# Stupid stupid stuff in an otherwise okay movie **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [August 22, 2000, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-stupid-stuff-in-an-otherwise-okay-movie/30279 "2000-08-22T07:00:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Belrix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ed655f/32.png) [@Belrix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belrix)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2004, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-stupid-stuff-in-an-otherwise-okay-movie/30279/241 "2004-01-16T23:04:20Z")
> [@pldennison](#): > > Because: > > A) Toilets work through gravity, not through any sort of vacuum power. You can’t just keep flushing them and empty more and more water from the room. If you’d like to test it, run a garden hose into your toilet bowl with the water on all the way, keep flushing your toilet, and count how many minutes until you really need to mop the floor. You can’t just hold the handle down and watch water flow out of the room; > B) Toilets refill with water from the tank when you flush them anyway, and I seriously doubt Mr. Crazy Killer was dumb enough to put the shutoff valve inside the little room; and > C)Even if it _could_ work, you couldn’t start flushing to empty the room of water until it was high enough to be a danger anyway. The flow rate into the room would most likely still exceed the flush rate. Well, not having seen the movie but I’ll correct a two-year old posting… A toilet would make a fine drain for a room filling with water, provided the drain pipe lead somewhere where there wasn’t water and the fill rate didn’t exceed the drain rate. The water would fill the room to the level of the bowl, then flow evenly down. Prove it? Pour a bucket of water into a toilet. It goes nicely away without pushing the handle. The toilet exit is just a bent pipe afterall. ---
**Author:** ![Lagged2Death](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ac8455/32.png) [@Lagged2Death](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lagged2Death)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2004, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-stupid-stuff-in-an-otherwise-okay-movie/30279/242 "2004-01-16T23:05:10Z")
> [@HPL](#): > > Actually, Atari does. If not, somebody is operating a website using their logo and name without their permission. Well, just to wander far off topic for a moment… The [Atari of today](http://www.atari.com/) is really a large French video games publisher called Infogrames, which [purchased the Atari name](http://corporate.infogrames.com/corp_history.php) as a part of its Hasbro acquisition in 2000. Nothing of the original company is left, save the name and logo. I gnash my teeth when I see that logo in the stores, not that it does any good. ---
**Author:** ![sturmhauke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e47c2d/32.png) [@sturmhauke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sturmhauke)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2004, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-stupid-stuff-in-an-otherwise-okay-movie/30279/243 "2004-01-16T23:09:06Z")
The original Atari was [a hot company](http://www.videogamecritic.net/5200.htm) when [Blade Runner was made (1982)](http://imdb.com/title/tt0083658/). ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2004, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-stupid-stuff-in-an-otherwise-okay-movie/30279/244 "2004-01-17T10:21:26Z")
Wow, ancient thread. > [@HPL](#): > > Just Curious, which detail? By “small detail of the storyline,” I was being sarcastic: referring to the storyline _as a whole_ as a detail to which the filmmakers should have devoted more time. The overall plot couldn’t have been more generic if it came in a white can labeled in big black letters “STORY.” ---
**Author:** ![Balle\_M](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/13edae/32.png) [@Balle\_M](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balle_M)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2004, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-stupid-stuff-in-an-otherwise-okay-movie/30279/245 "2004-01-17T19:20:36Z")
> [@Rossarian](#): > > I used to wonder about this, but at that time, submarines were far more efficient on the surface. They would cruise to wherever they were going and then submerge to attack. They couldn’t stay submerged all that long without running out of battery power. So the U-Boat would have stayed on the surface the whole time, especially since this was prior to the war, and thus there was no reason to hide from anyone. Yes, but there would be at least one officer and a lookout on deck when they were running on the surface. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-stupid-stuff-in-an-otherwise-okay-movie/30279.md?page=12)