Who is next? 1. The Thermians (Galaxy Quest 1999) 2. The Pakleds (Star Trek) 3. Bregna (Aeon Flux 2005) 4. The Machines (The Matrix series) 5. Panem (The Hunger Games series) If you'd like to support Media Zealot and gain access to content voting + other perks, please consider signing up on Patreon, or joining as a RU-vid member: www.patreon.com/mediazealot ru-vid.comjoin
The thing is, the books thought it was too stupid to exist as well. In fact, they focus on the fact that the system is on the verge of collapse. The moving cities was originally just something meant as a temporary solution that ended up becoming permanent. And by the time the book takes place, most are stubbornly holding on to the failing system just cause that is the way it has always been for them.
@@ingold1470 I believe so, and like I said, the system can no longer be sustained at that point despite how much some of the characters want to deny it.
@@matteste It should've crumbled in a week at most, due to running out of fuel. And food. And probably water too, because outside a spaceship, you cannot recycle a 100% of it.
The problem of the movie is that this point is never explain. Though seing only London makes some sense. I was really sad that the movie was not more focus on the moving cities.
if they run on steel, then they could run for a long time. You can burn iron, recapture it as Ironoxide and turn it back into iron, granting you a powersource on the magnitude of E=MC^2 with very little loss. It would explain how these things can move for so long on just scrap.
in the books i thought they made a point of how the system was already collapsing in on itself and that they were becoming increasingly destructive and mad to try and keep their way of life, because when any tried to stop they were savagely destroyed by those that refused to stop.
The books show very clearly that the system did not work. In the first book, London needs to attack the wall because they can find any prey and know that if they don’t find anything soon they will have to stop moving. In the second book mayors are paying and arm and a leg just to know where other cities are. By the third book many city have stop moving because they have no more fuel. Nowhere in the series does it ever say that traction cities are a good thing that should exist.
@Kaan Özkuscu the books are childish, but written intentionally to be so. And underneath the childish exterior is a layer of mature subtext and social commentary - some of which was referenced in this video. To call such a book series shit is just a demonstration of poor comprehension on your part
@@goddepersonno3782 Here's the thing, subtext only makes sense if there is a credible alternative explanation. If the thing in the book can only be a metaphor for something else, not just the thing it supposedly is, it doesn't work.
Even in the old canon the Death Star weakness was always misrepresented and misinterpreted. Here’s a good video on it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--CNEbzgYMXs.html
I wonder if anyone ever thought about the fact that a literal city would take exponentially larger engines to be faster than anything as small as that small town. And once you factor in the support needed to keep it intact would mean even larger engines. Which would add more weight. Meaning even more engine.
Right. Obviously they know that planes are useful, for greater mobility. Well you know what else would be useful? Small vehicles that can more easily and efficiently overtake prey.
What you’re describing is more of a problem for planes and rockets which are mostly weighed down by fuel. Adding fuel to a rocket means you just added weight which means you might need more fuel and so on.
@@zachkh yes. Mostly. But we aren’t talking about 4-5 gallons. We would be talking about hundreds if not thousands of tons of machinery to power the engines. Once you scale things up that far the returns wouldn’t be enough to make it so much faster than the cities 1/4 it’s size that they can just up and snatch the entire world up one at a time. Legitimately they should have multiple follow tanks that catch other cities for them. And then they creep up at 3 miles an hour and eat them.
@@zachkh It's a problem for every vehicle that uses fuel and has to continuously accelerate itself. Gas mileage in an automobile is reduced when the automobile weighs more, and fuel still has weight when you're using it on an automobile instead of a rocket.
In the books they were actually at the end of the system, and everything was baren, and why they had to attack the wall, as nothing else could let it keep going
Sounds about right. Time has shown that powerful people will go to irrationally stupid lengths to keep up an unsustainable inefficient system if it benefits them no matter how destructive it is.
@@neonzombi9928 Actually, I think the idea of a mobile fortress fits very well if you think of it as an evolution from zombie survival tropes applied to a different apocalypse. In zombie survival, the humans usually have to travel from location to location in order to scavenge resources until they can hopefully find a safe zone, which is usually some kind of stationary fortress that can protect them from harm until something happens which forces them to go back on the move. So instead of leaving the safety of the fortress every time to go scavenge, the mobile fortress (a similar idea to wagon forts in eastern Europe in real life) allows survivors to continuously scavenge or steal from other parties from the safety of a strong position. Now over time, if this scavenging in force was the only form of survival done for generations, it might be possible for this idea to expand into larger and more complex moving fortresses and a near religious ideology. The only difference is that in real life, scavenging from the wreckage of destroyed civilization could never supply enough resources to maintain thousands of people, especially not for thousands of years. Unless you are the Mongols, who are always the exception.
@@ColinTherac117 that sounds like the setting of the trains with zombies anime. Also, Mongols at least had other systems of self sustainability such as horse raising, hunting, trading both raw and processed items and many left their old nomadic lives once they settled in lands with heavy agriculture.
@@neonzombi9928 It's a movie and a book, essentially set in a sci-fi universe. I mean, you could also criticize Star Wars in the same vein. So instead of criticizing it for being dumb, then try to criticize it on its own merits. For instance - does the universe obey its own rules. Arguing from a "it must be realistic" point of view will always lead to disappointment in non-realistic universes.
Can we take a moment to realize how doomed a society is if it has to destroy other cities to gain resources, but it also takes their people? Even if you down grade their life style to slaves your increasing the collective population while adding a fraction of the resources due to how much was lost in the attack/harvesting process. I honestly wouldn't give this type of society a decade to live, let alone centuries.
Iirc even in the books the traction city system was stated to be far, far, past the point of sustainability or even sanity, they just keep doing it because they always have, the anti-traction league's mo is to put down the cities because even they can see how stupid it is.
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change" Leon C. Megginson, normally attributed to Charles Darwin.
Dumbest quote ever when everything that's allowed us to adapt to change is our brute strength in numbers and intellect. I don't think he paid much attention in English and Literature...
@@coreym162 Ok so if dinosaurs were so strong, why did they lose the evolutionary race to a bunch of hairy rats? And don't try to tell me the rats were any smarter than the dinosaurs.
I feel like the whole underlying point in the film was that they refused to adapt to change whilst being oblivious to the repercussions of having this mindset.
@@22freedom33 that makes so much sense now. Peter Jackson has a reputation for understanding the source material of what he adapts really well, so seeing all the dumb changes that were made in this movie made me really confused. It just fails on every level.
@@goddepersonno3782 haha it's being a kiwi we decided even though covid may not kill everyone we would all quarantine for four weeks regardless. Low and behold we got rid of covid and continued to crow whole the world's economy slowed
Not everyone. A lot of rich elites have homes there explicitly to "survive Armageddon". Armed with this knowledge, I shall be sending raiding parties to NZ to explicitly pillage these people. Won't bother the locals though. Just some chill people, I mean listen to IH. NZ is a treasure to protect.
If Hugo Weaving had screamed or yelled, "You see that bright light, Mr. Anderson?! It's inevitability!" when he was firing that Medusa weapon at The Wall alot of "confused" people would be like "Ohhhh!". lol
Even more ironic, he said in an interview that he didn't want to return to the MCU as ''Red Skull'' or do again the voice-over for Megatron in the Bayformers movies, because, I quote: ''He's sick & tired playing these stereotypical vilains in blockbusters'' and wants to do different type of roles. Yeah.....
Yeah really, @@doublep1980. Him playing Red Skull... wow... that performance was just so effin' fantastic though. I did not know Hugo Weaving originally did the voice of Megatron too.
I'd like to note that in the books this comes from, some predator cities did reproduce in the past when resources were more plentiful, since making suburbs that can scout an area around you is useful and making higher cities is hard. Also there is a prequel series which goes a bit into the development of the first traction cities. It has mostly cultural reasons which imo is the best way to do it because as you say it is economically stupid.
@@alexgorski1806 Londons cruising speed is never specified in the books, but it is travelling at least 80mph in the opening chapter (because it keeps pace with a town doing 80). 100mph is regarded as *extremely* fast, but is achieved by a scavenger town.
I guess they felt bad for Valentine’s daughter. In the book, she throws herself in front of her half-sister as Valentine is swinging is sword, taking the blow and bleeding out all over the controls that shorts them out and blows up the weapon and most of London as well. Also, in the book this happens before they can fire at the shield wall. They do fire the weapon once, at a much larger city, which they call a conurbation, chasing London to eat it. And it shocks everyone because it goes totally against municipal darwinism by wiping out a city instead of consuming it
I also would like to point out that these moving cities would have limited lifepans. The engines/ transmission and wheels/tracks would wear out and need replacing, especially with the massive weight. It wouldn't be long before it would break down and be stranded
It’s not that it’s impossible to repair something even if it’s as big as this, the problem is that you need the tools to repair it and with how it looks, it seems it can only repair tiny cracks in itself and one strong strike to anything driving it would bring it to a stop.
@@Predator20357 It's not impossible to repair if you have the MASSIVE amount of infrastructure. But a moving city obviously does not have the infrastructure needed to build replacements.
@@GeorgeMonet also massive leaps in many technologies, The largest vehicles in the world are the NASA Crawler-Transporters and they go very slow. And I strongly suspect those are what inspired the idea of tracked cities. *Technically there are bigger vehicles in the form of bucket wheel excavators, but those require constant attachment to the power grid to move. the crawler-transporters are actual vehicles that can move using their own internal power source.
@@filanfyretracker In the books they are slow... like 5mph slow and in a chase they move at like 12-15... you dont need a massive boost in tech for massive moving machines. theres just no reason to build them.
I would love to see an alternate version where highly mobile mining towns trade their raw materials for the manufacturing products of the much slower mobile industrial cities... It might even make sense for a minority of medium pirate cities to prey on either the miners (and refine materials from there) or industry hubs (but like wolves hunting, rather than fish swallowing smaller fish), with a question of "how successful can piracy be, before there's no more loot to pillage?" In that world, food would be one of the big problems for the mobile cities, and even more so for the pirate cities.
But the point of the book series is as an allegory about destructive greed, an alternate version would have to change the story quite a lot to the point where it would be an entirely new book with just a similar setting
yeah I don’t understand why the moving cities are a thing cause the world looks fine it’s lush and green maybe it wasn’t like that when they first started it wasn’t like that but it is now why not find a place to settle your city??
Let me explain, people are stupid, Tom the MC likes living in a moving city and the whole ideology is more of a religion rather than a scientific fact. Think of them as masochists or junkies. Hell the mayor might have been worse in the book his dreams(delussions) for the future were, have you watched Shadow Raiders? The bad guys. If not think planet that eats other planets.
@@kalobhunt9001 It is. Hell the whole idiology of cities eating cities is. Then again we are open minded and not brainwahed from birth to belive this ideal. Though there are real life examples. The author might be smarter than i thought.
"He leaves London to zoom around like a lost roomba that can't find it's charging port." This has to be the best description of Mortal Engines in a nutshell :). (- the roomba fueling itself with the cleaned up waste, but still good :) )
Its super fun, I hate how people can’t bother to suspend their disbelief for just a second to enjoy a great book. Books don’t have to be literally possible irl to have a good story and a fun premise
I read the books when I was younger and was so excited to hear that the long-rumored movie was finally getting made. But then I heard it was a mess, and never went to see it in theaters. I kind of regret it, because if nothing else it's really quite pretty.
@@django4013 At best, you can say the majority of London voters voted against Brexit. Correct me if I'm wrong (I will freely admit I could be), but didn't a London rep put the referendum up for a public vote in the first place?
@@Craxin01 They did that because they assumed the entire country reflected their own constituency, then tried to take it back when it turned out they were disconnected from reality and living in an echo chamber. This did not end as they intended.
@@Sorain1 LOL! Ready, fire, aim! Only a fool acts without thinking, researching, and planning first. And I thought electoral politics were particularly broken my side of the pond.
Idea for the next episode - Snowpiercer. Because putting the last of humanity on a speeding train over constantly eroding tracks was a great idea. Yes I know Wilford’s supposed to be eccentric and crazy.
That movie's on-the-nose symbolism and metaphors, as well as the set-up-to-fail premise, kept me from watching it, because it's nothing we haven't seen before. Same for the TV show.
How about mentioning that all the energy going into forward momentum could be better utilized for anything from food production, water reclamation, heating, almost anything would be better than constant forward momentum.
Especially when large machines do not move fast. London’s size should have made it slower, making it fair game for an alliance of smaller cities or miners to attack it en masse, but then that defeats the anti-imperialism metaphor. I saw the trailers for this movie and said “this will kill Peter Jackson’s career. Hugo Weaving seems impervious to such bad casting decisions it seems.
more weight=more engine=more weight=more engine=more weight=more engine=More Weight=More Engine=MorE WeighT=MoRe EnGiNe=MORE WEIGHT=M O R E E N G I N E= MORE-
It's been years since I read any of the books, and I haven't seen the movie, but based on this video... it almost seems like even in-lore, they were living in an unviable manner, and they knew it by the time it was too late to change that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that pretty rare?
@@ProjectEkerTest33 And I was talking about the bad guys actually realizing what they were doing couldn't be sustained. The real life bad guys either don't realize it or don't care.
@@SchazmenRassir Judging by the fact that we have proof an oil company made a detailed report about global warming ~20 years earlier than the scientific community (a study that is considered ludacriously optimistic by todays standards, yet is preety simmilar to independent studies) AND THE INVESTORS STILL CONTINUED I would say that people on this little forsaken rock just don't care.
Really like that joke about Peter Jackson and the map. Truly if there was anyone that has the right to be upset, it's definitely someone from New Zealand.
Any artillery piece mounted on london: Anyways, I started blasting back. In the early days, artillery was used to destroy prey cities. (Thats even how this whole idiotic concept of municipal darwinism started). But after time, it became clear that people in captured towns are more likely to have a better fate when not shooting back, and that chasing cities would get more resources when not shooting them to bits before capturing them. The only ones who use artillery against cities are the static anti-tractionists, and the cities on the frontline during the war in book 4 (against anti-tractionists). Btw, you want to aim at the wheels/tracks, not the bridge. If you break enough tracks, you can stop the city, and thereby stop the largest threat it poses. You'd have bad luck hitting the bridge in a war city anyways since its not exposed. Mines are a very viable option.
@@M--001 It's an incredibly bad take on the use of artillery. A huge moving city which hosts so many buildings would be the party day of any real artillery division, as they could hide the artillery pieces in the woods, and spread them out. Landmines and spread artillery using hit and run tactics would stop these behemots in no time. even hitting the bridge and buildings would spread fires all around the city. They wouldn't be able to see their enemy until they already fired hell at them. Also, as the movie shows: Planes. A bomber or attack aircraft would have the time of it's life dealing with such huge target. these Moving Cities would need so many flak guns and reinforced domes that the energy and mainteinance would make them unusable in days. A Division of smaller and agile vehicles compromised of Main Battle Tanks, Tracked Artillery and AFVs with missiles would rip them apart
@@zahylon5993 In the Books the ground on the earth is a complete mess where you can't move vehicles around easily unless their massive the ground is one massive no man's land, Look the idea of real military tactics died in that universe generations ago, they are all extremists latching onto to these ideas. The Cities are also in the book packing tons of guns, and AA batteries. they are also more fortress like as well so less exposed to gunfire. No one has smart missiles anymore in the universe there all dumb fire rockets. Look the book and film would be better off if they existed in a world of fantasy and magic rather than post WW3 diesel punk.
You'd think that if they were able to access super-weapons and had all that bizarre tech and artifacts that at least a few documents regarding nuclear reactors and weapons would remain, or at least a few scientists would remember how to make them....
@@HelghastStalker Now you just make me want Mortal Engines, The Boat Edition where you got the equivalent of a mountain moving along the water. It sounds retarded if you want it done realistically, but so is moving cities going faster than 1-5mph.
It's as if these movies want to ruin all my favorite books as a child. Butchering Mortal Engines, then Artemis Fowl. Might be interesting to take a look at the Fairies from that movie too.
@@dudepool7530 I mean... not all the time; sometimes the planets aline across the entire universe and you get a lord of the rings which do justice to what they're based on.
@@dudepool7530 nah they refuse to get people who love the source material to do the adaptations. Like why get someone who love Dragon ball to make a dragon ball movie, when we can wiki it?
To paraphrase Cousin Avi from Guy Ritchie's ''Snatch'': ''Pack your bags, we're going to London.'' ''London, Avi?'' ''Yeah, shitty weather, fish & chips, Mary f*ckin' Poppins,London!''
You're actually wrong about the reproduction thing. In the books it's explained that large successful cities with a resource surplus did in fact build "Suburbs" in the past, but they have since stopped doing so because of how scarce prey has become. As well, there's still new, small prey cities being build but they just aren't worth chasing after for the large predators. I think the author has done a good job making Municipal Darwinism work in the context of the books. It's just that the movie is absolutely terrible.
Surely that would mean you’d want more, more economical suburbs to chase down all of this prey rather than a single city that can’t find anything worth eating due to its size.
Where are these cities being built ? Youd need something like a gigantic shipyard to build them, plus a huge primary industry of mines and mills, as well as mechanical shops the size of a city on their own
@@MannoMax They can basically be built anywhere as long as it's safe, usually by some large, established city with a resource surplus. That does actually make sense since they'd have the infrastructure to get something much smaller built. Cities grow over time, it's all a big obvious wink to nature anyways.
Is the Terran civilization from the Starcraft series a society to dumb to exist? I think having the bulk of the military made out of prisoners instead of trained specialized soldiers was a bad idea to start with.
most of the population are said to be criminals, it's a chaotic space capitalism. the marines are put into battlesuits that prevent them from running away and have built in fail safes that can kill the person with the press of a button. most of the work is done by the AI and the suit, like targeting. they also talked about failed insurrections like the miners of kel-morian. it feels like everyone is forced to do as they are told, the confederacy might had started as a criminal organization, when it was dethroned it was replaced by the dominion which used propaganda to make themselves look like the heroes and tried to instil some sense of patriotism on the population. during the zerg invasion, the dominion focused on the inner systems which rallied people from the outer systems to join Jim Rainor. only the main infantry was made out of convicts, some worlds had militias wearing marine armor, while Rainor's raiders appear to be volunteers, and he employs many mercenaries as well. the dominion doesn't seem to have convicts at higher ranks, people like general warfield was shown as honourable, while Jim Rainor acted as sheriff for the confederacy. others like the ghosts are brainwashed or enjoy what they do (firebats, reapers). so basically they chose people with violent tendencies to fight in the first line and be fodder, while they use better equipment and war machines in the back.
Saw the title before the thumbnail. As an Englishwoman I can confirm- I avoid that place like the plague! Mainly because it's so cramped it actually helped the plague!
@@Human-hs8sp Everyone knows that New Zealand is merely a colony of Australia and not a sovereign country. Even my blatant sarcasm knows this. Are you trying to say New Zealand is a sovereign country?
I remember watching this movie thinking this was such a dumb plot to a movie and that the bad guy motivations made little sense. I was unaware it was a book.
I remember seeing the commercials and thinking this was the dumbest concept I had ever heard of. How this movie got the green light and how the book got published are a mystery.
A victim of the Harry Potter franchise. Just like a LOT of "young adult" fiction. Harry Potter did SUPREMELY well at the box office, making billions, and Hollywood being Hollywood naturally learned the wrong lesson and cranked out a bunch of cheaper to buy YA properties. I mean, only other really successful YA fiction books turned to movies are probably Hunger Games and Twilight. The rest crash and burn HARD.
What I actually want to know is how the hell that monster could ever catch anything (that didn't subscribe to the prometheus school of running away from things), ignoring all the other physical impossibilities for a moment; inertia isn't just a bitch for getting moving, it's a double-bitch for _turning_ .
Thank you so much. I missed out on this movie due to it's abysmal performance when it was released, and I had so much fun watching this very entertaining and stupid movie right after I saw this video. The movie actually deserved success in the theaters, it's pacing is awesome for a movie that long, the acting is pretty good, and the visuals are fun to watch, and the stupidity actually helps make the story flow smoothly. This movie has the potential to become a guilty pleasure movie like Battlefield Earth or Battle Beyond the Stars (Also, please do the Malmori in a future video)
I know this may not fit and it isn't a movie civilization, but I'd love to see this guy cover the pokemon world. A society that considers you an adult at 10 years old. A world populated by creatures with fantastical magical powers that could shape the environment and control the weather. Thousands of children just wandering the wilderness in search of pokemon to catch who are only a single lost battle away with a wild pokemon from certain death. Technologically advanced in spotted areas, yet no signs of any higher education centers outside of pokemon trainer schools.
Realistically speaking, there are several creatures is the Pokemon universe that would cause a planetary doomsday event every week or so. Literal Gods are at the fingertips of children to use at their will.
The first book makes a point of saying how unsustainable the moving cities are and how prey is very short and that only larger cities will exist after a certain point. Also, in the second book, Anchorage is a good example of why it is a bad idea to have so many people living close together on a moving city.
I've always wanted to see this concept as a post-zombie apocalypse. The idea being that zombie hordes are so vast that towns must migrate to avoid them, and most survivors are on ships and airships, only going continental to gather rare resources and trade with the mobile land settlements that still exist. It would be very silly of course, but I think it would be cool.
The books where a mixture of a fun and unique world but also a good commentary on how we as people will stick with a solution to a problem, even if the solution was temporary and keeping old ideas of class. Near the end of the books the world is clearly changing too fast to keep the way of life that people stubbornly cling too, which ultimately leads to the end of tractionism and those ideas. By the very end however we get the idea humanity finally learnt how to not be self destructive and stubborn (the end of the books that is, not the crappy movie)
Yup. Municipal Darwinism does kind of have a second wind though, albeit in smaller form as demonstrated by New-London in *A Darkling Plain* . The film also cut out all mention of the Germans for some reason, while overplaying the Chinese element in the Anti-Traction League and changing the ending 🤦♂️
I quite like seeing the minions in this. "Hey, remember Minions? We made them! They made us loads of money!" Yeah, and you pissed it all away on this ridiculous film that nobody watched.
Truth did almost everything right, but his biggest misstep was turning on the Elites after Regret was killed. Betraying his most skilled and well equipped soldiers was a massive blunder. If the Schism didn't happen, I doubt Chief would've been able to stop the Ring from firing, even with the Gravemind's assistance. Of course, trying the fire the Ring is in and of itself a stupid move of omnicidal proportions; so he still would've lost even if he succeeded.
@@julbot1 Seriously betraying the Elites was the dumbest decision anybody could of made. The Elites make up the bulk of the military and the majority of which were loyal to the Phophets and had the most diverse special forces out of any race like Silent Shadow and the Zealots. Throwing them out for incompetent Brutes was so dumb it's low IQ strategically.
Honestly, the whole Covenant is too stupid to be alive. Grunts? Easy to manipulate by bigger people than them and suicidal, barely an annoyance. Elites? Most of the troops with overconfidence in themselves and a very restrictive ordinance that allows a lot of betrayal. Brutes? They are called brutes. Barely strategists, tend to kill other troops as much as enemies. Jackals? Extraordinary marksmen. Not very good at close range, weak even with a shield, tend to be in conflict with elites. Drones? Stupidly relegated from scouts and shock troops when they can freaking fly into mechanics. Hunters? Usually used alone or in pairs in places where the enemies can easily hide. The covenant races have so many differences that the schism was inevitable and stupid.
In the book they actually test MEDUSA on a pursuing predator city many times London's size. I wanted to read the book because I knew the movie would ruin it. Also I hate that they called it a Bevarian mining town. The town they took in the book was called Salthook. That's why it had all that salt. It sucks that there probably won't be a Predators Gold movie, because the books just get better and better. The city in that book is called Anchorage.
the entire premise of Moving Cities reminds me of the Nomad Cities of Arknigths, wich as the name implies where entire citties made like tanks that could move in any direction, the reason those will actually work is because the world they are in requires it (multiple hyper Storms destroys every peace of land they pass by) and because the power source is so easy to find that it could even be harvasted from people
Most Sci-Fi-s at least _try_ to make the technology somewhat believable, by inventing some new, ultra compact power sources, and ultra strong materials. Mortal Engines: Everything is made from iron, and fueled with coal and scrap. Never mind that those iron tracks would be instantly crushed by the weight of the city. Or that, to get from England to China, A truck needs 1/6 of its own weight in fuel, and that's with modern engines on paved roads with optimal speeds. London would need a _literal_ mountain of coal, just to get to the Wall. As for feeding all those people - yeah, that's literally impossible. If every square meter of the city would be farmland, it still would not be enough. You screwed up bad, when the giant purple doomsday weapon is the _least_ unlikely thing in your movie...
yes because we cant move large objects in todays world.... guess ships dont exsist. Petrol engines are terribly inefficient(20-35% efficency). they used sterling engines 90% efficency. and you must not understand how tracks work for distributing weight across surface area.
@@alexgorski1806 Yeah, there is this thing called drag? That tracks make a 1000% worse? And that's the main reason we use boats for transport whenever we can? Yes we can move megastructures on ground. A few cm/seconds. That's exactly why we prefer transporting them on sea. And London, even as small as in the movie is way bigger then any of them.
I think the movie's flopping at the BO not only killed any possible chance of sequels, but the whole "lone teenage girl leads a rebellion in a post-apocalyptic dystopia" sub-genre. Which I think was passé by the time this hit theaters.
Yes it was. They advertised it heavily in the US but that actually worked against the film as they were showing how much of a dumpster fire it was going to be. Only people who went to see it are the ones who like dumpster fires.
"...citizen morale becomes less of an issue when the population are this inherently stupid..." I can think of at least one real country that disproves that notion.
As far as I can tell you only do movie civilizations but I think you would have a ton of fun tearing apart the Imperium of man from the Warhammer 40K universe
I see the Traction Cities as a fun what-if type of environment to dive into too. I believe if they made Moral Engines into an anime style series it would of worked. Studio P.A. will be a good choice to start from if they're up to the challenge
i wish the film was more like the book, which is incredible and explains so much more than the movie itself. it's just a shame that such an amazing series was dumbed down so much
What really makes sense about this whole "Predator and Prey" city thing is the complete lack of weapons or defenses really. Most of them have exposed area's open into the populations of their cities and parks. The fact they have to capture the prey cities mostly intact also is a huge issue. IF your about to die and be cut up into tiny pieces.... would you go quietly or self destruct in some horribly way? Now that your conveniently inside the enemy predator city any kind of explosion would be devastating to it. In the very least damage or destroy it's "harvest" mechanisms and leading it to probably starve to death before they could be fixed. Over all the fact the cities just seemingly run or chase each other down for the most part is the biggest joke. Super advanced mega tech cities, yet very little invocation in terms of attack or defenseless technologies. Not to mention moving cities is nice... but floating ones are better. Why not float around the ocean where the land based cities can't touch you, or if some how use super tech of the world to fly like something out of Bioshock Infinite.
Most cities are not killing off citizens of captured towns. And those who do are well known and avoided. Citizens of captured towns are assimilated into the population of larger cities, at the lowest rank possible (Or if special qualifications are present, in higher ranks) Towns don't flee from cities for mostly material reasons, but because of rank, independence and ideologies, since most towns and cities kinda have their own thing going on. Its common sense to try and outrun a predator, but its stupid to commit suicide after being caught (Unless its Thunbridge Wheels, Wolverinehampton, Arkangel or another pirate town. Those can be easily distinguished, since those are well known.) Basically, the rule of thumb is: If they don't let you disembark, blow em to bits. And: If they're a well-known slave trader, blow em to bits. Having a seafaring town may be useful, but you need to watch out for a lot of french-built seafaring predators, and again, a lot of land based pirate towns (which have been modified to be amphibic). There's also the flying cities, Airhaven and New London. Airhaven is basically a large stationary zeppelin, and New London is a low-flying maglev town. New london doesn't really have the true flight advantage as it can't get that far off the ground (and is therefore being chased by another pirate town), and Airhaven is very susceptible to fire (which leads to it crashing once). Also, the main Idea of moving cities came by 2 people with too much power at the wrong point in time (Godshawk and Quercus) who decided that moving the then still stationary london was a good Idea. Godshawk inherently planned to move the city only once to a better place, and then keep it as some sort of fortified steel colossus at some beach, whilst Quercus (and his scientists ) came up with the ridiculous concept of municipal darwinism after fitting naval guns on london and laying waste to a fleet of attacking nomad land ships (in essence huge multi-deck tanks. Imagine a Nasa crawler platform half the size, double the speed with guns on top) The whole part of cities moving around is kinda like the hyperdrive and the force of star wars, or the universal translator and inertial dampeners of star trek. Or magic in the lord of the rings.
@@madwolf0966 I mean it has some merit, if there is a reason for it. Like horrible hostile terrain, limited resources to the point you need to roam around like Nomads to make a living. Fighting and destroying each other in a wasteful glut of "Darwinism" is not however a very logical or stable reason to do so.
YES and the easyiest way to destroy them (besides your self-destruction ideia) is a air bombardment, by the time and resources used and those colossal shits they could built some aircrafts and basically have air superiority over any other "city"
@@joaop4585 It is surprising how primitive their air technology is, both in it's use and in terms of anti air batteries or the like. You'd think it be a huge part of scouting to find cities to avoid or destroy yet even the largest cities seem to have a token air force. Never mind the trackless cities who should have a massive air force given it's the most effective way to defend a static city.
I'm a couple vids in on your channel and usually random clips thrown in usually annoy me but Christ man they've fit and added perfectly every time you've used one . Gotta love tuvok
I always thought this would make for a great tabletop miniature wargame. Speaking of which, I'd love to see your breakdown of the Warhammer 40K Imperium.
I just could not get into this movie. Monty Python did it better ;P One thing I noted is all the "Prometheus school of running away" from things graduates. Smaller usually means faster and more maneuverable but I guess not in this "universe"
The video of London "devouring" the bavarian city popped up in my feed, for whatever reason, and the entire video made my head hurt. Thank god this video exists.
As someone who genuinely appreciated the books for their message about the perils of exploiting those people and resources around you for your own gain... the movie just depresses me. I seriously recommend that anyone who disliked this movie and wondered 'what if it was good?' go read the first two books, _Mortal Engines_ and _Predator's Gold_ .
The question of why they don't settle was explained in the book. If I remember correctly, it's true that it would be more practical to settle down because much less fuel was consumed, but it's nearly impossible because there will allways be leaders and governments that will enforce the idea of moving cities. And as such, the cities that do settle down will eventually get crushed for their ressources.
THen how come the token resistance of the wall was able to easily destroy the moving city? Seems like simple defensive structures., artillery and aircraft are more than enough to destroy any hostile forces.
Interesting point brought from an italian critique is London is too damn big to not be spotted from thousand of kilometers away by the other smaller cities. Thus giving them plenty of time to escape
My biggest issue was the Traction Cities. There never seemed like a reason for them, and after learning why they were built, I don't see why they continued to exist. If the geology of the planet settled, then they aren't needed.
The traction cities were built because a crazed nomad warlord decided it would be wise to scale up his moving fortresses from nasa crawler platform sized to wherever it is now. Geology didn't really matter, since most cities at that point in time were stationary anyways (several hundred years after the war, and emerging from a steam and gasoline powered medieval age). What mattered though was that stationary london was invaded by said crazed warlord and subsequently converted into a giant tank for some reason. The movie did a very poor job explaining why this happened (And so I did as well propably, but its still closer to the real reason)
The fact they didn't need to exist anymore was actually the point. Even members of the traction city begin to realise it is unsustainable but society was too stubborn to change. It is a not so subtle criticism of extreme conservatism. Later books balance this out by criticising extreme leftism with the Green storm and their combination of eco-terroism and maoism.
