It is a sign of the apocalypse in the Mayan calendar that when Roland Emmerich actually releases an awesome movie about the apocalypse, things are pretty much over. And behooooold:
And lo, the giraffes will be borne aloft by helicopters! And Oliver Platt will be an oily government bureaucrat! And Big Stone Jesus's arms will fall off! The Mayans saw it all. Truly, they were visionaries. (Though hard not to laugh at "MANKIND'S EARLIEST CIVILIZATION." Has dude even, like, read Wikipedia?)
Seriously, it looks like Emmerich has spared no expense to license all the best CGI disaster-software for this, so good for him. Personally I can't wait. Just too bad he licensed the heartwarming John Cusack software too.
Meh. Now the Cylons REALLY know how to stage an apocalypse.
.
With only one season left, the end is nigh on Lost, too.
.
They got me last time with The Day After Tomorrow. No way I'm falling for another Emmerich movie.
Kemper
Jun. 19, 2009 09:57:am
at 09:57:am
The Day After Tomorrow's science rivals that of The Core and The Happening as the worst of all time. This movie looks terrible.
Rorschach
Jun. 19, 2009 11:02:am
at 11:02:am
"Though hard not to laugh at "MANKIND'S EARLIEST CIVILIZATION." Has dude even, like, read Wikipedia?"
.
It's like he's never seen the BSG finale, y'know?
Church
Jun. 19, 2009 11:11:am
at 11:11:am
Haven't any of you heard of the notion of "suspension of disbelief?" Come on y'all - it's *fiction*, the science doesn't have to add up. I suppose none of you liked Star Wars, Star Trek, or Lord of the Rings either, because all of those are full of fantasy and magic that's totally unbelievable.
Plus, if you've never looked into any of the Mayan (or other cultural) theories of 2012, then you might want to take a look. It's very fascinating, but not neccesarily scientific.
jmage71
Jun. 19, 2009 13:39:pm
at 13:39:pm
@4 jmage71 Welcome. You must be new here...
Church
Jun. 19, 2009 13:49:pm
at 13:49:pm
@jmage71 - What is this suspension of disbelief you speak of? Are you telling me that Star Trek, LotR, The Matrix, Battlestar Galactica, Lost, Spider-Man, Batman and the thousand other things I read or watch and like aren't real??? Wow. That's disappointing...
.
Or it could just be that lousy filmmaking by Hollywood hacks like Emmerich doesn't create a suspension of disbelief and makes their profound stupidity that much more evident?
.
For example. I don't really think that there's a magical ark with god's wrath waiting to blast whoever opens it. Still love Raiders because it's a great movie. I also don't think there's any way that someone survives a nuclear blast by hiding in a refrigerator. And the Crystal Skull was not a good movie. So, I tend to mock the nuking of the 'fridge while I've never complained about the magical ark.
Kemper
Jun. 19, 2009 14:09:pm
at 14:09:pm
#jmage71: There is a clear different in the things you mentioned. The example I always use is The Force. The Force is awesome. It's not believable but it doesn't have to be because it's a movie. The problem comes when you explain it: midiclorians or whatever it is. That was ridiculous. It made The Force stupid.
.
You want plants to start attacking humans like in The Happening? Cool, go for it. You want to tell me it's because they are quickly evolving and reading our minds and communicating with each other? That's bad science, and it is terrible.
Rorschach
Jun. 19, 2009 16:44:pm
at 16:44:pm
Now that I have kids, I can't watch all the disaster movies that involve parents trying to keep their kids safe. The whole point is to just get me emotionally involved through the kids, though it's pretty likely that they'll survive. It's a little sadistic because it's usually just an industry shortcut (when the producers demand more plot, less character). Some of these movies have kids actually doing something (e.g. Transformers, Term 2, etc.), which I do like, but mostly it's about the parent trying to keep their kid(s) from getting killed. I really don't need to put myself in their shoes and try to keep a tripod from squishing my little girl.
dennitzio
Jun. 19, 2009 16:53:pm
at 16:53:pm
@ dennitzio yes, totally agreed. having a kid changes everything about popcorn movies.
Lev Grossman
Jun. 19, 2009 18:19:pm
at 18:19:pm
Cool trailer, particularly the JFK at the end.
Now, with the possible exception of Irwin Allen, nobody likes disaster movies more than me. No, wait, Irwins' dead. Ok: Nobody likes disaster movies more than me, but at this point even *I'm* beginning to think Mr. Emmerich has some issues. (Note the lingering shots of Jesus loosing his arms and the Vatican collapsing, etc.) Also, come on, couldn't he do better than ripping off a halloween episode of The Simpons and/or "When Worlds Collide?"
No, of course he can't. Duh. Sorry.
republibotthreepointoh
Jun. 19, 2009 19:37:pm
at 19:37:pm
Here in LA, 2012 has become something of an industry punch line, because practically every FX shop in town has been hired to do shots to get it done, even the rinky-dink ones. That's why they had to push back the release date (or so it's rumored). They're still desperate to just hire enough people! Here's a sample job listing from just today:
Columbia Pictures: "2012" VFX - 3DS Max experts! Animators, Lighting TDs, FX artists, Modelers...We are looking for outstanding 3D Studio Max Artists in all specialities who can create realistic cg elements to integrate with live action plates for the in-house VFX unit for the upcoming Roland Emmerich picture “2012”
dennitzio
Jun. 19, 2009 22:23:pm
at 22:23:pm
@kemper and @Rorschach: well said. If you leave some of the "how" and "why" in the science in the story then its more palpable for the viewer i.e. the original starwars, startrek, and some of the older sci-fi books. The tech or events are left as possibilities but are not narrowed into one scientific explanation. If it's still unknown, it's still possible. Surviving a nuclear blast at ground zero because you lock yourself in a lead fridge is known not to work, then there is the time machine. The protagonist can't change the past event because the reason the time machine was built was because of the event.
.
At any rate, I stopped enjoying disaster movies back in the late 90's. Most of them deal with a antagonist that is bigger than the population of earth save for one man or women who is just in the right place at the right time and is smart enough and knows things related to the problem that no one else does in order to stop it or save the primary characters.
lostepic
Jun. 20, 2009 05:23:am
at 05:23:am
Really Star Trek never had much to do with science. They paid a lot of lip service to it, but they pretty much ignored the actual physical universe as much as possible in favor of the doubletalk they used on the show(s).
What grows tiresome about these disaster movies is that the disasters themselves are all so predictable - alien invasion, big rock/comet hitting earth, trendy-yet-incoherent ecological fubar, perfect storm, massive hurricane, earthquake, volcano, giant shark vs. giant octopus - meh. Boring. What about something a bit more interesting, like a heavy-gravity zipping through the solar system at a right angle to earth's own orbit, thereby causing our orbit to shift in some way. Not enough to make the earth unlivable, but enough to radically change the life of every man, woman, and rat terrier on the planet. Wouldn't that be fun? And then the movie would be about people struggling to transition to survive, not just boom-crash-bang.
'course that's just off the top of my head. I'm not a hollywood producer, so I dunno from nothin' what would work...
republibotthreepointoh
Jun. 20, 2009 07:44:am
at 07:44:am
@republibotthreepointoh: that was the point they stayed away from actual science and explaining the hows and whys. Leaving the real scienctists to try to make those fantasies a reality. Oh and a gravity issue affecting the earth story is going to TV in a miniseries. A dead star hits the moon causin gravitational and porlarity issues and the earth adn moon draw eachother in adn causes all sorts of "supposed" gravity issues earth.
lostepic
Jun. 20, 2009 08:52:am
at 08:52:am
@republibotthreepointoh: "And then the movie would be about people struggling to transition to survive, not just boom-crash-bang."
|
That's coming out too.. Vigo Mortensen in 'The Road', where he has to keep his family safe after a cataclysmic event,
suiter
Jun. 20, 2009 12:27:pm
at 12:27:pm
@ Lostepic: Point taken. My bad.
@ Suiter: I dunno. This could just be my take on it, but when I read The Road I felt very strongly the author was implying this was the last generation, and there was no future.
republibotthreepointoh
Jun. 20, 2009 14:38:pm
at 14:38:pm
@republibotthreepointoh: I agree. While McCormic left a little hope at the end of "The Road", it still ended on a depressing downer. However, I have a feeling that the movie is going to play it on the lighter side since they already have shown the mother in the trailer, what seems to be a prominant role that she didnt have.
lostepic
Jun. 21, 2009 05:10:am
at 05:10:am
Oh. If its really the end of the world in 2012, where are these supposed ships that the government built going to take the people? As stated before, Emmerich will destory everything with CGI glory, but he will always give our characters a way to survive or beat it. So either the Earth isnt really ending, or it is in which case where are they going to go?
lostepic
Jun. 21, 2009 05:16:am
at 05:16:am
Obviously, they're space ships. Space Arks. They're going to "The New World," as per that one Simpsons Halloween Special. Or the George Pal movie, "When Worlds Collide."
republibotthreepointoh
Jun. 21, 2009 09:12:am
at 09:12:am
Yeah I suppose if I suspend disbelief, there could be space "arks" to an unknown habitable world with unknown power to propel them or sustain them in space indefinitely. Its just when the timeline is set near our current timeline, technology shouldn't be far from where we are.
lostepic
Jun. 21, 2009 11:51:am
at 11:51:am
Not sure there's anything as sophisticated as 'suspension of disbelief' involved here: I have yet to see a Roland Emmerich movie that made a lick of sense whatsoever. He just rifles through old movies, cuts out the standout scenes, and then ties them together. I mean, ID4 was nothing but a pastiche of every 50s invasion movie ever made, with some Star Wars thrown in and a dash of World War II swagger. If he thinks the Space Ark from "When Worlds Collide" or even "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" looks cool, then by damn he'll stick it in.
republibotthreepointoh
Jun. 22, 2009 19:18:pm
at 19:18:pm
I'm pretty sure they're just plain arks - What happens is some type of crust upheaval that leaves the entire world flooded, apparently somehow creating the trillions of gallons of water needed to achieve this out of thin air. And the arks just float along with self-sustaining farms in them. Until MegaShark or Giant Octopus comes along, or course.
tereglith
Jul. 2, 2009 11:08:am
at 11:08:am