oh. I thought that was your reflection. LOL.
Ant-Man (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
CPTRogers
Sr Member
Yes it's called Ant Man and The Wasp
cayman shen
Master Member
After Ultron I was pretty burned out on Marvel movies, so I decided to skip this one in the theater. It had been an expensive summer anyway, movie-wise, so it was easy to pass on this. Just rented it on Amazon and I'm glad I did. The smaller scale (heh) story was a welcome break from the end of the world hyperbole of the Avengers, and the flick just plain had a lot of heart. In fact, that's my one and only significant criticism: every single emotional moment is undercut with some snarky "witticism." Very adolescent (I know, I know, it's a movie FOR adolescents. Still). Other than that, I really liked it. Worth a look,
Laspector
Master Member
Just watched it--loved it!!
My only gripe was the big ant at the end. So Cassie is keeping it as a pet? Wouldn't that thing be "insect vicious" every time Scott wasn't around controlling it? I don't think you can domesticate an insect. Maybe a hat tip to Honey I Shrunk The Kids? Personally, I go with The Fly as far as insect politics.
My only gripe was the big ant at the end. So Cassie is keeping it as a pet? Wouldn't that thing be "insect vicious" every time Scott wasn't around controlling it? I don't think you can domesticate an insect. Maybe a hat tip to Honey I Shrunk The Kids? Personally, I go with The Fly as far as insect politics.
Father
Sr Member
That and the fact that an insect that size would apparently be crushed under its own weight (according to some science faction I read somewhere)
joshvanrad
Master Member
Why did it take me so long to finally see this movie?
Remember that this is a comic book universe. The Laws of Physics are all on LSD.
I don't have a problem with suspending disbelief if the movie is entertaining.
e.g. when he's "subatomic" what is his body made of? Something smaller than subatomic particles? Pleas don't say "Pym particles" because it was explained that shrinking was accomplished by decreasing the distance between atoms.
Don't particularly care, because I suspended my disbelief BECAUSE it's an entertaining movie.
Besides, if you want to get into the nitpicking, he should still weigh the same as when he's full size.
Yes. the movie is entertaining ... I have no problem suspending disbelief either.
Sorry if that wasn't clear.
the comic book science doesn't bother me at all.
Last edited:
Father
Sr Member
There's physics and there's biology... I think a lot of people noticed some of the "factual errors", like how the shrunken tank didn't maintain its weight/mass and could be carried on a keychain...
Solo4114
Master Member
Yeah, I noticed that, but I didn't let it jar me out of the film. There's also the issue of the small toys suddenly becoming big, but gaining mass in the process, when they should still be just as light as the toy version.
But I just had so much fun watching the film that I didn't really care. It'd be nice if in the next film they could either address these kinds of problems, or avoid them altogether, but as long as it remains entertaining, I'll be happy.
Father
Sr Member
It wasn't a major detractor for me either. This movie was a lot of fun and another "nailed it" for Marvel.
Probe Droid
Master Member
I've pretty much been superheroed out by the glut of these films in the past few years, but Ant Man was loads of fun. I always like Rudd and Douglas, and the rest of the cast was fine for me as well. Certainly more of a kids' film that Cap or the Avengers, but still very entertaining. A very pleasant surprise.
Riceball
Master Member
I think that's correct though, generally speaking, on Earth when you gain mass you typically gain weight since on Earth, and anywhere else with gravity, there's a certain amount weight associated with a given amount and type of mass. So toy train that becomes the size of a full sized train would weigh a lot more than it did as a toy because now there's a whole lot more plastic (or wood depending how nice the girl's parents are), it wouldn't weight as much as a real train but a lot more than the little toy. The same goes with the tank, it lost mass, at least I'm assuming it did, if it did then it wouldn't weigh near as much as a full sized T-34-85 would, it would still be heavy for a key chain since it would have a working engine, transmission, gun, etc, inside of it and it would be made largely of steel instead of aluminum or some cheap pot metal. This is, of course, predicated on everything gaining or losing mass as they enlarge or shrink, which, of course, defies the law of physics as we know them but then again, it's not like Pym particles actually exist or follow the laws of physics in and of themselves.
Father
Sr Member
But the whole concept behind shrinking is that it's closing the space between atoms of matter. So wouldn't growing do the opposite: increase the space between?
Where, with Scott (and they weren't always consistent with this but) his density increased... so like when he drops to the ceramic floor and cracks it, it would be like dropping a 180lb grain of rice on the floor. So not only should the items being grown weigh the same, but also, shouldn't it be a lot less stabile in that the space between atoms has increase so much that the bonds could potentially be broken and it would fall apart?
Solo4114
Master Member
Well, except, there are two problems with that.
The movie bases Ant-Man's strength on "proportional" strength, by arguing that, as a tiny man, he retains his strength as a normal sized man and his mass is the mass of his normal sized body, just shrunk down to a tiny size. Or something.
Basically, the movie makes it sound like his strength comes from the fact that he retains the total mass of his normal body, which is why he can hit so hard. The thing with the tank that doesn't make sense is, if Ant Man is so strong, and dents the tile floor when he falls because he retains his mass when he's small, then how can Hank walk with the tank on his keychain? Why isn't it at least tearing through his trouser pocket and punching a hole in the floor as it lands?
And then, if we assume that the tank retains its big mass when it's small, why is it that the train doesn't retain its small mass when it's big?
In short, the movie doesn't make a lick of scientific sense...but it sure is fun, and it has a thin veneer of science-y sounding stuff to make it sorta kinda work if you don't look at it too closely.
I think the real answer should have been talking up the basically "magical" properties of the Pym particles and saying that they have something to do with mass and gravity and somehow retaining the molecular structure while binding around and between the molecules to achieve the effects they were talking about.
But mostly, it's just a fun movie.
- - - Updated - - -
Exactly. The focus was on density, when it should have been on mass/gravity.
