Near the end, the small airplane arrive at Sidney, right? They fly UNDER the remains of the Harbor Bridge, like through a canyon. The bridge is over the ocean, right?? Well, here's no ocean at all, not a single drop of water.
Now explain to me: How can an atomic war to vaporize the planetary ocean?
its over a harbour, not the eniter ocean. its quite feasible that a nuclear blast some how blocked up/filled in the harbour.
plus its only a movie and it made it look more impressive on film and would have been easier to shoot.
dont get so hung up about it! haha
When I write "over the ocean" I mean "over the harbor which contains water from the ocean", I think it's more than obvious. A nuclear blast can't vaporize so much water, as we know from so many atomic experimental explosions.
Even so, do you think that displacing huge amounts of water from a harbor can lead to a lower level? The level remains the same, it's the world ocean, open water. Try to empty the sea with a bucket...
And yes, it's only a movie. Yes, it looks more impressive. Yes, easier to shoot. And yes, it was a mistake.
No big deal for me. The movie was very good.
WHy do you assume as mistake? That makes very little sense. There could easily be a reason for it. I guess you don't realise how much rationalisation goes into the design of ANY story but cannot make it to production, let alone some lines in the script. Obviously Sydney Harbour was dry. There must have been a reason, and you just have to accept it. If you so much want an answer to that, what about the endless other questions about ANYTHING in this and every other film?
shareAnd yes, it's only a movie. Yes, it looks more impressive. Yes, easier to shoot. And yes, it was a mistake.
Just watched it after reading your comment. It doesn't show you an empty canyon, but does show you rocky sides, it could have dropped maybe? The sheer amount of dust would have done something, not dried it out entirely, but made the edges a bit rougher.
sharewell being that if you leave land untouched it gets out of control ie if you leave a city like las vegas untouched 20 or 30 years down the road the entire city would be covered in sand same thing is feasible you leave sidney untouched for years and sand could have filled up most of sidney harber
share
...........I was just looking at the end of "Beyond Thunder Dome" on U-Tube. The Sydney Harbor Bridge has massive concrete abutments at either end. The bridge, or what is left of it, the plane flies under appears to be a highway bridge, over a canyon, level at both ends with the ground. Also, since the center of the supporting arches is missing, the bridge would have totally collapsed in real life.
TAG LINE: True genius is a beautiful thing, but ignorance is ugly to the bone.
[deleted]
since the center of the supporting arches is missing, the bridge would have totally collapsed in real life.
Good question.
I assume the "nuclear winter" could have locked up a lot of the worlds water in the polar icecaps.
^^^ THIS ^^^
I'm with Lab boy. A nuclear war would have many unintended climatic consequences. Current theory supports a "nuclear winter" which would almost certainly lower sea levels.
nuclear blast can change the landscape quite a bit look at the dead sea. so what was a harbor could be a mountain now.
shareI was more surprised that the opera house was still standing. I would think that any blast that could knock out the Harbour Bridge would do at least some damage to the opera house. Especially if said blast vapourized the oceans....
share[deleted]
^ Yeah, in the film, you can see that only the two endpoints of the span are still intact, while the entire middle of the bridge is simply gone altogether. Also, both the film's screenplay and (IIRC) novelization make direct reference to Sydney Harbor being dried up, due to the nuclear blasts; the screenplay likely for VFX reasons.
share