I mean, the sun isn't a perpetual energy source either. It will die out in a few billion years."
Really...?
Yeah, it really will. Chemical reactions cant last forever on their own, and thats what the sun is. I hope your "really" was like a "duh" and not a "dude you're retarded", and I just read it wrong.
shareThat's really nice! There you go - ragging on a guy about something not lasting forever and then saying the sun is a chemical reaction... Really?
And all this time I thought it was nuclear... Damn!
By the way - for all intents and purposes, something that lasts longer than our conceivable lifetimes is "permanent". Right?
Idk what you're trying to say in the beginning, but I can say permanence can't be based on something's life span relative to the average human life span. That's just ridiculous. Stars die. That's a fact of nature. The sun will someday die. So the simple answer is it can't be considered a perpetual energy source.
shareAnd a lifetime guarantee on a product is not a real lifetime guarantee because it is not based on a the actual lifetime of the universe.
shareNo, because it's legally accepted that lifetime applies to the original purchaser. You can't compare a legal concept to a scientific one. Doesn't work like that.
shareWow, you mean, the battery was an obvious MacGuffin? Hold on here folks, we got a real Sherlock Holmes among us.
(The movie is a parody. It has a meaningless MacGuffin driving the plot on purpose)
Are you not entertained?!
Too stupid a plot device. And no, it is not a obvious parody. At the very least, not so over-the-top that the plot device becomes justified.
shareOf course it does, the device enables all the spies, which enable all the guns and all the explosions, which enabled...all the romance (which was ostensibly the point).
What it didn't enable was your suspension of disbelief which denied you the pleasure of a great film.
Who lost out here?
You failed to understand my reply to the other poster. Let me explain it to you.
Obviously, you need a plot device. But the plot device should be reasonable. My dispute with the earlier poster was whether the studio deliberately made a silly plot device because the film is a parody. My position is that the film is not really a parody, while his position is that it is.
I hope that you either accept this gracefully or just don't answer. Do avoid a defensive answer where you try to justify yourself (incorrectly).
I haven't justified myself at all, incorrectly or otherwise.
If I were to justify myself I would say something like "I am entitled to my opinion", or "anyone can post here" (which they can).
However, I did justify the choice to use some rather flimsy science, in what is a very light-hearted film. And I will do so again, because it seems you did not understand what I said.
The plot device needed to be reasonable for the film in question.
This was not a hardcore science fiction that was anticipating massive tech nerds with massive hard-ons for proper physics.
If you were concerned with physics you should have left the cinema when Roy flew off a motorcycle and landed on the bonnet of a car and hung on while being shot at and rammed, before a car flipped over him. Or perhaps ANYTHING that happened during the bullfight.
To ignore all that 'bad' physics, and focus intensely on one glib remark by the character, and to persist in understanding this film not as a parody, whimsy, or fantasy of some sort, seems entirely autistic. As does trying to control who does or does not respond to the discussion via insulting another poster's comprehension skills.
Perhaps you should go and complain about Lucy. A film that relies entirely on the premise that we only use about 10% of our brains, which is complete myth. The film hammers that myth down the throats of the viewer to enable a plot, thin as it is.
Whereas you are affronted by a single comment made by a character about a McGuffin in a film like Knight and Day!
Step back, look at the mental process that brought you to where you are, and realise how silly that all was...
Yes, the sun is not perpetual. Surely the device would not be perpetual either, because even its casings and connectors would corrode eventually. None of this @#$%$ even matters. The only important thing was it produced a lot of power, and was very small, making it immensely valuable to bad guys, and propelling the plot.
Sigh. You just don't get it. Let me try to explain facts to you again.
My argument with the other poster was not (primarily) about the plot device. Stop talking about the plot device.
He said that this film is a parody, I disagree. The topic is about whether this film is a parody. Get it now? If not, re-read this thread 5 more times.
The specific logic flow is that he thinks that because this film is a parody, therefore the plot device is acceptable. I accept his logic, but disagree that this film is a parody. Hence, the argument is about whether it is a parody.
Here are the facts:
1) The device is a McGuffin, film is a parody
2 (you)) The device is too stupid (because of something tc said, it is not an obvious parody, device is not justified
3 (me)) Yes, the device is.
2) No, the device isn't because it is unreasonable. It isn't a parody
3) Yes, the device is. It certainly isn't straight faced. The device is justified, and reaosnable.
2) We aren't talking about the device, we are talking about whether this is a parody.
Please explain when this thread about the device stopped being about the device...
Because the other poster called it a parody, and it certainly doesn't take itself seriously, and parodies series spy films. The other poster justified the device because it doesn't matter anyway, it's a McGuffin. And you, they , and I never stopped discussing whether the device was reasonable for this narrative, which only you disagree with.
Item 1 is the item under dispute with wakedemons3, the rest are not in dispute.
You are not entitled to justify yourself with the remaining items for the simple reason that you replied to the wakedemons3 sub-thread. If you want to address my OP, that is fine. You may reply to the OP. You chose to reply to the wakedemons3 sub-thread.
And you, they , and I never stopped discussing whether the device was reasonable for this narrative, which only you disagree with.I dumbed my explanation down to help you understand. Note that I never said that the plot device is not part of the argument, but that it is not the core of my argument with wakedemons3.
I already pointed out that in this subthread you have argued that the device was not reasonable. More than once.
I am fairly certain the issue here is something on the autism spectrum.
I wish you well in trying to force this argument, and the film in question, to confirm your needs as a viewer were not met, that those needs are reasonable and common to anyone other than yourself, and not some internal problem or malfunction with your perception, and that you have legitimate authority over this thread as the Supreme Overlord.
I won't be around for it.
Sure, sure, run away like the gutless coward you are.
If you reply to the parody sub-thread, but fail to address the parody issue with your OP, then the issue is with you being stupid. There is no direct dispute over the plot device on the parody sub-thread.
If you wanted to discuss the plot device, then why didn't you reply to my OP on that instead? Problem is you, not me.
Yes, you defeated me.
My tail is firmly between my legs.
Your powerful argument building and comprehension skills are vastly superior to my own.
This was not a case of your idiocy, and bashing my head against a wall of pure stupidity finally killing my will to continue this any further.
Congratulations, and a thousand apologies sahib.
Yes indeed, cowardly dog. That reason why you are making a mock defence is because you cannot offer a credible defence.
Your stupidity is obvious. If you post in a parody sub-thread, then your content should address the topic of parody. If you want to address the topic of plot device, then post in the plot device master-thread.
You are an idiot since you cannot grasp the concept of different nested threads.
Haha. Idiot finally realizes the stupidity of randomly replying to sub-threads.
Really, if you are going to be such a gutless moral coward, why even get into it to begin with?
I was being sarcastic. You're a complete idiot. I showed why you are a fool, by quoting your own comments in this 'sub-thread' back to you. It's a dialogue dumbo. If you had something going on in your head when you responded that's nothing to do with any one else.
I stopped because you are clearly stupid. And I will do so again. Right abouuut now.
Right, right. Gutless moral coward can't stand up to a real man, but can't admit he is fleeing like a pussy. Lol.
You chose to reply to this sub-thread instead of the master thread. Own your own stupidity instead of blaming others.