2 0 1 2

[BST]

My wife and I went to see it last night.

WOW!!

This movie was terrific. The f/x were great and I liked how the story unfolded.

It's hard to describe it though because, for me, it rocked on just about every level. If you haven't seen it and like movies like Transformers and Independence Day, go see it!

[Gemini1999]

Pete -

I saw it too and it just knocked me out. It was one of the best disaster/popcorn films I've seen in a long time. The VFX were just eye popping and there's a ton of action in this film. The character stories are kind of sparse, but the last 30-40 minutes of the film have some great payoffs in that department.

When I finished seeing it, the first question in my head was "Are they gonna show this in IMAX?" I'd love to see it again, but not until after the holiday weekend passes.

Bryan

[Athene]

I've gotta go see that! I love movies with good f/x.
I've seen previews of the movie too and trailers and it looks AWESOME
Glad both of you enjoyed it.

[BST]

Originally Posted by Athene

I've gotta go see that! I love movies with good f/x.
I've seen previews of the movie too and trailers and it looks AWESOME
Glad both of you enjoyed it.

It really was good and I was quite pleasantly surprised at the length of the movie -- 2 hours, 36 minutes.

[Gemini1999]

Originally Posted by BST

It really was good and I was quite pleasantly surprised at the length of the movie -- 2 hours, 36 minutes.

That is so true... Make sure that you hit the restroom before the film and if you go to the snack bar, do NOT let them talk you into getting a large soda...you might be sorry!

If I'd only known how long the film was before I got there....

[Galactifan]

Ummmmm...did we see the same movie??? 2012 had piss-poor writing and acting with characters you could care less about and many of the sfx were sub-par for today's blockbuster films. In a nutshell......it sucked.

[BST]

Originally Posted by Galactifan

Ummmmm...did we see the same movie??? 2012 had piss-poor writing and acting with characters you could care less about and many of the sfx were sub-par for today's blockbuster films. In a nutshell......it sucked.

We probably did NOT see the same movie. Do you have a link for the movie that you saw?

[skippercollecto]

I finally saw the movie last weekend (Jan. 9) and although I enjoyed it, I still like TDAT better. I think one of the things that made me disappointed in 2012 was that my favorite character in the movie died, and after that, I kind of lost interest.

Mary

[Eric Paddon]

I had no desire to see the umpteenth variation of a brainless FX fest that I tired of quickly long ago. And I frankly find Emmerich's obsession with destroying famous landmarks on-screen to be in exceedingly bad taste in the post-9/11 period in which the grabber is always "Gee, neat they destroyed the White House again". Not to mention how he tellingly goes out of his way to destroy famous symbols of Christianity with the Vatican and the Christ statue in Rio but purposefully refused to show signs of destruction of Muslim sites because he didn't want to offend them. Which says a lot from my standpoint.

[BST]

Originally Posted by Eric Paddon

I had no desire to see the umpteenth variation of a brainless FX fest that I tired of quickly long ago. And I frankly find Emmerich's obsession with destroying famous landmarks on-screen to be in exceedingly bad taste in the post-9/11 period in which the grabber is always "Gee, neat they destroyed the White House again". Not to mention how he tellingly goes out of his way to destroy famous symbols of Christianity with the Vatican and the Christ statue in Rio but purposefully refused to show signs of destruction of Muslim sites because he didn't want to offend them. Which says a lot from my standpoint.

Eric,

We've spoken at lengths about these things and others, in the past so, I think you know my mindset.


How long are we going to portray present-day as "post/911"?

Pearl Harbor was just as bad, if not worse, to my parents' generation but, they moved on from it. Yes, the events of September 11, 2001 were horrible and those who perpetrated it are still at large and still need to be brought to swift justice.

But, at the same time, we cannot be paralyzed or offended by every film that shows a disaster sequence. Following WWII, was our parents' generation paralyzed by every navy war film that might have showed naval battles and ships sinking? No, they weren't. They moved on from it. They acknowledged the event, the commemorated the fallen, and then, they honored those who perished by re-building this country into the world leader that she became.

We have yet to do that. Some in this country haven't finished pointing fingers yet. Some in this country are more worried about savage terrorists being treated with kindness and tried in the loophole-laden civilian justice system than they are about the terrorists being brought to justice for the crimes that they committed. Yes, we've got problems in this country. Some that run right to the core. This movie, however, is not one of them. It is no more an attack on God or Country than Harry Potter.

I know that I won't convince you to change your mind and that's ok. You are entitled to view things in your own fashion and I respect that. That is one of the great freedoms that we enjoy in this country and one, if necessary, that I would fight to my last breath to save.


Pete

[Eric Paddon]

Originally Posted by BST

How long are we going to portray present-day as "post/911"?
Pearl Harbor was just as bad, if not worse, to my parents' generation but, they moved on from it.

The problem though, Pete, is that this movie unlike war movies in which the battle scenes are important for the purpose of telling a good story surrounding the *people* or in terms of making a point about historical recreation, is a movie that is made for one purpose only which is to celebrate and revel in the levels of destruction that can be shown on-screen. I will plead guilty to having once been fascinated by this kind of moviemaking, but post-9/11 I look at the impersonal way in which destruction is shown on-screen to get the people to go "Oooooooh!" or "Awesome!" with no regard for the magnitude of human life that has to get snuffed out if this sort of thing were to happen, and now it absolutely turns my stomach. I can never watch "Armageddon" or "Deep Impact" or even "Independence Day" again because I saw the real event in graphic detail on that day unfold and I have refused to let myself forget the magnitude of what happened.

Now this is not necessarily a blanket condemnation of the whole disaster genre because *if* a disaster movie at least serves up an interesting storyline with good actors who elevate the experience as a whole, that can still be entertaining and you are still first and foremost locked into the nature of the overall drama and not just impatiently wondering "When does the next disaster scene happen???" "The Poseidon Adventure" and "The Towering Inferno" I can still watch because there, I can at least watch actors of much greater talent than the ones we have today like Gene Hackman, Steve McQueen, Ernest Borgnine, William Holden etc. do their best to make more with the material and the fact that we had better writers and directors on those projects who were not by nature FX oriented people at least meant the scripts weren't so brain dead as today's FX movies are. The disaster was the grabber for the *story*. These movies only exist for the FX scenes with characters totally unmemorable in contrast to the ones from the earlier generation of disaster films, and that only drives home the overall exploitative nature of these kinds of movies in the post-9/11 period from my standpoint.

[BST]

Sorry but, I can't seem to reconcile your discontent with today's offerings and your appreciation of previous disaster flicks like "The Poseidon Adventure", "Towering Inferno", "Earthquake", etc. Although most of the Irwin Allen '70's era disaster flicks involved all-star casts, many with actors and actresses whom we like, they are by no means "high-brow". Of the 3 that I listed above, only the Poseidon Adventure offered any real depth of character and heartfelt emotion, in my opinion, and those involved the scenes where Reverend Scott sacrificed himself and Belle succumbed to a heart attack.


In this film, 2012, much of what we call "civilization" was destroyed. I also recall a story from a long time ago which, involved a tremendous loss of life and civilization. It occurred after 40 days and nights of rain.

Then and now, civilization is being given a second chance.


*************


Regarding 9/11, Eric, I share your interpretation of the events. I was talking to customers in Manhattan during the crashes into the towers. I listened to their anguish, their tears, their fear... I offered what consolation that I could but, I mainly listened. In addition, Flight 93 flew over my head that morning before being brought down (or shot down as some conspiracy theorists claim) about an hour away from Pittsburgh, in Shanksville, PA. I remember trying to find the words to explain the events to my 11-year old daughter. I remember my feelings when we visited the crash site and viewed the cratered field that is now the final resting place for the passengers of Flight 93.

Those are memories that I will carry with me for the rest of my life. To me, though, those memories should be used to do things which would honor those who fell that day and not as an excuse for disliking something.

You mentioned "Independence Day" as a film that sensationalized the terrible 9/11 attacks. I can't disagree more. Do you remember the scene where Mr. Case flies his jet directly into the alien's primary weapon, sacrificing himself? Is that any different than Todd Beamer and the other 42 passengers of Flight 93 who brought down the plane?

[Eric Paddon]

Originally Posted by BST

Sorry but, I can't seem to reconcile your discontent with today's offerings and your appreciation of previous disaster flicks like "The Poseidon Adventure", "Towering Inferno", "Earthquake", etc.

I'd only point out that I did not mention "Earthquake" which I happen to think is a very bad movie with a bad script. I only mentioned "Poseidon Adventure" and "Towering Inferno" and the latter I think works because it is for all intents and purposes a big-screen epic quality episode of the TV show "Emergency!" on many levels, particularly embodied by Steve McQueen's fire chief. McQueen is simply shown responding to this disaster doing his job, and isn't given a bunch of contrived emotional connections like having to rescue a wife or daughter who happens to be attending the party. That Jack Webb style level of professionalism is what elevates the film above the latter day counterparts IMO.

And while it would be a stretch to call both films high-brow, they nontheless had an Oscar winning scriptwriter in Stirling Silliphant who I think its safe to say knew how to write better than the script writers we have today.

[BST]

Originally Posted by Eric Paddon

I only mentioned "Poseidon Adventure" and "Towering Inferno" and the latter I think works because it is for all intents and purposes a big-screen epic quality episode of the TV show "Emergency!" on many levels, particularly embodied by Steve McQueen's fire chief. McQueen is simply shown responding to this disaster doing his job, and isn't given a bunch of contrived emotional connections like having to rescue a wife or daughter who happens to be attending the party. That Jack Webb style level of professionalism is what elevates the film above the latter day counterparts IMO.

And while it would be a stretch to call both films high-brow, they nontheless had an Oscar winning scriptwriter in Stirling Silliphant who I think its safe to say knew how to write better than the script writers we have today.

I agree that Steve McQueen turned in a noteworthy performance in "Towering Inferno". I just wanted you to see that in some of the later movies like Independence Day, there were moments that were equally noteworthy. 2012 is, at the end, a dramatization of the Great Flood (without the 40 days of rain).

[skippercollecto]

I've got a completely different topic question. In all the information I've read about the movie 2012 in the past 10 days, how is it that none of what I've found mentions Lost Horizon, either the book or the movie? The mountains of Tibet scenes were straight from that story, but somehow, the subject has been ignored. Or am I the only person out there who watches both contemporary disaster movies and old movies?

Mary

P.S. I actually first read the book Lost Horizon when I was in sixth grade (almost 40 years ago! yikes!), long before I ever saw either version of the movie.

[Darrell Lawrence]

I thought 2012 was pretty good. Sure, you've seen disaster films before, just like you've seen other types of films that repeat themes, etc.

However, if you *really* want DRAMA, then watch Karen Black in the pilot seat in "Airport 1975". Now THERE is DRAMA. CHARACTER DEPTH!








































...ok. Being sarcastic about Airport 1975

[skippercollecto]

When I saw TDAT I noticed that some of the later scenes were reminiscent of the ice palace scenes in Dr. Zhivago. I mentioned them at the time on different groups and, again, no one else had noticed the similarities. However, when TDAT came out of on DVD and I listened to Roland's commentary, he himself mentioned Dr. Zhivago. So perhaps when 2012 comes out on DVD he will mentioned Lost Horizon.
Or do I just watch too many old movies?!

[skippercollecto]

In one of the panel sessions with Glen Larson at one of the Galactica reunion conventions, he mentioned that his original Galactica concept, in the early 1970s, was the idea that something happened to Earth--or it was destroyed--so ships left Earth to head out to the stars. It was only later that Glen switched the direction of the ships to come to Earth instead.
I don't remember if he said that the abandonment of Earth was someone else's idea, or whose it was. Does anyone remember?
One of the websites I read regarding 2012 was that the arks were originally conceived as spaceships, not boats. There's speculation that the alternate ending will be included on 2012's DVD.
I know that Roland Emmerich copies a lot of others' ideas (see previous posts) but, truthfully, I doubt that he knew of Glen Larson's original story idea in the early 1970s.

[Gemini1999]

I just saw that 2012 had recently moved to the "cheap seat" theater around the corner from me at Sunrise Mall. It's the only theater in the Sacramento area that's still playing it. I think I know how I'm going to spend my Sunday afternoon....

It's not coming out on DVD until the middle of March or so - this will be my last chance to see it until then, so I'm going to take in a low cost movie to pass away a rainy Sunday afternoon.

The one great thing about seeing a disaster movie is that it's all fiction - when the movie's over, you leave the theater and the world is still there!

Bryan

[skippercollecto]

Did you see the movie?

[Gemini1999]

Originally Posted by skippercollecto

Did you see the movie?

Mary -

I've already seen it once when it first came out. As it turned out, I ran short of time yesterday and didn't get to the theatre. I'm off on Wednesday, so I'm making that a priority.

It's definitely worth a second look and I plan on buying the film on DVD when it's available.

Bryan

[Gemini1999]

Well -

I finally made the time to attend another screening of 2012 - I must say that since it's been awhile, I forgot what a rollercoaster ride this movie was. I think that I enjoyed it even more the second time. I just can't get over how eye popping the VFX are in this film. Just the scope, size and complexity of the CGI, not to mention live action effects are just hard to wrap my brain around. Then again, when very nearly destroying every land mass on the planet, I wouldn't expect anything less.

The one aspect of the film that always grabs me and almost has me misty eyed is the "people" aspect of the story. There's a wonderful theme running through parts of the film of whether people would "do the right thing" in terms of catastrophe. The lead characters and their family face some pretty perilous issues during the course of the film and it gets to me every time. Heck, I might even go back and see it another time - at 3.75 for a ticket, it's a small price for big entertainment.

I'm really looking forward to this film making its way to DVD (March 6th if I remember correctly). I plan on making this a permanent choice for my DVD collection.

Bryan

[skippercollecto]

I went back and watched it again at the second-run theater last Sunday. In the two months since I first saw it, I read a lot about the movie and its characters, and so some of the sequences made more sense to me the second time. The first time I saw the movie, I thought it was rather disjointed and I had a little trouble following who all was related to whom.
However, I still didn't like the last half hour! First of all, I got tired of sitting and was ready for the movie to be over at the 2 hour 15 minute mark. I just thought that last 30 minutes dragged, and the ending could have been edited and/or rewritten.

[Gemini1999]

Mary -

Sorry that you didn't enjoy the latter part of the film. Actually, I like that part as it has a lot of human interaction stuff and drives home the point brought up in the film about humanity having the capacity to extend itself to those in need when it can.

The DVD is coming out today and I'm stopping by my local Best Buy on the way home tonight!

Bryan

[Eric Paddon]

Originally Posted by BST

I just wanted you to see that in some of the later movies like Independence Day, there were moments that were equally noteworthy. 2012 is, at the end, a dramatization of the Great Flood (without the 40 days of rain).

But ultimately without God. And when you note how this film goes out of its way to express as its underlying message that the world in the wake of this disaster needs to discard all aspects of specifically the *Christian* religion, the offensive aspect of this film to those like me who take such things seriously is impossible to disregard.

How we've come a long ways from the days when "When Worlds Collide" gave us a framing device rooted in the point that man will *not* lose his need for God and God's word even in the event of global catastrophe.

[BST]

Originally Posted by Eric Paddon

But ultimately without God. And when you note how this film goes out of its way to express as its underlying message that the world in the wake of this disaster needs to discard all aspects of specifically the *Christian* religion, the offensive aspect of this film to those like me who take such things seriously is impossible to disregard.

How we've come a long ways from the days when "When Worlds Collide" gave us a framing device rooted in the point that man will *not* lose his need for God and God's word even in the event of global catastrophe.

Do you know that for sure? I just don't seem to recall that being mentioned. What's more, the eventual home is going to be Africa which, according to the movie, never flooded. Since Christianity is well established in Africa, perhaps it won't be so difficult to re-start it.

[Eric Paddon]

Originally Posted by BST

Do you know that for sure? I just don't seem to recall that being mentioned. What's more, the eventual home is going to be Africa which, according to the movie, never flooded. Since Christianity is well established in Africa, perhaps it won't be so difficult to re-start it.

Let's start with the obvious points:

1-Who among the characters in this movie that resort to prayer in the traditional sense, survive? None.

2-Why are the producers so hell-bent determined to give us imagery of *Christian* monuments and shrines, the Vatican, the Sistine ceiling (and is it just coincidence that the first crack is in the part that shows Adam reaching out to God?) and the Christ statue in Rio crumbling, to the exclusion of shrines of other faiths?

3-The movie then tells us this is the start of the "Year 1". Yes, let's do away with the old world symbolically once and for all by ending a dating system that uses the birth of Christ as the focal point!

4-As for ending up in Africa, I suspect the filmmakers are hoping they will be finding their own stereotypical concept of Africa, a place filled with non-westernized natives who continue to practice pantheistic type enviro-style religions if any.