Instead of necro-ing this thread:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=890560&highlight=snowpiercer
Apparently, this train has no destination: it’ll just keep chugging along around the frozen world…
forever.
If you got nowhere to go, whats the point of going? Hunker down somewhere!
How could anyone possibly know if the tracks are still passible? The rails could be torn up or covered by a hundred feet of ice or other debris. The railway bridge, likewise, could’ve collapsed.
Snowpiercer is a comic book film, with comic book logic. And a pretty good one at that :).
But there is little or nothing about it that holds up to logical scrutiny and I don’t think it was ever intended that it would.
Yeah, but still there must be an “in-universe” explanation for needing to keep moving. I saw the film (not the TV show) but don’t remember. I really liked it.
ETA: Maybe it’s just too darn cold and if you stop, you freeze.
This. The energy developed by the train as it rolls on the tracks keeps everyone alive.
That said . . . . .SPOILER ALERT…
IIRC , and I may be thinking about another (children’s) show, according to the movie didn’t they mention people who got off, and they still pass their frozen bodies along their route and those people didn’t get 100 feet away before they froze? If so it may not be possible to survive outside at all. Why the train had to keep moving, WAG perhaps the engine, which is life support (heat), may be tied directly to the wheels, if the train stops the engine does too.
And to think that mundane trains take energy to move along the tracks, rather than the other way around.
But wasn’t there some story (true or not) about how every Trans-Siberian train always has a backup locomotive, because stuck in place without heat everybody would be screwed?
I just watched the film a few days ago and fail to see the reason for all the praise (not here, just in general). I’d give it 5 on a 1-10. Nothing made sense.
A moving train doesn’t “develop” energy, it uses up energy by moving its huge mass against friction and air resistance. Regardless of the source of power, it would have more energy available for heat and other needs if it stayed still. I don’t recall that this is ever made explicit in the movie, but it]s a non-explanation.
The real reason the train has to keep moving is to keep everyone in their place. If the train stopped, the passengers at the rear could move forward outside the train and take over the elite sections at the front. With the train moving, people can be blocked from moving forward and must remain in their assigned sections.
The physics and economics of the train make no sense, but that’s not unusual in science fiction. Take for example Mortal Engines, in which giant predatory fast-moving cities would be about the least efficient way possible to obtain scarce resources.
Although the film has the trappings of science fiction, it’s not really a science fiction movie. It’s a political allegory. It’s no more concerned with scientific plausibility than Animal Farm or 1984. The train moves for the same reason there is perpetual war in 1984, to keep people in their place.
The train keeps moving because if it drops below 50 mph the bomb will explode.
No. No there mustn’t be.
I’ll say that while I was highly skeptical of the movie when I heard the premise, I ended up enjoying it just because of its imagery, despite the nonsensical backstory.
I would point out that the movie was written and directed by South Korean director Bong Joon-ho. He explored the same themes of class division in his Academy Award-winning Parasite, which otherwise is utterly different. Another of his recent films is Okja, which is again a political film disguised as science fiction.
Got it in one.
Unless the powersource was connected to the wheels and could not be uncoupled.
Duplicate
That makes even less sense (if possible).
That’s right. Snowpiercer (both movie and tv show) makes a certain amount of sense as allegory; it makes none whatsoever as science fiction.
It’s a while since I saw the movie, but I’m fairly certain that the dialogue referred to Mr. Wilford as having invented a Perpetual Motion machine.
Of course if you have a perpetual motion machine—through the power of magic, presumably—you can find much better ways to live, even on an ice-planet, than on a train with tracks that can’t be cleared of falling trees and other debris.
But then: no movie (or tv show).
Because Wilford was an eccentric train lover, and that’s how he built it. If you want the energy the perpetual engine generates, it has to move. There’s no scientific reason; it’s just how the train is built.
Wilford’s in charge. Do you take him out to try to stop the train?
Okay, you’ve chosen to take out Wilford, and [100 pages deleted] you succeed in taking out Wilford. How do you decouple the the perpetual engine from motion, while in motion? Also, you’re not Wilford; you’re probably unaware of how the perpetual engine is coupled to its movement.
tl;dr: Wilford is eccentric and built the train this way. It’s not too much suspension of disbelief.
Is that what the movie (or comic book) says? Or your speculation?
I agree a lunatic design makes more sense if you specify a lunatic designed it.