MovieChat Forums > Chicken Run (2000) Discussion > Cutting rope with an Axe makes no sense

Cutting rope with an Axe makes no sense


Axe is designed to have a heavy blade, so when it hits something solid, it has a devastating impact. This is why it's good for cutting wood and such. I am sure it could even cut some kind of rope if the rope is placed tightly on a level, solid surface, but it would probably take a few hits before it's completely cut.

For something like rope, the scissors would've been much better choice (even though THOSE scissors looked absolutely dull and ineffective).

There are so many things about this rope-cutting scene that make no sense, I am not sure if one post will even be enough to cover them all, but I want to try.

1) The physics of a 'swing against rope in the air'.

It doesn't seem possible to cut any kind of rope or even cable with an AXE of all things (perhaps super sharp katana), with only ONE SWING, when there's nothing to hold the rope in place. The physics would dictate that when the blade hits the (multi-layered, if I am not mistaken) rope, the rope, not being really held in place by anything, would GIVE IN, and BEND to the direction the blade would now be pushing it towards, and NOT be cut. Try punching a rubber band and see if it lets your fits go through or if it gives in.

To effectively cut anything stronger than ice cream with an axe, by swinging at it once, there would need to be kind of solid surface behind that 'anything' so it gets resistance from the other end and kind of has to let the blade push it until it cuts. If you think of a guillotine, the neck is locked firmly before the blade falls down.

2) The impossibility of holding the rope without your hand getting cut off

How, exactly, does Ginger perform this multi-level miracle maneuver? She not only has to 'realistically' hide her head with perfect timing, but also hold the rope with both hands at separate points that exist on both sides of the cut (so she also has to perfectly know and estimate where the cut is going to be).. and also somehow hide the fact that she's holding the rope.

I mean, how do you HIDE the hand that's holding the rope, when it's absolutely required that the hand is on the OTHER side of the cut, where it can only be, if the axe cuts the rope in the middle, and since the villain is looking where she's swinging, she would definitely SEE where the axe is at all times, thus seeing where it cuts, and where Ginger's hands (wings?) are.

How does she first put her hands in the perfect place, THEN magically hide the hands AND pull up the rope immediately after the cut (even though the villain doesn't seem to move), while also making sure her hand holds the rope SO weirdly that it doesn't get cut/injured by the wild Axe swing...

I mean, when you consider all that happens in that split-second, it seems pretty gosh darned impossible, not to mention impractical. Why would Ginger opt to do ALL THAT, when it would be simpler to just duck, and let the rope be cut and hope it doesn't hit her body, and that's that.

Why would the villain aim for the neck instead of just her body anyway, I mean, it's an AXE, and there's no 'chopping block', so the swing might not even kill her even if it hits the neck..?

Movies just HAVE to be 'dramatic' instead of making sense, don't they? Sigh.

3) A chicken using her wing to hold a rope that holds a fully-grown adult human being and an axe, while the velocity of the 'crate' and rope add to the resistance, plus whatever the wind resistance adds.

A CHICKEN. WITH ONE HAND/WING.

I mean, WHAT the fjordenstein? HOW much of a suspension do I have to buy to keep the disbelief in check? I can't fathom how even a toddler would buy this scene!

I don't mind time-traveling DeLoreans or near-omnipotent supervillains that can fly, but a CHICKEN holding all that with ONE WING (she isn't supposed to even have actual fingers, she's a CHICKEN!!)...

Chickens can't fly, because they're too heavy. But they can HOLD A ROPE with those same wings, that is attached to an adult human being with an axe?!

How much heavier would that be??

I mean, there's more, but I am too tired.. I can't take this anymore.. please, someone, make a movie that makes sense, please!

reply

You are correct. This film was quite simply nonsensical. It is astonishing that a motion picture production company the size of DreamWorks SKG did not spot these glaring plotholes at the script stage, and inform the British filmmakers of these inaccuracies, before filming began.

Another clear error is with the filming process used. At times, we can see fingerprints and other defects appear on the faces of the so-called "chickens". I took it upon myself to research this over my Christmas break, and it so happens that there is not a single chicken in this entire film! Instead, the objects we were duped into watching moving around the screen are, in reality, convincing fakes made out of some sort of putty-like substance.

I was even more dismayed when I learned that the chickens seen on screen were not actually talking. Instead, professional chicken imitators spoke into a microphone and the resulting farce was captured on a cassette tape. The resulting sounds were then overlaid onto the footage in time with the "chickens" moving their beaks, and the deception was complete.

With this level of pure sneakiness, is it any wonder that box office revenue is in decline?

reply

Lol! Love me some good sarcasm ๐Ÿคฃ

reply

Yah, well to see at your username. ๐Ÿฅฑโ€‹

reply

๐Ÿ™„ Is English your second language or are you 8 years old? Either way, don't judge people by a screen name.

Bye bye now.

reply

Then tell me what your username is supposed to mean. โ˜บ

reply

This used to be a family acount for myself, my wife and our kids. We let our youngest, who was 8 at the time, name it since he was not allowed to post and felt left out. Now only my wife and I post but we never changed the name.

reply

At the age of 8 your child still pooped in the pants?!

reply

๐Ÿ™„ No he did not. He thought the name would be funny. This isn't a hard concept to understand but I can see I am wasting my time with you. You are obviously just here to troll so welcome to my ignore list!

reply

"Lol! Love me some good sarcasm" ๐Ÿ™ƒโ€‹

reply

Thereโ€™s no sarcasm, StinkyPoopyPants. Iโ€™m just tired of these LA city slickers trying to fool us good hardworking folks. Well, they canโ€™t fool me!!!!!!!!.

reply

Lol, no they can't!

reply

Yah, therefore Alexander used his sword. โš”๏ธโ€‹
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_Knot

"Chickens can't fly, because they're too heavy."
Chickens aren't masters of flight, but they can fly...if you don't clip their wings.

reply