Early in the movie it is explained that the device will shrink his size but not his mass. That is why he’s able to punch people out while being tiny.
Yet later, a character keeps a tank on a key chain they carry around.
The needs of the plot, in the moment, determine the rules of their universe rather than any sort of consistency.
At one point Ant Man runs down the barrel of a gun held by a human being. An incredibly strong human being. He is holding the weight of a full grown man out at arms length.
That’s some Red Dwarf coloring (the wonderful British tv comedy)
Not his mass that should be changing, but his density. You don’t have to change the size of the atoms, just pack them in! Of course, when he grows to giant size, he oughta blow away like a balloon, no?
Why? If his mass is constant and he’s still on earth then weight wouldn’t change either right?
Edit: for the record, I don’t find Ant Man any trickier territory than Iron Man. If I can wave away the mysterious power source for his armor, I can handle a little shrinky dinky.
Surface area, my dude.
I think my main issue with Antman’s inconsistency is that it directly contradicted how they explained the tech in universe. They’re usually pretty content to just wave hands and ignore specifics of a lot of this stuff, but Dr. Pym pretty much straight up explains the “you’ll lose size but your weight / mass remains identical” thing to Antman when he trains him. So when that almost immediately proves to only be true when it’s convenient, and the literal opposite is true other times, viewer confusion can be forgiven a little.
Check out all of the concept art for our environmental designs in this week’s dev journal!:)
When Ant Man shrinks, his baryonic matter/mass is replaced by dark matter, which solves everything. Probably.
So, uh, poop?
He becomes full of something, alright
There’s always some suspension of disbelief.
But my thing is that they make a point that his mass doesn’t change. Just his size. I can deal with that. That’s their rule and I can accept it.
But then, as soon as it becomes inconvenient, they throw it out. So now what are the rules they are playing by? It just kills the tension (for me) that they are willing to just ignore their own rules as soon as there’s even a minor obstacle.
And to bring that back to SC. The point the team was making to me is that if we’re going to emphasize that the game is grounded in the year 2088 and that we’re operating under certain technological constraints, then we can’t just magically have the ability to open up a galactic map, click on a planet and get a read out on all the planets and what is on them. Because how, exactly are we doing that?
By contrast, my strategy gamer brain, expects me to be able to just mouse-over stuff and get all the data there can be had.
But as soon as we have the technology to just see into systems across the universe in real-time, then how do we justify having any obstacles relating to technological constraints?
Another famous example is the Time Turner from the Harry Potter books/movies. That didn’t ruin the books for me (and it’s not like I hate Ant Man) but it definitely took me right out of the story.
Hey, everyone’s got their own geeky bugaboos, I don’t begrudge anyone their quirks. For me, it’s time travel, I haven’t really found any uses of it that really make any sense to me - I really only like the ones that totally lampshade how it works like Back to the Future or 12 Monkeys.
And Michael Douglas can pull the mass of an entire multi-story building behind him on wheels :)
Oh it would have ruined them for me had I liked them in the first place.
As it was, that was the death knell for me.
The official soundtrack for Star Control: Origins will be on all major music platforms on September 20th! Check out a few tracks here:
“A Higher Power”: https://youtu.be/Yl4Dl3ZKDV8
“Cold as Ice”: https://youtu.be/2fJHe8zXT3w
Very nice! Me likey.
Wow, all this time and it’s about to be released?
Are we there yet?
No.
Are we there yet?
No.
Are we there yet?
NO!
