Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
Kendell

Knowing Subway Crash Question

Recommended Posts

Hi , I just watched Knowing , and I was curious about the Subway Crash Scene. Isn't the train (that's about to derail) suppose to Trigger the Brakes before it derailed off the track? Also the train can't destroy a whole station. This is fake because-

 

1. The train should have stopped when it hit the pillar in the tunnel.

 

2. The train is not suppose to have power because it was disconnected from the 3RD rail when it derailed.

 

3. The train is also suppose to either to split in half when it hit the second pillar , or stop and leave a huge crack in the front of the train car.

 

4. The train couldn't have just jumped onto the platform when it hit the pillar.

 

And Finnaly

5. The train had to stop when it hit the staircase. No train ever could just keep going if it hit a staircase like that .

 

These are all my reasons. Can somebody answer my question and see if my reasons are good enough. Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The art of cinema is a powerful mystery.... that can only be solved if you can look up the behind-the-scenes of a film on youtube or viewed on TV.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a movie... Hollywood doesn't know shit when it comes to trains

 

Actually that may not be the case.  A lot of movies that are produced are probably produced like that to create more action.  I'm sure all the directors knows the laws of physics and shit but they do it to create action.  Plus using the wrong props and wrong locations to present real locations is probably on purpose as well, for legal things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway if movies were too realistic, many movies would be boring.

It is true that like many rail and urban fans I am often obsessed by small details and often notice when a location is not good but movies are mainly made to tell a story, not necessary to represent reality.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta love Hollywood Science. They didn't even bother to do the scene in NYC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw several movies or TV series supposed to be in NYC when you can see orange LA buses in the background.  :D

Edited by Minato ku
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kendal, let me put it this way. When you're filimg something, it's not about what you, kendal, think it should be, but how the director wants to tell the story and what's the best way for him or her to do that. For example, it's easier to just use a stock shot of a train leaving a station than going out and having to follow the train you're using to flim. and get dozens of sceondary shots from every angle. More so where time and money are a factor. The 2009 Pelham had a nice sized buget for what they were doing, enough to borrow a R62 and dress it up as a 142. Knowing's buget, exactly half. Pelham was made on $100 million, and Knowing on $50 million.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, so why is this thread still open? I mean does the word fiction not mean a thing? The scene was cgi, computers. Even the subway scene of die hard 3 can never happen where the bomb blows the end of the car onto the platform. If anything the shockwave would've caused a direct damage towards the end of the train, but not the way it was in the movie.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.