Escape from New York/Headscratchers: Difference between revisions

m
Mass update links
m (trope=>work)
m (Mass update links)
 
Line 29:
** It is stated in-movie that the renegades/original inmates were so dangerous that it was easier to lock Manhattan and barricade it, than to spend money building a large enough facility to contain them, after arresting them and transport them of course. Think of a 9-11 scenario where the terrorists (conspiracy theory aside) manage to press the attack and seize the city or a large portion of it. The movie's government literally told the population to go screw themselves and every man for himself. About the state value, what good is it if it's crime ridden and unchecked?
*** Furthermore, the [[Novelization]] delves even deeper: {{spoiler|The United States was hit with a massive nerve gas attack by the Soviet Union, and New York was hit especially hard. As a result, it was subsequently declared uninhabitable, and the government decided to turn it into a prison.}}
** Also, ''[[Escape From LAL.A.]]'' *doesn't* happen a few years later. It's more of a remake. The two stories don't co-incide in the same timeline, they're alternate versions of each other.
*** For the sequel, California suffers "The Big One", an earthquake so vicious that it effectively turns California into a new island, and everybody is left for dead. Also remember that in this new reality, [[Harsher in Hindsight|USA is no longer the most powerful nation of the world]], and the whole planet is depicted as a chaotic place to live in anyways; there are no help funds, the UN either doesnt exist or its just another bureaucratic figurehead with little power and influence; why would the US bother to save California in the first place?
*** How do you figure? Despite Snake wearing the same clothes and all, it's supposed to be 16 years after ''[[Escape Fromfrom New York|EFNY]]''. Cuervo Jones explicitly mentions Snake having "escaped from New York." But considering that's it's almost the same movie, with most of the same situations and plot points, it's not an unreasonable position to take.
**** Actually it is an unreasonable position to take, as they are clearly in the same timeline. They mention his previous mission several times in the movie. They even reference his switcheroo at the ending. To claim they are two separate timelines you have to ignore the ample evidence that they aren't, which just makes it a dumb excuse used by those who didn't actually like the sequel.
** Considering that in ''[[Escape From LAL.A.]]'' the president had basically run on a platform of prophesying the destruction of LA, saying the city was an example of everything wrong with America. When his prediction proved true and he won, it would only be natural to take the opportunity to declare LA no longer part of the country, now that it physically wasn't anyway. No point rebuilding someplace you campaigned on hating after all. Also LA wasn't exactly a prison. People could leave if they wanted to - they just couldn't go back to America.
*** Umm, Alaska and Hawaii aren't physically connected to mainland US, but they're still states. And why would the Congress and the states ratify a Constitutional amendment to turn America into a fundamentalist dictatorship? As far as the guy predicting the earthquake, there are people standing on the streets screaming the end of the world is nigh. He just got lucky. Or caused it in the first place. They do have [[EMP]] [[Kill Sat|Kill Sats]], so why not something that cause an earthquake? Religious fanatics aren't exactly known for their concern for their fellow man.
** Sort of a [[Society Marches On]]: Manhattan was a crime-ridden hellhole and rapidly falling into complete anarchy at the time the movie was released, as were the other boroughs. Everyone who could afford to had moved out into suburbs. It was entirely plausible to audiences of the day that things really could get this bad (also see ''[[The Warriors (Filmfilm)|The Warriors]]''), and the idea that ten years later New York would completely turn around and retake the title of a financial and cultural center of the world was fairly preposterous to most.
* Premarital sex is illegal, according to ''[[Escape From LAL.A.]]''. So... Do boatloads of teenagers go to jail in this version of the US for doing something that's perfectly natural? Or does everybody buy the government's abstinence program? As far as no smoking, drinking, or red meat-eating, that just means a bigger black market for this stuff. Apparently, Prohibition hasn't taught anyone anything.
** Premarital sex isn't illegal UNTIL Escape From LA as clearly shown in that film (the plethora of moral laws weren't put in place until the US became basically a theocracy under the new President). To answer your question, yes, boatloads of teens get arrested and deported as you can see in the beginning of Escape From LA.
** And let's be honest, here; fundamentalist Christians, like most religious fanatics, aren't exactly known for letting logic get in the way of their ideology. Basically, God (according to them) wants this stuff banned, so it's banned. You don't like it, tough, you're a sinner and you're going to hell (and jail).