Very much like the Eagles in the Lord of the Rings.
Well, then it doesn't matter at all.
I'm sorry, Sonious, but anyone who thinks "the Eagles in The Lord of the Rings" is a "devastating blow" to that trilogy doesn't understand movies. At all. The T. rex in Jurassic Park scales a wall designed to be unscalable by T. rexes off camera; Luke Skywalker's entire Jedi training with Yoda takes place, at most, over the course of a week; one of my favorite characters in the history of cinema is a woman who falls out of window, gets bit by a couple cats, and then proceeds to tank a full revolver at point blank range, electrocute herself, and still appear unscathed at the end of the movie. And there is absolutely no explanation given for her sudden supernatural powers. And I don't care, because that T. rex is terrifying; Luke's character growth is incalculable; and that sudden growth of supernatural powers in a movie that has hitherto not featured the supernatural is the most wonderfully perfect end to the character's empowerment that began with the devastating trashing of her sad, lonely apartment (seriously, I am an absolute sucker for a good "sad, lonely woman in her sad, lonely apartment" scenes) (Batman Returns, by the way).
You just got to let it go; you are probably absolutely right that the movie doesn't make sense in realistic terms (it's a movie about talking animals, for Christ's sake). That's the point. It's like pointing out that Van Gogh wasn't photo realistic, if you think that's a valid criticism of a movie. Of course, if you're just pointing out plot holes because you're pointing out plotholes, that's fun.
(It's Little Rodentia can't possibly be adequately policed, isn't it? Oh, please God, don't tell me "a tundra next to a rainforest next to a desert IS UNREALISTIC" is your big insight.)
Well, then it doesn't matter at all.
I'm sorry, Sonious, but anyone who thinks "the Eagles in The Lord of the Rings" is a "devastating blow" to that trilogy doesn't understand movies. At all. The T. rex in Jurassic Park scales a wall designed to be unscalable by T. rexes off camera; Luke Skywalker's entire Jedi training with Yoda takes place, at most, over the course of a week; one of my favorite characters in the history of cinema is a woman who falls out of window, gets bit by a couple cats, and then proceeds to tank a full revolver at point blank range, electrocute herself, and still appear unscathed at the end of the movie. And there is absolutely no explanation given for her sudden supernatural powers. And I don't care, because that T. rex is terrifying; Luke's character growth is incalculable; and that sudden growth of supernatural powers in a movie that has hitherto not featured the supernatural is the most wonderfully perfect end to the character's empowerment that began with the devastating trashing of her sad, lonely apartment (seriously, I am an absolute sucker for a good "sad, lonely woman in her sad, lonely apartment" scenes) (Batman Returns, by the way).
You just got to let it go; you are probably absolutely right that the movie doesn't make sense in realistic terms (it's a movie about talking animals, for Christ's sake). That's the point. It's like pointing out that Van Gogh wasn't photo realistic, if you think that's a valid criticism of a movie. Of course, if you're just pointing out plot holes because you're pointing out plotholes, that's fun.
(It's Little Rodentia can't possibly be adequately policed, isn't it? Oh, please God, don't tell me "a tundra next to a rainforest next to a desert IS UNREALISTIC" is your big insight.)