Page 1 of 2
2012
Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:49 am
by undergrain1
The previews and such for this movie show plenty of roads, runways and freeways collapsing... but where exactly are they collapsing into? What, is the Earth suddenly all hollowed out and everything's falling through a deteriorating crust into a hollow? It looks spectacular but stupid. It would make more sense if everything was being massively shaken down and reduced to rubble by the ultimate earthquake (like 15 on the Richter scale) and liquefaction (that is, everything sinks into the thickest stuff because the thickest stuff has been turned soft enough to swallow buildings, freeways, runways and roads).
Re: 2012
Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:12 am
by Duncan Edwards
First of all I would not be expecting anything from Hollywood to make sense or even be remotely plausible. From what I have read, since I have no intention of paying money for anything this ridiculous, the premise is that some increase in solar radiation heats the earth's core and causes the tectonic plates that we sit on to slide all over the place.
What does this mean?
It means that Roland Emmerich should somehow be prevented from contaminating humanity's gene pool any further. Anyone who is capable of raising the levels of moronosity in Hollywood (a substantial task) to new levels can't be permitted to have children.

Re: 2012
Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 2:20 pm
by bbjohn
Duncan Edwards wrote:It means that Roland Emmerich should somehow be prevented from contaminating humanity's gene pool any further. Anyone who is capable of raising the levels of moronosity in Hollywood (a substantial task) to new levels can't be permitted to have children.

At the very least, they shouldn't be given big bundles of money to make movies with.
Big Bad John
Re: 2012
Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 2:55 pm
by PM2K
Pity folks like this keep making epics while overlooking any sort of storyline.... David Lean made masterpieces of huge and epic sweep - Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on the River Kwai, Dr. Zhavago (sp?) - with cast of hundreds in sweeping shots, yet made the films equally riveting during the quieter, smaller scenes. The difference is in the writing, storytelling, and acting... something Hollywood tends to lose sight of.
Trouble is, people like Emmerich and his backers think all you have to do to make a blockbuster is bludgeon folks senseless with special effects... and unfortunatelly, enough people with cottage cheese for brains keep making them money by showing up in the theatres... ensuring more of the same.
But that aside... it did remind me of an old sci-fi story I read in a reprint collection of a disaster wiping out the centre of the North American continent... it collapses, and becomes flooded with a new inland sea, which humanity by the end adapts to. The part which I clearly remember is the creeping floodwaters turning the deserts to quicksand, sinkling thousands in "jelly like mud" as the quote went. No idea who wrote it, though...
Re: 2012
Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:00 pm
by Robert
bbjohn wrote:
At the very least, they shouldn't be given big bundles of money to make movies with.
Big Bad John
Give me 1/10 their budget... I'll give you a move that you can sink your self into
Robert
Re: 2012
Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 10:26 pm
by Duncan Edwards
Robert wrote:bbjohn wrote:
At the very least, they shouldn't be given big bundles of money to make movies with.
Big Bad John
Give me 1/10 their budget... I'll give you a move that you can sink your self into
Robert
Yeah, think about that. Imagine what you could do with a ten million dollar budget to make a quicksand video? I think I'd spend half of it hiring Angelina Jolie.

Re: 2012
Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 11:24 pm
by bbjohn
The remarkable thing, Duncan and Robert, is $10 million is CHEAP by Hollywood's standards these days. To think that's what George Lucas spent on the original "Star Wars" in 1977, and he was afraid the flick might lose money! I also agree with PM2K, it's the story that counts. all the special effects in the world won't save something if the story is bad.
It wasn't the special effects that made Star Wars so good. It was the STORY!!
Of course, since when did anyone in Hollywood care about a good story? It was probably about the same time they stopped making mostly uplifting stories or comedies that were more funny than gross. They're laughing all the way to the bank.
I believe it was P.T. Barnum who once said, "There's a sucker born every minute, and every 10 minutes someone is born who will take him."
Big Bad John
Re: 2012
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:10 am
by Boggy Man
PM2K wrote:But that aside... it did remind me of an old sci-fi story I read in a reprint collection of a disaster wiping out the centre of the North American continent... it collapses, and becomes flooded with a new inland sea, which humanity by the end adapts to. The part which I clearly remember is the creeping floodwaters turning the deserts to quicksand, sinkling thousands in "jelly like mud" as the quote went. No idea who wrote it, though...
That sounds quite similar to a tv miniseries called "10.5" and its sequel "10.5: Apocalypse", where a large 10.5 earthquake destroys Los Angeles and reactivates an ancient fault in the center of the continent, splitting it in half, the beginning of a new inland sea. In "10.5: Apocalypse", I remember a scene in the desert where water started bubbling up out of the sand at one guy's feet, but I was disappointed that he didn't sink. When he looked out over the desert, it was all flooded.
Here are a couple of links to descriptions of "10.5" and "10.5: Apocalypse":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10.5_%28TV_miniseries%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10.5:_ApocalypseIn "10.5", the "quicksand" mentioned was just dry sand (or was it gravel) that gave way under the vehicle, slowly swallowing it, with the people inside.
Here are a couple of links to pages where you can view both "10.5" and "10.5: Apocalypse" (the second one is where the desert floods from upwelling water, and an opening rift splits North America in two):
http://www.letmewatchthis.com/movie-4295-105http://www.letmewatchthis.com/movie-121 ... ApocalypseAnd here are a couple of links to reviews of "10.5" and "10.5: Apocalypse" by the California Geological Survey:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/Earthquake ... BC-10.aspxhttp://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/Earthquake ... es/10.aspx
Re: 2012
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 5:33 pm
by Mynock
The story is that the sun is putting out 'mutated' (this was the term used in the movie) radiation that is microwaving the planet from the inside out, increasing the temperature of the core/mantle and destabilizing the crust.
As far as the movie, all I have to say is that I never thought I'd get bored watching buildings collapse...0 out of 5 stars, imo.
Re: 2012
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 9:09 pm
by nachtjaeger
OMG, the destruction of the world! How original. . .
"And the angel opened the sixth seal; and the earth shook, and the seas boiled. The sun became dark as sackcloth, and the moon became as blood. And the stars fell from the Heavens, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when shaken by a great wind. And the Heavens departed as a scroll which is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places." -Revelation, 6:1-8:1
No new ideas in Hollywierd- still on the same track as classics like "Crack in the World" or "When Worlds Collide."