MovieChat Forums > The Tomorrow War (2021) Discussion > The problem it shares with A Quiet Place

The problem it shares with A Quiet Place

posted 3 years ago by RogueDemonHunter (2684)
39 replies | jump to latest

I just don't believe any biological life form can be so armoured that our small arms are reduced to - maybe we'll get lucky and kill it if we shoot it in the glowing red area, like some kind of video game monster.

Even alien lifeforms bringing perhaps weird and unique elements to the table with having some of their bodies covered in ultra hard armour. At the end of the day, it's just biological matter.

Just look at the type of ammunition we have available right now. Our top tier armour penetrating rounds. Stuff like M993, M995 etc. Most countries militaries have access to ammo that can shred steel armour plates from assault rifles, LMGs and HMGs. Not to mention big rounds like .50 BMG with all the specialty rounds available for that like APITs which would mess up most things I would argue.

Then we have the current trials to replace US infantry weapons in the NGSW program which will bump lethality up even more with even greater armour penetration capabilities at the squad level.

And then moving to the war in the future in the film. Almost 30 years of weapon development and they're still arming people with M4s. What is essentially an 84 year old weapon platform at that point. No directed energy weapons, no rail guns, not even caseless ammo. Basically zero innovation in small arms development in all that time. No wonder they're losing the war to a bunch aliens.

The only part of the film where you get a sense of just how we might be losing is when the aliens swarm the research place holding the queen. Now I'll admit, that is a lot aliens and it's no wonder that place was lost. Up until that point, you only ever see them in small packs which would be much less of a threat.

[–] moviechatterer (15787) 3 years ago

"they're still arming people with M4s"

Yeah but these M4s had strange new futuristic "unlimited ammo" technology , so were a little more dangerous.

[–] RogueDemonHunter (2684) 3 years ago

Ha. That's true. Perhaps they focused all their attention on creating some mini teleportation system to keep mags fed.

Though to be fair, there were a few instances of primaries running dry and transitions to pistols which seemed fairly smooth to me. I think the main actors had some actual firearms training which was nice to see. But yeah, I don't recall many prominent reloads.

[–] mobocracy (894) 3 years ago

Basically the aliens are defying physics. At some point the energies being applied to the aliens bodies are so great they have to either get torn apart or catch fire.

[–] RogueDemonHunter (2684) 3 years ago

That is an interesting point. I hadn't considered energy transfer. Even just from lots of high velocity steel/lead projectiles.

[–] mobocracy (894) 3 years ago

At some point the energy has to go somewhere and would result in significant surface heat. Kinetic energy penetrators literally melt holes in armor. If aliens or whatever are NOT being penetrated by projectiles, where is the energy going?

[–] Strazdas (2472) 3 years ago

The actual kinetic energy of a bullet isnt that high. Its the small impact area that makes it penetrate. A good armor can stop quite a burst and it wont feel great but your not catching fire. Heck, you wont even fall down (well you will from the pain if your not used to it, but not from the force of the bullet, thats hollywood myth)

[–] FilmBuff (7263) 3 years ago

That's just part and parcel of science fiction, right? No living creature can live through an atomic bomb, but you can blow one up in Godzilla's face and he gets stronger from the explosion.

The best answer to the aliens imperviousness to gunfire is that they are likely genetically engineered by the far, far advanced race that crashed into Earth while transporting them, and are designed to have some kind of hybrid flesh/steel armor plating. In a film where time travel is possible, I'll accept that a species can be bred to grow steel skin.

[–] ATG6 (3000) 3 years ago

Surviving a nuclear blast is fantasy, not science fiction.

The OP is right, the enemies are both too overpowered and too unthreatening, as is often the case in these kinds of movies. Zombies are basically an untrained peasant army with no weapons. Sound-seeking monsters would be easily lured to a kill zone. These things are hardly more than bugs.

[–] Goliard (1421) 3 years ago

"Surviving a nuclear blast is fantasy, not science fiction."

What, exactly (for the purposes of this discussion) is the difference?

"The OP is right, the enemies are both too overpowered and too unthreatening, as is often the case in these kinds of movies."
Yet another of the major flaws in this flick. The durability of the aliens was, essentially, plot-driven. Which is to say, wildly inconsistent.

"Zombies are basically an untrained peasant army with no weapons."
Don't get me started. . .I've had umpteen arguments w/folks about how unrealistic a shambling zombie apocalypse is. In ANY popular movie/TV series.

[–] alienzen (1931) 3 years ago

Zombie's are a bit harder to kill than peasants. And they don't need sustenance, shelter or sleep like a convential army does.
But the Zombie threat is more like the threat posed by a virus, not an army. And it's like an extreme version of guerrilla warfare. You have zombie outbreaks in civillian populations, in the middle of cities, or if you have an outbreak inside of a military base then all of the weapons in the world are not going to help you.

[–] Goliard (1421) 3 years ago

"Zombie's (sic) are a bit harder to kill than peasants."

In some ways. Obviously, depending on the world-building, a normal killshot won't work. And they'll swarm w/no regard for self preservation; which can be a hideous problem. But they also don't use tools Or intelligence, so in that sense they're infinitely easier to kill. (Won't dodge, don't learn, etc.)

"But the Zombie threat is more like the threat posed by a virus, not an army. "

Exactly.

"You have zombie outbreaks in civillian populations, in the middle of cities, or if you have an outbreak inside of a military base then all of the weapons in the world are not going to help you."

This is where I think zombie stories, for the most part, get it COMPLETELY wrong. Romero-style zombies will just Never succeed against any reasonably competent military. The people who come up w/these scenarios simply don't get what even a well-trained (& equipped) militia is capable of, let alone professional soldiers.

Bottom line: once the world figures out what's going on, it's relatively simple to put your back to the wall and eliminate an enemy that doesn't plan, evade or use tools. . .and has no defense against ranged attacks.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9227) 3 years ago

>> Bottom line: once the world figures out what's going on, it's relatively simple to put your back to the wall and eliminate an enemy that doesn't plan, evade or use tools. . .and has no defense against ranged attacks.

Well, that's a relief! ;-)

[–] alienzen (1931) 3 years ago

Like I said, when it comes to guerilla warfare having advanced weapons doesn't help you much. This is why the US and USSR never managed to really conquer Afghanistan. The only way to wipe them out would be to nuke everything. Once society collapses, food supplies, water supplies, communication would go down. You wouldn't have a well organized military for very long. There would be a period of chaos. You are not fighting an external enemy or invading foreign territory. You are fighting against your own civilian population, and the target is always changing.

[–] Goliard (1421) 3 years ago

"Like I said, when it comes to guerilla warfare having advanced weapons doesn't help you much."

Except zombie warfare is NOT guerilla warfare. In fact, it's completely the opposite, in all the ways that pertain to this discussion. In guerilla warfare, a smaller/less equipped force can sustain because they AVOID the battle, except in situations where they can use terrain/situations to their advantage. Zombies do Exactly The Opposite. They advance relentlessly, w/no regard for situation or personal safety.

"This is why the US and USSR never managed to really conquer Afghanistan."

The reasons Afghanistan has not been "conquered" are multifaceted, but yes: the type of conflict has a Lot to do with it.

"Once society collapses, food supplies, water supplies, communication would go down."
Of course. . .that's the Definition of "society collapses." But I'm taking a step back here and explaining why society Wouldn't collapse, because the collective militaries of the world are simply Not that incompetent.

"You are not fighting an external enemy or invading foreign territory. You are fighting against your own civilian population, and the target is always changing."
This is a great point, that doesn't get nearly enough attention in the genre. It would be Great to see a reasoned depiction of what would likely happen, if (Romero style) zombies were dropped into the real world.

[–] ILJtheFirst (2111) 3 years ago

This one is easy, watch some prank videos of people pretending to be a real zombie. No joke, many of the bystanders are ready to pull out a gun, lol. Romero zombies will be wiped out in a few seconds.

[–] Strazdas (2472) 3 years ago

Zombies, especially the shuffling kind, can be quite easily deadzoned. they wouldnt pose a real threat in real life because they can be boxed in easily. Now some more advanced ones (world war Z, I am Legend) where they seem to have some kind of swarm intelligence and move fast would be harder. But they are still incapable of fighting anything mechanized.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 3 years ago

(Deep breath) You can’t kill something THAT’S ALREADY DEAD.

[–] Goliard (1421) 3 years ago

😂 😂 😂

[–] asom (6864) 3 years ago

Scientifically speaking zombies are 100% impossible.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9227) 3 years ago

Calling this science fiction instead of fantasy horror just seems wrong. I'll buy your explanation though ... straight out of Alien.

[–] FilmBuff (7263) 3 years ago

It's certainly science fiction. Time travel, and done in a very clever, novel (at least afaik) way with the concept of the rafts, while trying to find a scientific solution to an extraterrestrial infestation are all hallmarks of sci-fi. There is an element of horror in how frightening the aliens are, but that aspect seems secondary to the sci-fi. And honestly, if I had to pick a second genre, I'd say it's a family movie, for at its heart it's the story of a man's attempt to save his family, and his father's attempt to reunite his own.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9227) 3 years ago

An intelligent person ... which leaves out most mainstream moviegoers ( proven by the fact that by their own admission the movie industry targets a 5th-grade mentality ) would have an advanced understanding that time travel is significantly different than Science Fiction - first because it is not possible, and second because time travel as a narrative device is fantasy.

Time Travel is Fantasy wrapped in Science Fiction trappings ... it is a fake.

> I'd say it's a family movie, for at its heart it's the story of a man's attempt to save his family, and his father's attempt to reunite his own.

That's cute, and very silly. Another reason to classify this movie as a fantasy is that it bolsters a false narrative of family-hood and fatherhood. They cannot make an honest movie about the subject so they infantilize it and project this mechanical ideal American family. Yes, the real killer of this movie is that it is infantile. It's intended market is for children, and it is garbage for their minds, so there is a problem with the full personhood of an adult who thinks this is anything more than childish time-wasting.

Most fantasy is lousy because the world is not real and it does not know how to hook into real human experience, whereas with Science Fiction, that is the point ... science fiction has always been about subversively making social and political critiques and statements about the human condition. Fantasy has been about wasting time with literature that is clever and tricky but ultimately has no purpose.

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

"Time Travel is Fantasy wrapped in Science Fiction trappings ... it is a fake."

Hence the 'Fiction' in Science Fiction.

It's actually in the definition:

science fiction noun
Definition of science fiction
: fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component

Perhaps you're not a fan of the genre. Which is fine. I don't enjoy some genres too. Except I don't attempt to bolster my opinions by questioning the intelligence of those who have different tastes than I do.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9227) 3 years ago

It is not a fan of the genre, or I am a better or bigger fan, that is a mentality that is common on the Internet and useless spam. There is no conversation that develops from that except bickering.

There are lots of definitions of Science Fiction. All of them leave out or include some aspects that should or should not be there.

To simplify this issue ....
I think start with the categories fiction and fantasy.
I think time travel properly just belongs under fantasy.
As I explained earlier, fantasy is mostly escapist, and that is where I would class time travel ... it is in a class with magic, ghosts, ESP.
I'd put stories that are set in the future and that include ESP in the fantasy category as well.
For that matter, if I was being really strict I might put things like Warp drive and wormholes in the fantasy category as well.

>> Except I don't attempt to bolster my opinions by questioning the intelligence of those who have different tastes than I do.

Are you implying that I have done that, and again playing a little superiority game ... BOR-ING. How do you think I did that? Whose intelligence did I question? Did I question it or state an opinion about it?

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

"There are lots of definitions of Science Fiction. All of them leave out or include some aspects that should or should not be there."

Sorry, you don't get to decide what the definitions of words are.

"Are you implying that I have done that, and again playing a little superiority game ... BOR-ING. How do you think I did that? Whose intelligence did I question?"

I'm not implying anything. I'm stating it as a fact. You said:

"An intelligent person ... which leaves out most mainstream moviegoers"

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9227) 3 years ago

"Science Fiction" is not a word, it is a descriptive phrase and you are far to stupid to put up an argument in this and can only troll.

[–] Goliard (1421) 3 years ago

"There are lots of definitions of Science Fiction. All of them leave out or include some aspects that should or should not be there."

Curious: who do you like, in Sci-Fi? Fantasy?

If you haven't checked out Jack Vance, go for it. Would love your perspective. On the Sci-Fi side, the "Tschai" series is a favorite. On the Fantasy side, "Eyes of the Overworld." The guy's incredible, in either genre.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9227) 3 years ago

As a child I was introduced to Ray Bradbury, "S Is For Space", "R Is For Rocket". When I actually used to read Science Fiction I started with Heinlein, Herbert, Asimov, Clarke. Then Sturgeon, Pohl. Got on a jag of Edgar Rice Burroughs, which really was fantasy, Mars, Venus and Moon series. Then I discovered Robert Silverberg and Philip K. Dick. Then Niven, Pournelle, and lots of little random books James Blish, Ben Bova, Vonnegut, Douglas Adams, Ursula K. Leguin, Card, Haldeman, Crichton, Bear, Ellison and others ... sure I am leaving some out. I don't think much about it any more since most of the authors now have a formula to create these never-ending sequels and cannot just tell a story that has some point.

I don't read much Science Fiction any more, but I really enjoyed John Scalzi's stuff, Old Man's War. The Martian by Andy Weir. And Chinese science fiction writer Cixin Liu, which is very interesting and clever stuff but long and tedious.

I took some classes when I was younger in Science Fiction literature, and everyone has a different definition of what is science fiction, despite what moron above says. There is no right and wrong, and you can see that in the classification of movies on movie websites.

It is idiosyncratic and should be fun to discuss unless you are talking to an old stick in the mud like dips hit above. I dislike time travel and ESP type things and I don't really class them as science fiction, though there are more and more stories and movie that have time travel as elements, and even some science fiction series that use time travel. The use this idea that you can go into the past and change something, but that would require such huge energy changes and contradictions, or the other side where anything that changes creates an alternate universe which I think is ridiculously stupid. Time travel leads to absurdity, like magic or ESP.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9227) 3 years ago

I am not sure I have ever read anything by Jack Vance. I recognize the name so I might have forgotten. He was an old timer ... born in 1916, and lived next door ... figuratively in the Bay Area, CA. Died at 96.

From what I gather seems like Vance was more into fantasy ... to wit:
The stories of the Dying Earth series are set in the distant future, at a point when the sun is almost exhausted and magic has asserted itself as a dominant force. The Moon has disappeared and the Sun is in danger of burning out at any time, often flickering as if about to go out, before shining again. The various civilizations of Earth have collapsed for the most part into decadence or religious fanaticism and its inhabitants overcome with a fatalistic outlook. The Earth is mostly barren and cold, and has become infested with various predatory monsters (possibly created by a magician in a former age).
( Wikipedia )

[–] Goliard (1421) 3 years ago

Vance is incredible in that he won both a Hugo AND an Edgar. . .not sure if anyone's ever duplicated this feat. He's absolutely Not more known for fantasy; besides the Tschai series I mentioned, the Demon Princes, Cadwal, and Alastor series are all also amazing, and extremely popular. And of course he has a bunch of standalone novels, in all three genres.

FYI: I find him to be INCREDIBLY funny, but that's because I'm the biggest nerd on the planet. YMMV.

Thx for your list of authors. . .a couple I didn't know about, and will check out.

[–] Strazdas (2472) 3 years ago

Its not novel, but seperating the two timelines and trying to explain it with rafts is certainly a good thing that removes a lot of confusion when it comes to time travel stories.

[–] Strazdas (2472) 3 years ago

Well, Cocroaches can live through atomic bomb. If they arent in a direct blast they will keep going. They even hybernate for a while to detoxify.

[–] Strazdas (2472) 3 years ago

Except there exists lifeforms right now on earth that would stop a bullet unless you hit it right. Granted they arent large and agressive (they use the armor for defence) but they exist. And those alien lifeforms were specifically designed as a weapon (unknown about quet place ones).

Have you ever fired a 50 cal? You dont carry that around unless you get trained for it and even then you deploy before you fire. It will hurt you.

did you knew that NATO standards actually decreased the caliber which has resulted in high penetration and low damage as the bullet just exists the other side of unarmored human? This has lead to funny sitautions where you had soldiers pick up enemy ak-47s in Afghan because they did more immediate damage to unarmored combatants. Penetration isnt everything.

Hey, if you got something that works for 54 years and needs to be easily mass produced for war, then thats whats used. M4 wasnt a good tank. But it was cheap and there were many of them so they performed great in WW2. Also we dont know if there were no energy weapons or rail guns. Maybe the aliens already destroyed any facilities that produced those.

[–] RogueDemonHunter (2684) 3 years ago

Could you care to list those animals please? As I just searched "are there any bulletproof animals?" and the top result in bold is "There is no living animal on the planet that is bullet-proof". Are you thinking of some type of Pokemon?

I gather there are sharks and whales with very thick skin but I doubt anyone has done much testing with various rounds on them.

I have indeed fired a .50 BMG. It was a lot of fun. Sure, you need training but if that was all that was capable of slowing/stopping a specific alien threat, it would sure as shit be exploited by our militaries.

Yes, I'm aware of the doctrine of dropping 7.62 for 5.56 NATO. Sure, cost and recoil was a factor, though a lot of that decision came down to weight savings = carrying more rounds. Plus the fact the brass were seeing much closer engagement ranges where battle rifle calibers were not suitable.

I could be wrong, but I don't think 7.62 AKs were favoured for increased damage. As long as your shot placement is good, 5.56 does the trick within it's effective range. The issue was more so that the bigger AK round could retain more energy and reach out to longer distances. Essentially, the enemy had a longer effective range than NATO/ANA on a squad level, which is not a situation you want to be in. And let's face it, until Biden decided to equip the Taliban with loads of sweet Western gear, those guys rarely rocked body armour.

Regardless, as I mentioned, zero innovation in small arms despite it being public knowledge right now that we are pretty much on the cusp of generational leap in small arms with the NGSW program. It's just the particular AR build they went with made zero sense. They go with 8" barrels which will give loads of recoil, muzzle flash and kill the velocity and therefore how much energy they could deliver on target.

[–] asom (6864) 3 years ago

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6674-dinosaurs-bulletproof-armour-revealed/

[–] RogueDemonHunter (2684) 3 years ago

Notice the type and size of dinosaur that had that type of armour. Speed, mobility & agility or armoured. Pick one.

[–] Strazdas (2472) 3 years ago

I certainly would not like to make a whole list, but Pangolin is a good example. And yes, those animals are not very mobile.

The problem with 5.56 rounds were that as the enemy was not wearing body armour the shots too often just went in and out leaving too little immediate damage to incapacity the enemy combatant, thus resulting in you still getting shot at. The 7.62 rounds were more likely to shrapnel inside the body and thus more likely to quickly stop return fire.

Sure, if you are an ideal shot in a range 5.56 will do the trick as well, in real combat its not so easy. Theres a reason they teach you to aim for center of mass.

Edit: also i just remembered, good old Grizzley can actually tank quite a few shots with its fat unless you got something with a lot of punch.

[–] RogueDemonHunter (2684) 3 years ago

I find it hard to believe Pangolin armour can stop a bullet. Do you have a source for that claim?

I'm still not sold on how often western soldiers picked up enemy AKs in Afghanistan. I know that tactic was used in Vietnam due to a combination of the confusing nature of the report of AKs and reliability issues with early M16s, but in Afghanistan? Plus all those shitty AKs would have completely shot out barrels after being in service for 50+ years. No wonder the Taliban dropped them like a shit covered snake for box fresh ARs courtesy of the US Gov.

It seems we have reversed impressions of 5.56 vs 7.62x39. 5.56, M855/M855A1 was designed to do a hell of a lot of tissue damage due to it's tumbling and fragmenting nature, resulting in numerous wound tracks. Whereas the typical AK 7.62x39 FMJ round has minimal to zero fragmentation with minimal tumbling that just can't hold a candle to the damage that 5.56 can do. Please see the below link backing this up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Fackler

And yeah, lot's of animals can tank rounds, including Humans. I've seen people eat 20+ rounds of 9mm...Deflecting though, that's a completely different kettle of fish.

[–] CommonSense (290) 3 days ago

I always struggle with movies like this for all the points you mentioned. Its like Jurassic park. You have dinosaurs, so handguns and small caliber weapons wont be very effective. You'd have large caliber weapons at all locations.

Just like the zoo, they dont put a elephant in the same cage as they'd put the prairie dogs. Or a polar bear in a cage made for the eagles. Etc etc