When Paul gets back on the road after the first pursuit, Mick is back chasing him but with a big truck. Why didn't Paul go back off-road again ? Mick wouldn't have been able to follow with such a big truck off-road. Instead he stays on the road where he knows he has little chance against that truck. That was the only small thing I thought was weird. Other than that, I enjoyed that movie just like the 1st one.
shareGreat point.. I didn't even consider that, mainly because I assumed the jeep could outrun the tractor trailer quite easily. I'm still not sure what happened.. did he run out of gas or something? It seemed like suddenly he slowed down for no reason, then the truck caught up and started pushing him into the guard rail, he was like "oh what am I doing, I should speed up" and he did and got away. But by then the jeep was screwed and it broke down. But it was clearly capable of outrunning the truck before it was damaged.
shareI thought he should have hit the brakes, spun around and drove in the opposite direction. That huge truck couldn't have turned around nearly fast enough to catch him again.
shareYes, that would have been a better strategy to employ. I thought that as well. However I'm sure he didn't want to leave the road or stray far off of it because then he would be out of site of passerbyes, who could potentially rescued him.
shareI thought about it too, I guess going in the other direction or heading out of the road were the best options he had. Remember he had almost no gas so he couldn´t go much further anyways.
shareHe actually had plenty of gas, but due to a plot hole, he was suddenly running on fumes.
When they showed his gas gauge shortly after Mick started chasing him in the tractor-trailer, it read ~1/8 of a tank:
http://i.imgur.com/uatXIEw.jpg
Which actually means about 1/4 of a tank. The tank isn't actually empty when the gauge reads empty, you still have about 1/8 of a tank at that point.
A 2012 Jeep Wrangler has an 18.6 gallon gas tank, so 1/4 of a tank = 4.65 gallons. But since he was probably a little under that, let's say he had 4 gallons. It gets 21 MPG on the highway, so that's 84 miles before the tank is actually empty, or 42 miles before the gauge reads empty. The plot hole allowed the gauge to go from reading ~1/8 of a tank to reading below empty ...
http://i.imgur.com/tkxYUrV.jpg
... in just a few miles (2 minutes and 21 seconds of movie running time, which was being portrayed in real time, which is a couple/few miles at the speeds they were going).
I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.
Yeah but a 1/4 of a tank isn't a lot if you're in the middle of nowhere. Especially if you don't know where the next petrol station is. It's a horrible feeling to be running low and not know where your next refill is, trust me I've been there!
With that being said - why did this young man decide to let his fuel run so low when driving round a foreign country on his own? And why did he only have a tiny amount of water with him? It seems like he just wanted to run out of fuel and water, very bad preparation!
The point is: he had enough gas to drive for another 84 miles, which takes about an hour and twenty minutes at 65 MPH. In other words, gas wasn't an immediate concern; only the plot hole made it so.
I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.
Well firstly, fuel economy goes down drastically when you're racing. And secondly, the car was leaking water too, remember?
shareWell firstly, fuel economy goes down drastically when you're racing.They weren't even going very fast; a whopping 70 MPH:
And secondly, the car was leaking water too, remember?My responses on this thread have been about the gas issue, which was only an issue because of a plot hole. The coolant issue may or may not have been an immediate problem, depending on how fast he was losing it.
Racing an engine isn't just about top speed, it's about how hard you push the engine. If you floor the throttle everywhere you'll get bad consumption. My suggestion would be for you to get yourself a driving license and try it for yourself, you'll know what I mean then.
There is no plot hole here, end of story.
Racing an engine isn't just about top speed, it's about how hard you push the engine.If you push the engine hard on the highway in a modern vehicle like the 2012 Jeep he was driving, you'll be doing far more than 70 MPH, numbnuts.
If you floor the throttle everywhere you'll get bad consumption."Everywhere"? He's on the highway, going in one direction. This isn't stop and go driving, and there is no reason that he would be slowing down so that he'd have to speed up again, you know, given that he's being chased by a murderer.
My suggestion would be for you to get yourself a driving license and try it for yourself, you'll know what I mean then.I got my driver's license before you were born, in all likelihood. Also, as the old saying goes, I've probably forgotten more about cars than you'll ever know.
There is no plot hole here, end of story.You can't even come close to consuming 4+ gallons of gas in 2 minutes and 21 seconds in a 2012 Jeep Wrangler, not even at wide open throttle.
Stupid person - thanks for your reply. I see that you are exceedingly stupid, as you have made several blind assumptions.
Firstly, you do not know my age, so why would you assume that you have been driving longer than me? Only a stupid person would assume such a thing without knowing any facts.
Secondly, you say that you have forgotten more about cars than I know, yet you do not understand what "gearing" means. Cars have this thing called a "gearbox", which allow you to select "gears". You could drive everywhere in first gear at 30mph and use more fuel than if you used the gears properly and travelled at 70mph.
I don't know if the car in the movie was manual or automatic, but I do know that he was driving it hard. I also know that fuel gauges aren't always accurate and vary depending on the slope the cars driving on(I guess that's one of those things that you forgot, right?).
Your explanation of fuel consumption proves nothing, as we don't know how much fuel was consumed.
Like I said, there is no plot hole here, only a fool trying to look a lot smarter than he is.
Stupid person - thanks for your reply. I see that you are exceedingly stupid,That's comically ironic, considering you established yourself as an idiot in your previous post, and further establish yourself as an idiot in this most recent post of yours.
as you have made several blind assumptions.Only in your delusional fantasy world. In reality, on the other hand, I haven't made any assumptions ("blind" or otherwise) at all.
Firstly, you do not know my age, so why would you assume that you have been driving longer than me? Only a stupid person would assume such a thing without knowing any facts.Again, I didn't assume anything. I said:
Secondly, you say that you have forgotten more about cars than I know
yet you do not understand what "gearing" means. Cars have this thing called a "gearbox", which allow you to select "gears". You could drive everywhere in first gear at 30mph and use more fuel than if you used the gears properly and travelled at 70mph.
I don't know if the car in the movie was manual or automatic
but I do know that he was driving it hard.
I also know that fuel gauges aren't always accurate and vary depending on the slope the cars driving on
(I guess that's one of those things that you forgot, right?).
Your explanation of fuel consumption proves nothing,It proves it is a plot hole, moron, which is the entire point.
as we don't know how much fuel was consumed.We don't have to know the exact amount, airhead, we only need to know that you can't even come close to consuming 4+ gallons of gas in 2 minutes and 21 seconds in a 2012 Jeep Wrangler, not even at wide open throttle. It is flat-out impossible.
Like I said, there is no plot hole hereThis laughable assertion of yours has already been refuted (see above), thus it is dismissed out of hand.
only a fool trying to look a lot smarter than he is.*** Comical Irony Alert: Part III ***
Hilarious! This quote alone is worth it's weight in gold:
as a general rule, kids are particularly stupid
Hilarious! This quote alone is worth it's weight in gold:The human brain isn't even finished developing until about the age of 25, dumbass, which means that everyone under 25 is stupid relative to their future level of intelligence, barring future brain damage (i.e., after their brain finishes developing):as a general rule, kids are particularly stupid
Hmm, really? So young=stupid? Wow. Lets examine that for a moment. You're saying that a young person lacks intelligence, but gains it as they get older?
I think you have yet again shown your stupidity, as you don't know the difference between intelligence and wisdom. A child may be ignorant, but they are NOT stupid. You get smart kids and stupid kids - surely all those years with the dunce cap on must have taught you this?
The rest of your post is irrelevant as you haven't understood even the most basic point - we don't know how much fuel was in the tank.Yes, we do. There was a little over 4 gallons of gas in the tank; I've already explained this elsewhere in this thread.
Do you understand? Probably not.
No plot hole hereAlready refuted (more than once), thus dismissed.
I think you need to read up on what a "plot hole" is.I know exactly what a plot hole is, and since you have repeatedly established that you don't, this is *** Comical Irony Alert: Part VI *** for you.
It's hilarious that you went into so much detail though, thanks for sharing the workings of this particular make and model of car. It just proves what a total douche you are.This inept, baseless, and irrelevant editorial of yours is dismissed.
And thanks for correcting my English - gearbox is called transmission is it? I'm English, what language are you speaking again? Yep, thought so...
EDIT: I'm 35Or so you say.
so you did make a blind and incorrect assumption.Except, I didn't make an assumption at all (which I've already pointed out; your failure to comprehend it is further evidence of your stupidity). I pointed out a strong likelihood, which is not an assumption. For example:
Well done Einstein.*** Comical Irony Alert: Part VII ***
Ok, I'm willing to accept your explanation when you provide me with proof that there was exactly 4 gallons in the tank. I want to see that you measured the amount of fuel before and after, and let me know what was consumed. Thanks.
As for the rest of your post, it's getting boring now so I didn't bother to read it. I assume that it's a small collection of juvenile insults and irrelevant bile? Probably the wittiest comments that both of your brain cells can muster?
So, yeah, proof please. Proof that you measured the fuel, and evidence of the distance covered and time taken. And a printout of engine RPM for the journey please.
Thanks buddy.
Ok, I'm willing to accept your explanation when you provide me with proof that there was exactly 4 gallons in the tank. I want to see that you measured the amount of fuel before and after, and let me know what was consumed. Thanks.*** Reading Disability Alert ***
As for the rest of your post, it's getting boring now so I didn't bother to read it. I assume that it's a small collection of juvenile insults and irrelevant bile? Probably the wittiest comments that both of your brain cells can muster?Given that you have no actual arguments to present, nor have you refuted anything I've said, your tacit concession on the whole matter is noted, Slow Doug™.
So, yeah, proof please. Proof that you measured the fuel, and evidence of the distance covered and time taken. And a printout of engine RPM for the journey please.
Thanks buddy.
Ok I'll make it super easy on you. Just give me a 3d model of the route they took, along with terrain information. I'd also like to see the certificates from the last inspection of the car to show that everything is up to spec. And I'd like to know the coefficient of friction from the grease in the wheel bearing. Plus what was the wind speed? And was the car empty, half loaded or heavily loaded? What was both the sprung and unsprung mass of the car? And the tyre pressure? How much fuel did you measure exactly?
There's a few more things I'd like to know, but this homework should get you started. Run along lad, and be quick about it.
Given that you have no actual arguments to present, nor have you refuted anything I've said, your tacit concession on the whole matter is noted, Slow Doug™.
[deleted]
Tie me kangaroo down sport TIE ME KANGAROO DOWN! TIE ME KANGAROO DOWN SPORT TIE ME KANGAROO DOWN!!
shareOk I'll make it super easy on you. Just give me a 3d model of the route they took, along with terrain information. I'd also like to see the certificates from the last inspection of the car to show that everything is up to spec. And I'd like to know the coefficient of friction from the grease in the wheel bearing. Plus what was the wind speed? And was the car empty, half loaded or heavily loaded? What was both the sprung and unsprung mass of the car? And the tyre pressure? How much fuel did you measure exactly?
There's a few more things I'd like to know, but this homework should get you started. Run along lad, and be quick about it.
On the contrary, I've refuted everything that you've said.Consider your laughable bald-faced lie dismissed out of hand. And your tacit concession on the whole matter remains noted, for the same reason as before, Corky.
I'm still waiting! I'd like to see an inspection certificate of the fuel line too please, just to make sure that there were no leaks. And also a calibration record of the fuel guage(which showed more like 3/32 of a tank than 1/4, but your maths is probably as bad as your reasoning). And please let me know the weather conditions on that day, the temperature and humidity and wind direction and speed.
More importantly, I'm still waiting for your proof of the amount of fuel in the tank. When did you take the measurements, and how are you going to prove it?
Come on, it's your claim that it's a plot hole, I just want you to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. Prove to me that a fuel gauge that shows 3/32 holds 4 gallons. Prove to me that driving a vehicle hard doesn't burn any more fuel. Prove your outlandish claims, as you are the one making them. This should be good for a laugh!
Do you know what "impossible" means, dullard?
I'm still waiting! I'd like to see an inspection certificate of the fuel line too please, just to make sure that there were no leaks.For starters, it isn't possible for there to be a large enough leak in the fuel line to leak out that much fuel in that amount of time, and still provide enough fuel to keep the engine running strong enough to push the vehicle along at ~70 MPH. Secondly, it is irrelevant, because fanwanking speculations can't negate a plothole. If a leak was intended to be the cause of the far-too-rapid fuel disappearance, it is up to the movie makers to establish that as the cause; if it goes unexplained it is a plot hole.
And also a calibration record of the fuel guage
(which showed more like 3/32 of a tank than 1/4, but your maths is probably as bad as your reasoning).I said:
And please let me know the weather conditions on that day, the temperature and humidity and wind direction and speed.
More importantly, I'm still waiting for your proof of the amount of fuel in the tank. When did you take the measurements, and how are you going to prove it?I already established that there was ~4 gallons of gas in the tank in this previous post - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2004432/board/nest/230726079?d=230878728#2 30878728, and if not for your unfortunate reading disability and incurable case of "The Stupids", you would already know that.
Come on, it's your claim that it's a plot hole, I just want you to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.It is a fact that it is a plot hole, which means it has already been proven. That you are oblivious to this fact is utterly irrelevant.
Prove to me that a fuel gauge that shows 3/32 holds 4 gallons.I never made that claim (that's your reading disability talking again), though I've already established that a 2012 Jeep Wrangler's gas tank has ~4 gallons of gas when its gauge reads ~1/8 of a tank.
Prove to me that driving a vehicle hard doesn't burn any more fuel."Driving a vehicle hard" does burn more fuel, dolt.
Prove your outlandish claims, as you are the one making them.Negated by the fact that you don't even know what my claims are, as you demonstrated directly above.
This should be good for a laugh!Irony.
Well until today I thought I did. But it seems that someone is dumber than what I previously thought possible. You're literally impossibly stupid, I don't understand how you manage to function with your day to day life. Do you have someone to care for you? Is someone else doing the typing, while you shout out the words? If not, then I commend you on working out how to use a "pooter" and get on the web. Well done. But you should go back to licking windows now and stop putting so much stress on your carer.More comical irony. In any event, this baseless, inept, and irrelevant editorial of yours is dismissed out of hand, and your tacit concession on the entire matter remains noted, for the same reason as before.
So your excuse is that the camera isn't straight and makes the fuel gauge look lower? Seriously?
AAAAAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOOOOOLOLOL!
Hilarious! I should print that comment off and frame it, literally the stupidest thing I've ever read. You utter moron!
Anyhow, I see that you've backed out of providing any actual evidence(and no, your speculation does NOT prove how much fuel was in the car). So...
I'm still waiting! I'd like to see an inspection certificate of the fuel line too please, just to make sure that there were no leaks. And also a calibration record of the fuel guage(which showed more like 3/32 of a tank than 1/4, but your maths is probably as bad as your reasoning). And please let me know the weather conditions on that day, the temperature and humidity and wind direction and speed.
More importantly, I'm still waiting for your proof of the amount of fuel in the tank. When did you take the measurements, and how are you going to prove it?
Come on, it's your claim that it's a plot hole, I just want you to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. Prove to me that a fuel gauge that shows 3/32 holds 4 gallons. Prove to me that driving a vehicle hard doesn't burn any more fuel. Prove your outlandish claims, as you are the one making them. This should be good for a laugh!
Do you know what "impossible" means, dullard?
Well until today I thought I did. But it seems that someone is dumber than what I previously thought possible. You're literally impossibly stupid, I don't understand how you manage to function with your day to day life. Do you have someone to care for you? Is someone else doing the typing, while you shout out the words? If not, then I commend you on working out how to use a "pooter" and get on the web. Well done. But you should go back to licking windows now and stop putting so much stress on your carer.
So your excuse is that the camera isn't straight and makes the fuel gauge look lower? Seriously?You are fast approaching the status of the dumbest guy I've ever encountered on the internet, and that is saying a lot. First of all, you clearly don't know what the word "excuse" means, because it has no application here whatsoever. I never claimed that the gauge read exactly 1/8 tank; I said it read ~1/8 of a tank, which it does, so there is no "excuse" needed. Given that you are too stupid to know what a tilde is / what it means (even after I pointed the tilde out to you, thus providing you an opportunity to look it up), I'll let you know: it means approximately. Since you have a drop-forged, heat-treated, case-hardened, annealed forehead which is for all intents and purposes, impervious to information penetration, I'll make this especially simple for you:
AAAAAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOOOOOLOLOL!What does it mean when an established idiot laughs?
Hilarious! I should print that comment off and frame it, literally the stupidest thing I've ever read. You utter moron!
Thanks buddy. Once I've received some engineer reports I'll consider the matter settled.Things are already settled; it doesn't matter at all that a well-established idiot disagrees.
Hilarious! Oh it just gets better and better. Now you're sharing your amateur photography with me? Lol! Thanks for providing the pictures, however car speedometers don't really interest me.
But, if you're now claiming that the reading of the fuel gauge was off, please provide me with a 3d model of the camera setup, along with an exact model of the fuel gauge. We need to be able to measure the height of the needle from the surface, and measure the angle of the camera, to work out where the gauge was pointing, as you claim it was displaying lower than it was. Once I have receipt of these I shall look into the matter further.
I'm still waiting on that other paperwork, such as the proof that you'd measured the fuel in the tank. Without this, it's impossible for me to calculate how much fuel was used. So as it stands, I summarily dismiss your claim for a plot hole, and I dismiss you as a person. You are an irrelevant poo stain.
NASCAR don't drive their cars hard, they're more concerned with making noise. You should have mentioned a real motorsport, such as go karting.
in this case, had he intended that the needle was inaccurate, or there was a fuel leak, or whatever, he would have to establish that (you don't get to "establish" it for him via fanwanking). For example, he could have the character say, "That gas gauge is acting up again," or he could show gas leaking out of the vehicle, or whatever.
Hilarious! Oh it just gets better and better. Now you're sharing your amateur photography with me? Lol! Thanks for providing the pictures, however car speedometers don't really interest me.Your tacit concession on that matter is noted, as is the comical irony of an established idiot's laughter.
But, if you're now claiming that the reading of the fuel gauge was off, please provide me with a 3d model of the camera setup, along with an exact model of the fuel gauge. We need to be able to measure the height of the needle from the surface, and measure the angle of the camera, to work out where the gauge was pointing, as you claim it was displaying lower than it was. Once I have receipt of these I shall look into the matter further.*** Reading Disability Alert ***
I'm still waiting on that other paperwork, such as the proof that you'd measured the fuel in the tank. Without this, it's impossible for me to calculate how much fuel was used. So as it stands, I summarily dismiss your claim for a plot hole, and I dismiss you as a person. You are an irrelevant poo stain.
NASCAR don't drive their cars hard, they're more concerned with making noise. You should have mentioned a real motorsport, such as go karting.Hahahahaha ...
Say what?? Of course it never happened, buffoon, and this is the most blatant example of your unfortunate reading disability yet. I suggest you have someone who is significantly smarter than yourself read it to you, and then explain it to you in the simplest terms possible.in this case, had he intended that the needle was inaccurate, or there was a fuel leak, or whatever, he would have to establish that (you don't get to "establish" it for him via fanwanking). For example, he could have the character say, "That gas gauge is acting up again," or he could show gas leaking out of the vehicle, or whatever.That never happened you idiot! What on Earth are you going on about? Did you even watch the same movie as me? Probably not, you were too busy molesting farm animals.
Lol! Yet more made up stories and numbers, yet you still haven't provided any PROOF!
So to recap:
Proof of the needle being higher than your photo shows.
Proof of the amount of fuel in the tank.
Proof that the car was in perfect condition.
Proof of the distance travelled, the type of terrain covered and the speed and acceleration of the vehicle.
Proof of the weather conditions, including temperature, wind speed and direction and humidity.
Proof of the weight of the vehicle and contents.
And the various other things I've asked for above.
Until then, I consider this matter closed and dismiss your claim of a plot hole. I also declare you to be incorrect and foolish. You are wrong, and were born wrong. Actually you were probably born the wrong way round, but were so ugly that nobody even noticed.
Just get used to being WRONG. And stop making up stories, nobody's buying it. You make up a story, then say of course it never happened when you get caught out, and then call me a buffoon? Lolololololoooollolololol!!
Lol! Yet more made up stories and numbers, yet you still haven't provided any PROOF!The "proof" is shown on the screen when watching the movie, moron, as well as in facts about the 2012 Jeep Wrangler, and in facts of nature, such as how optics work. Given that I haven't made up anything, your lie is dismissed.
So to recap:The proof is in the field of optics. This is common knowledge for nearly everyone, plus I already posted 3 pictures proving that changing the camera angle changes the apparent position of a gauge needle.
Proof of the needle being higher than your photo shows.
Proof of the amount of fuel in the tank.The proof is in the screen shot of the gas gauge.
Proof that the car was in perfect condition.No need for such proof, because nothing was shown onscreen that established a relevant problem with the vehicle.
Proof of the distance travelled,Shown onscreen in real time, i.e., ~2½ minutes at ~70 MPH.
the type of terrain coveredShown onscreen, i.e., ~flat stretch of highway.
the speed and acceleration of the vehicle.Shown onscreen, i.e., ~70 MPH. No major acceleration was shown.
Proof of the weather conditions, including temperature, wind speed and direction and humidity.Irrelevant (like all of your other "points"). Those things would only matter if the debate was over a very minor difference in gas mileage. You're too stupid to understand how utterly absurd the idea of a 2012 Jeep Wrangler getting ~0.5 MPG is. That vehicle gets 21 MPG on the highway under ideal conditions, and under the worst possible conditions, it would get about half that. It is impossible for it to get ~1/40 of that, for reasons I've already stated (its fuel pump isn't even capable of pumping ~2 gallons per minute, for starters, and its engine is far from being capable of burning ~2 gallons per minute).
Proof of the weight of the vehicle and contents.Again, irrelevant. See above.
And the various other things I've asked for above.
Until then, I consider this matter closed and dismiss your claim of a plot hole. I also declare you to be incorrect and foolish. You are wrong, and were born wrong. Actually you were probably born the wrong way round, but were so ugly that nobody even noticed.This baseless nonsense of yours is dismissed out of hand, and since you still haven't presented any actual arguments (fanwanking "what ifs?" don't count), your tacit concession on the whole matter remains noted.
Just get used to being WRONG. And stop making up stories, nobody's buying it. You make up a story, then say of course it never happened when you get caught out, and then call me a buffoon? Lolololololoooollolololol!!
Sigh, not too smart are you? See my other reply below.
shareYou know what, I'm actually getting tired of toying with you buddy. So I'll spoon feed you the obvious.
The display of the fuel gauge was never intended to be 100% accurate. It was there merely to illustrate to the viewer that his fuel was low, and then even lower. If they'd done it super accurately, then the average viewer wouldn't have seen any difference on the gauge and would have missed the point the director was trying to make.
Also, a common technique used in movies is to cheat with time. So while you may have had your stopwatch out and timed it to the nearet millisecond, and counted the number of frames between seeing the fuel gauge each time, it doesn't mean a thing. The time passed in our world isn't necessarily the time that passed in the movie world.
A plot hole is an inconsistency in a story. This is not a plot hole. In this movie, this car used some fuel, that's the story. I hope that fact penetrates your thick skull enough for you to be able to follow. I understood it just fine, yet you seem to have missed the point completely! All of the facts in the world don't help you, as this movie is fiction and has it's own rules within that fiction. Do you understand?
You know what, I'm actually getting tired of toying with you buddy. So I'll spoon feed you the obvious.More comical irony from the guy in the corner proudly wearing his dunce cap.
The display of the fuel gauge was never intended to be 100% accurate. It was there merely to illustrate to the viewer that his fuel was low, and then even lower. If they'd done it super accurately, then the average viewer wouldn't have seen any difference on the gauge and would have missed the point the director was trying to make.Once again:
Also, a common technique used in movies is to cheat with time. So while you may have had your stopwatch out and timed it to the nearet millisecond, and counted the number of frames between seeing the fuel gauge each time, it doesn't mean a thing. The time passed in our world isn't necessarily the time that passed in the movie world.
A plot hole is an inconsistency in a story. This is not a plot hole. In this movie, this car used some fuel, that's the story.This is an inconsistency in the story, dumbass, AKA: an internal inconsistency, AKA: an inconsistency within the internal logic. Have you ever watched a horror movie where the killer apparently "teleports", without explanation, even though he's an ordinary human, or at least someone who is not supposed to be able to teleport? That's a plot hole. Well, this is the case of the teleporting gasoline, which apparently teleported out of his gas tank to who knows where?
I hope that fact penetrates your thick skull enough for you to be able to follow. I understood it just fine, yet you seem to have missed the point completely! All of the facts in the world don't help youMore comical irony, of course.
as this movie is fiction and has it's own rules within that fiction. Do you understand?And it broke its own rules, which is why it's a plot hole, Slow Doug™.
[deleted]
Wow, so slow. Even when spoon fed the obvious, the beast prefers to stick to his own tired and discredited point. He must know more than the rest of the world, if only I was as smart as this beast. Lol!
Fuel gauge goes from LOW to LOWER, yet you don't get that? You really think the director intended the viewer to think it was 4.01064523 gallons rounded to 8 decimal places? Really? Are you really this thick? Really? Lol! Damn, there's stupid and then there's you, the very definition of stupid.
See, I have no problem with stupid people that know they're stupid. It's the ones that think they're smart that I like to toy with. People like you, who know enough about a subject to form a strong opinion, yet are too slow to see the bigger picture. People like you who even when proved wrong, dig their heels in and refuse to admit it. People like you who just HAVE to be correct, as their opinion defines them - to be wrong would mean they are wrong as a person. Lol!
There was no plot hole here, the rules of this movie showed that the fuel gauge went from low to lower. That was the story that was shown to us, the one that we both watched yet you failed to grasp. If you wish to understand this, my suggestion to you would be to put down the amateur mechanics books for a moment, and pick up some books on storytelling, film making, cinematography etc. Study this art, and then perhaps after a few months of reading you'll grasp what's happened here. Because right now, you've failed miserably.
EDIT: What you should be complaining about is the physics in this movie. You should complain that the car used too much fuel. Do you understand the difference here? It is not a "plot hole" for a movie to show physics that aren't true in the real world. Learn the difference!
Given that this entire post of yours is nothing but an inept and baseless editorial, peppered with already-refuted assertions, and brimming with the hilarious irony of the most well-established idiot in recent internet history attempting to appraise someone else's intelligence, consider it dismissed wholesale.
And given that you still have yet to present any actual arguments, your tacit concession on the whole matter remains noted.
I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.
your tacit concession on the whole matter remains noted.
There is no plot hole here
There is no plot hole here
Given that you still have yet to present any actual arguments, your tacit concession on the whole matter remains noted.
Since you have a severe reading disability and are dumb as a mud fence, thus easily confused, I'll spell it out for you:
You have tacitly conceded that the impossibly high fuel consumption shown in this movie is a plot hole. You tacitly conceded this many posts ago; it was noted then and it remains noted.
I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.
Hilarious! Such powerful autism. But you're incorrect, try reading what I said again, you might understand then. I've proven you wrong several times, but your autistic brain has blocked it out. Anyhow - I'll explain it again simply.
Even if you were correct about the unknown amount of fuel being too high in the unknown distance travelled(you're not, for obvious reasons in that sentence), then it doesn't matter as it is irrelevant because: unrealistic ≠ plot hole. Understand?
Still no actual arguments from you (baseless assertions don't count), but plenty of comical irony, as usual. Consider yourself redirected to here - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2004432/board/nest/230726079?d=231115838#2 31115838 - simpleton.
I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.
Hilarious! Such powerful autism. But you're incorrect, try reading what I said again, you might understand then. I've proven you wrong several times, but your autistic brain has blocked it out. Anyhow - I'll explain it again simply.
Even if you were correct about the unknown amount of fuel being too high in the unknown distance travelled(you're not, for obvious reasons in that sentence), then it doesn't matter as it is irrelevant because: unrealistic ≠ plot hole. Understand?
plot hole
A plot hole, or plothole is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that creates a paradox in the story that cannot be reconciled with any explanation. These include such things as illogical or impossible events, and statements or events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.
And of course, as you probably don't know how to use Google I'll include the definition of "plot hole":Every single one of your posts has been comically ironic, which makes you look like a fool, and this one is no exception. As I said earlier, I've probably forgotten more about computers (and computer-related things) than you'll ever know.
plot holeA 2012 Jeep Wrangler consuming ~4 gallons of gas in ~2½ minutes is an impossible event.
A plot hole, or plothole is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that creates a paradox in the story that cannot be reconciled with any explanation. These include such things as illogical or impossible events, and statements or events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.
So if you can just explain how the story was inconsistent, or how it contradicted itself?They used a real world vehicle in a real world setting and then had it do something that said real world vehicle can't do here in the real world. That's an inconsistency and contradiction.
Of course it didn't, as the story showed us that the fuel went down.... lol!By an impossible amount in the given time, dumbass, thus the plot hole. It is just as much of a plot hole as if his fuel level had increased as he drove down the highway, giving him more potential driving time instead of less, which is just as impossible.
But I'm eager to hear how you can call it a plot hole, it should provide some amusement.The irony is still thick in here. By the way, you're not even remotely smart enough to know accurate information when you see it.
Your insults are laughable, and stink of desperation. I don't know why you're this obtuse, it's probably a sign of insecurity, but then again I don't care either.
As I said earlier, I've probably forgotten more about computers (and computer-related things) than you'll ever know.
A 2012 Jeep Wrangler consuming ~4 gallons of gas in ~2½ minutes is an impossible event.
By the way, you're not even remotely smart enough to know accurate information when you see it.
as you probably don't know how to use Google
Your insults are laughable, and stink of desperation.Everyone thinks that insults directed at them are "laughable"; however, anyone with a modicum of intelligence who is reading this can see who knows what they are talking about (that would be me), and who is dumb as an ox (that would be you).
I don't know why you're this obtuse, it's probably a sign of insecurity, but then again I don't care either.More comical irony from the textbook example of an idiot.
I seriously doubt that.Given how stupid you are, your doubt is irrelevant.
Anyhow, you said this about cars, and now you're a computer expert too.I've been both, for a very long time.
Hilarious!Once again, what does it mean when an idiot laughs?
Another sign of insecurity, boasting about your knowledgeYou are the one who brought up the topic of computer knowledge, dumbass.
(which you're obviously making up as you go along)If that were true, you would be able to prove me wrong on everything I've said. However, you haven't been able to prove me wrong about anything I've said, much less everything. That you think that facts are things I've "made up" is further evidence of your idiocy (not that any additional evidence is required).
In the real world yes. But not in this movie. Unless of course, you think every movie is a plot hole?LOL! Just when I thought you couldn't possibly type anything more ignorant, stupid, and ridiculous than you already have ...
In Star Wars, Star Trek, various other sci fi movies, they exceed the speed of light. As far as we know that's impossible, and we don't currently have the technology to do this. So do you think that all science fiction is a plot hole?
In this movie, his fuel gauge went from low to lower. You're not supposed to measure the amount of fuel in the tank, you complete moron! Do you really think they assume that their viewers will be sat there with a copy of the technical manual for that particular model of car, and then measure out the amount of fuel consumed in the time taken? Do you honestly believe this?It doesn't matter what they assume, simple fellow; whatever they put on screen means what it appears to mean, unless something else in the movie alters that meaning. For example, had they shown a big trail of gasoline leaking from the tank, the rapid fuel disappearance wouldn't have been a plot hole.
If you do, there's really no hope for you. You have continually shown your stupidity and failure to grasp this BASIC plot point. Literally the most basic of plot devices... sigh. I pity you. And that's the honest truth.*** Comical Irony Alert: Part XXIV ***
Well, my physics professor would say otherwise. He told me that I was illusive, as I always got A's on my papers, yet didn't have to work at it very hard and didn't appear to be paying attention in classes. Borderline genius would be an accurate way to describe me, so I'm afraid that if you want to brag about intelligence then you'll lose that battle!
Anyhow, you don't need to know accurate information these days.That would be wonderful for you if that were true. Unfortunately, it isn't.
As I said in my last post, and as you've just confirmed:This is a non sequitur, and as such, consider it dismissed.
as you probably don't know how to use Google
Talk about irony!Nearly every post you have made so far contains enough comical irony to sink a battleship.
The 2 minutes and 21 seconds of movie running time were portrayed in real time, meaning there was nothing to indicate extra passage of time. It is up to the movie makers to indicate additional passage of time, if that is their intention. If they don't, then real time is being portrayed, by default.
I can't be bothered to quote your long winded and boring post. To sum up my reply - you are incorrect on every level.
The fuel gauge went from low to lower, and the difference was enough to be noticeable. If it had gone from 20% to 19.95%, nobody would have noticed. It's basic storytelling. The car also started running rough and steam was coming out - again just to show that he'd been driving hard. It really is that simple, but you have tried your hardest to not be able to understand this basic point.
As for reality in movies - generally cars don't explode when you fire bullets at them, but they do in many movies. There's lots of things that happen in movies that don't happen in real life - this is why it's called "fiction" But if you want realism, perhaps you should try "non fiction". I'm sure you can find an amateur mechanics or computer programme, you can even find this stuff in books. But for future reference - movies aren't the best place to get your facts.
Something like this might suit your needs, it already has your name on it:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Computer-Basics/dp/1592571689
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Complete-Idiots-Illustrated-Lifestyle-Paperback/dp/0028644328
As far as this argument goes, I believe that I'm wasting my time trying to battle your autism. It's too powerful, your head is too think and you're too obtuse. The book "How to Win Friends and Influence People" says that you can never win an argument, as people tend to dig their heels in, even when they know they're in the wrong. It's certainly true in your case.
And the other phrase I like is:
George Carlin — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.'
So, as I don't wish to be brought down to the level of a particularly stupid amoeba, I think I shall leave you to stew in your juice. I'm putting you on my ignore list, so that I never again have to deal with your autism.
I'd still highly recommend you doing a course on amateur film-making though, if it's something that interests you. But you'll have to drop the geeky "train-spotter" crap, nobody cares about the accuracy of a fuel gauge except you. And FFS, see a doctor about your mental health.
Goodbye!
Nice night for a walk...
I can't be bothered to quote your long winded and boring post. To sum up my reply - you are incorrect on every level.Your baseless (and obviously false) assertion is dismissed.
The fuel gauge went from low to lower, and the difference was enough to be noticeable. If it had gone from 20% to 19.95%, nobody would have noticed. It's basic storytelling. The car also started running rough and steam was coming out - again just to show that he'd been driving hard. It really is that simple, but you have tried your hardest to not be able to understand this basic point.That's their problem. I already pointed out one way in which they could have avoided a plot hole, i.e., simply show a leaking gas tank; or, they could have just shown the gauge at already below empty in the first place; everyone knows that means he is about to run out of gas any minute, as opposed to the gauge showing ~1/8 of a tank, which everyone knows means another hour or so of highway driving. However, they didn't do anything to justify the impossible level of fuel disappearance they showed on screen, so they are stuck with the plot hole.
As for reality in movies - generally cars don't explode when you fire bullets at them, but they do in many movies. There's lots of things that happen in movies that don't happen in real life - this is why it's called "fiction" But if you want realism, perhaps you should try "non fiction". I'm sure you can find an amateur mechanics or computer programme, you can even find this stuff in books. But for future reference - movies aren't the best place to get your facts.No, that's not why it is called "fiction", and you have again proven that you don't understand the concept of "internal consistency", thus you don't understand the concept of a plot hole by default. The reason of course, is that you're day-old dumb.
Something like this might suit your needs, it already has your name on it:A couple dozen more examples of comical irony here, from the grade A, #1 idiot. In any event, consider your baseless, inept, and irrelevant editorial dismissed wholesale.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Computer-Basics/dp/1592571689
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Complete-Idiots-Illustrated-Lifestyle-Paperback/dp/0028644328
As far as this argument goes, I believe that I'm wasting my time trying to battle your autism. It's too powerful, your head is too think and you're too obtuse. The book "How to Win Friends and Influence People" says that you can never win an argument, as people tend to dig their heels in, even when they know they're in the wrong. It's certainly true in your case.
And the other phrase I like is:
George Carlin — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.'
So, as I don't wish to be brought down to the level of a particularly stupid amoeba, I think I shall leave you to stew in your juice. I'm putting you on my ignore list, so that I never again have to deal with your autism.
I'd still highly recommend you doing a course on amateur film-making though, if it's something that interests you. But you'll have to drop the geeky "train-spotter" crap, nobody cares about the accuracy of a fuel gauge except you. And FFS, see a doctor about your mental health.
Goodbye!
Or perhaps we can look at it from another POV. That being the movie makers could have used the quick fuel consumption with the needled going from 1/8 to below empty, to show that indeed more time had elapsed than we would first assume.
As for the OP's statement, Paul could have driven away and escaped easily when Mick's truck first hit the tree, instead of stopping like 10 feet away and asking the girl if she's ok. The logical thing, anyone going through a situation like this with that amount of adrenaline pumping through their veins as they're trying to escape a psycho, would be to continue moving away from the danger zone without stopping until they feel quite safe.
Your baseless (and obviously false) assertion is dismissed.
That's their problem. I already pointed out one way in which they could have avoided a plot hole, i.e., simply show a leaking gas tank; or, they could have just shown the gauge at already below empty in the first place; everyone knows that means he is about to run out of gas any minute, as opposed to the gauge showing ~1/8 of a tank, which everyone knows means another hour or so of highway driving. However, they didn't do anything to justify the impossible level of fuel disappearance they showed on screen, so they are stuck with the plot hole.
No, that's not why it is called "fiction", and you have again proven that you don't understand the concept of "internal consistency", thus you don't understand the concept of a plot hole by default. The reason of course, is that you're day-old dumb.
Superman can fly; it is not a plot hole because that is part of the premise of the work of fiction; it is explained by him being an alien. On the other hand, Lois Lane can't fly, because in the context of the work of fiction, she is an ordinary human. So, if Lois Lane flies without explanation, it is a plot hole. Is any of this getting through your drop-forged, tempered forehead, Slow Doug™?
A couple dozen more examples of comical irony here, from the grade A, #1 idiot. In any event, consider your baseless, inept, and irrelevant editorial dismissed wholesale.
Autism is a lifelong developmental disability that affects how a person communicates with, and relates to, other people. It also affects how they make sense of the world around them.
It's been a while since the last time I saw this level of public humiliation in these forums. I cannot believe how some people just keep coming back for more instead of letting it go and keep a little bit of dignity.
Anyway, it's obvious that his jeep couldn't have ran out of gas in that short time. The first time they showed the meter I was a bit puzzled, since there was so much left. The next time they showed it I just assumed there had been a time ellipsis and they had actually been driving for a while, which is an odd choice considering they could have just simply shown it running out the first time.
I thought the way the killer could easily outrun his victims no matter the vehicle was a lot more preposterous. That and the way he easily finds them no matter where they go, even at night. I remembered the first one being more realistic, while this one seems to be pushing the character into Jason Voorhees territory from the get go, probably so they can turn it into a horror franchise and keep churning out sequels.
Ah, another retard joins the gang. This reminds me of a time when I walked past a field full of sheep - they were all staring at me, and would all "baa" together. Yet none of the sheep had any intelligence. It's quite an amusing though, as you are like a sheep - you have no intelligence at all but just baa a lot without knowing what you're saying.
As explained to the douche above, the fuel guage was there to show you that his fuel went from "low" to "lower", do you really not grasp this? If the fuel gauge had been 100% accurate, would it have been noticeable that he was running out? How many humans have the ability to detect a 0.1 degree change of a gauge in a movie?
Like I said to the other retard - you should really study film making, and try to understand the techniques used in making a movie, before coming on here and spouting your irrelevant bile.
You have FAILED to understand the most basic of plot devices, and you have made a fool out of yourself. But don't worry, not everyone thinks your a fool - the other fools will probably agree with you. That's the way life works - fools all think that other fools are right, then think because there's lots of them that they are even more right. Yet history would prove otherwise.
Bye retard, thanks for making me laugh.
Mr. Laurio, never trust a beautiful woman. Especially one who's interested in you.
I get what ya saying, kiddo ;) Virtual Mark, went on a lil space ride at the beginning and err... the middle... and maybe the end. :D :D Lmao! I feel you maan ;)
shareSo basically, judging by the gas and milage, he could have easily made it to the town on the sign (when he first hit the highway) that said it was 120 km away (Aussies use km like us Canucks right?).
There are maybe five beings I hope I never have to fight and J'onn Jonzz is one of them. - Superman
Dude the best option for him was to leave the concrete road and drive away, the truck probably wouldn't have been able to follow for long , I doubt it.
shareThanks for these details. I didn't notice that goof / error. But yea , like I said , his best option was to go off-road with or without much fuel.
shareWell no matter if he had lots of fuel or not much, in both case his best option was to go off-road again.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
having just finished this movie, I agree. All he had to do was either go off road, OR just hit his brakes and go the other way. He could of easily out ran that truck. Suspension of disbelief I guess, but this movie was a flub to me.
shareI thought of that while they were driving. But it doesnt make for much of a story if he actually gets away so early.
Also, you could argue he was panicking and not thinking tactically. He just had an urge to flee, not much else.