ifisch t1_j2a97wh wrote on December 30, 2022 at 7:48 PM

Reply to comment by PunkandCannonballer in Question about The Glass Onion (spoilers) by polywha

Yea ok and she's obviously wrong.

Like "oh I was gonna use this fuel that would cut my electricity bill by 90%, but I heard it caused a fire that burned something important so I'm not anymore...." what? Never in a million years.

PunkandCannonballer t1_j2aaaw7 wrote on December 30, 2022 at 7:55 PM

"Let's release, to the public, a fuel source that could explode an entire home, and literally the only instance we have of it running a home resulted in that home not only blowing up, but the destruction of the most famous painting in the world. Oh, and add to that the billionaire who is backed the idea is an idiot that stole the idea that got him his fortune and murdered the woman who initially had the idea."

She's OBVIOUSLY correct. You'd have to be a fucking basket case to not only use that fuel, but to also okay it for widespread use. Imagine if every house on a block uses it and one blows up? Then they all would. It's a mind-bogglingly stupid idea.

ifisch t1_j2abqzq wrote on December 30, 2022 at 8:05 PM

Millions of homes are powered by nuclear power. Do you think that means they have Uranium fuel rods in their walls?

PunkandCannonballer t1_j2aiyys wrote on December 30, 2022 at 8:51 PM

You're seriously ignoring everything the film is telling you. The person who invented it is described as "sketchy." Lionel said he needed at least two years to see if it was safe for use, and didn't want to use it in a manned mission. Andi said it had the potential to "literally blow up the world." It literally blew up a billionaire's home and the fucking Mona Lisa.

The film isn't presenting the fuel source as a viable alternative to fossil fuels, it's giving a BUNCH of reasons to conclude that the fuel source is questionable at best, insanely dangerous at worst, and backed by an murderous idiot.

Also, you're comparing nuclear power which has been around for decades to a new power source that literally has only one single live test and that test resulted in an explosion that burned the Mona Lisa. These aren't even remotely the same. The aftermath of the hindenberg or the chernobyl meltdown should be enough to tell you that people don't just throw away caution after a spectacular disaster simply because something has potential to be beneficial.

ifisch t1_j2aytoy wrote on December 30, 2022 at 10:37 PM

I am saying that Rian Johnson doesn't seem to know much about how power generation works.

He either didn't do the research or if he did do the research, and didn't care.

A fuel source that "results in an explosion" isn't a bad thing. Ever heard of an internal combustion engine?

PunkandCannonballer t1_j2ce2ql wrote on December 31, 2022 at 5:05 AM

Are you trying to say that an internal combustion engine has blown up priceless works of art and the first time it was used it blew up a home? Because don't think you're making the important distinction between something that creates combustion on purpose in a controlled way and something that accidentally blows up.

This is his entirely fictional fuel source and in his narrative we learn from trusted characters to question the veracity of the fuel source and believe it to be too dangerous to use. We learn from the questionable characters that it's a fuel source to be used immediately. Who do you think is in the wrong in this situation? The murderous idiotic billionaire who blew up his house and the Mona Lisa because he wouldn't take the necessary cautionary steps or everyone who tried to stop him and his fuel source? You'd have to be an idiot to think that something that is literally shown blowing up a home and isn't tested beyond one single instance is something that could be considered a viable energy source.