John Crichton 4 Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 2012 doesn't have ID4's greatest joy: the score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 2012 has an overwhelming amount of problems. The score does a complete rip of The Dark Knight at the end, just like 10,000 B.C. did with King Arthur.I also don't get all the love for the special effects. They were average, nothing we haven't seen before. Some of them were really great, others really bad. Not to mention the awful green screen in almost every shot. The fact that we don't get the actors in any of the sequences takes you out of it, you feel like you're watching a CGI film, which you are. So when you cut between the actors in a vehicle with some limited destruction through the windows, and the actual wide shots, it looks stupid.3 close-call, highly convenient plane chases in a row = HUGE mistake. The whole Woody Harrelson subplot could have been cut, which would have removed 40-60 minutes from the runtime, making the film much better.More proof that Roland Emmerich doesn't think. "Hey, let's make the sequel and call it 2013"... except you restarted the Earth calendar for no reason at the end and it's now Year 1, not 2013.Why was Gordon wearing the headset in the first 2 plane chases? It's not like he was talking to anybody that wasn't right next to him.Terrible slow-motion, which seems to be a recurring problem with Emmerich. I lost it and bursted out laughing when the Russian fell.The list goes on and on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genius_Gone_Insane 5 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 2012 has an overwhelming amount of problems. The score does a complete rip of The Dark Knight at the end, just like 10,000 B.C. did with King Arthur.I also don't get all the love for the special effects. They were average, nothing we haven't seen before. Some of them were really great, others really bad. Not to mention the awful green screen in almost every shot. The fact that we don't get the actors in any of the sequences takes you out of it, you feel like you're watching a CGI film, which you are. So when you cut between the actors in a vehicle with some limited destruction through the windows, and the actual wide shots, it looks stupid.3 close-call, highly convenient plane chases in a row = HUGE mistake. The whole Woody Harrelson subplot could have been cut, which would have removed 40-60 minutes from the runtime, making the film much better.More proof that Roland Emmerich doesn't think. "Hey, let's make the sequel and call it 2013"... except you restarted the Earth calendar for no reason at the end and it's now Year 1, not 2013.Why was Gordon wearing the headset in the first 2 plane chases? It's not like he was talking to anybody that wasn't right next to him.Terrible slow-motion, which seems to be a recurring problem with Emmerich. I lost it and bursted out laughing when the Russian fell.The list goes on and on...I disagree with pretty much everything you say here. (I don't know enough to disagree with the score rip-off) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Oh and I forgot about the bad Arnold impersonator. That had me laughing a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 3 close-call, highly convenient plane chases in a row = HUGE mistake.Not to mention the repetative car sequences, all of which involving a jump of some kind.The whole Woody Harrelson subplot could have been cut, which would have removed 40-60 minutes from the runtime, making the film much better.No way, Harrelson was one of the best things in the movie. Lots of other things could have been cut, the whole final action setpiece should have been half as long at best.More proof that Roland Emmerich doesn't think. "Hey, let's make the sequel and call it 2013"... except you restarted the Earth calendar for no reason at the end and it's now Year 1, not 2013.I thought that was very poignant, signifying that this was a whole new start. The 2013 series is just a rumor.The list goes on and on...How did this "planetary alignment" affect the sun? It's never explained, like it and the solar flares/nutrinos were just two unconnected events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Do you think the humor in it was intentional? I think the only part that was meant to be funny were the two old ladies driving in front of them. Although I was laughing at how they died. I mean, the Russian guy falling had to be a joke.I also thought it was funny that they had cameras everywhere in the ship. When John Cusack went to dislodge the thing in the gears, there was a camera right in his face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Do you think the humor in it was intentional?Some of it. Certainly not everything we laughed at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AI 0 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Just wait until it happens for real. It probably won't be so funny then. And no, you can't escape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 I thought swine flu was going to kill us all before then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,059 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Well hell John, since we only have 3 years left we'd better get this party started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AI 0 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 5% from the flu. The rest, in the next three years. Yes it's time to party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Well hell John, since we only have 3 years left we'd better get this party started.Texas will survive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 I'll fall into the sea. Buh-bye, Australia! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Africa will prevail, everyone move there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Africa will prevail, everyone move there!You mean, go back to where it [humanity] all began? Why not, let's make the circle complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,059 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 In 3 years I probably won't even care. We'll spend the 21st opening Christmas presents since the 24th and 25th won't happen.I'll be in mid joy after opening a spectacular present and won't even notice when the earth goes kaboom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 I'll be in my basement reading the Bible with a flashlight, cramming for the Final Exam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,792 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 In 3 years I probably won't even care. We'll spend the 21st opening Christmas presents since the 24th and 25th won't happen.Cool, i have to work on the 24th and 25th, so YEAH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Africa will prevail, everyone move there!You mean, go back to where it [humanity] all began? Why not, let's make the circle complete.Yes, I believe that was the point Emmerich was trying to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Well if that's one of his points, does he also have God or Jesus returning to Earth at the end of the movie? If Year 0 is conventionally accepted to be soon after the birth of Jesus, which kicked off the anno domini (A.D.) date structure, then does total global cataclysm instigate a great New Age for humanity? Or is the Vatican destroyed by Emmerich's CGI apocalypse, letting John Cusack and friends remake the world as they want without holy intercession?I didn't see it yet, so my comments are not entirely tongue out of cheek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 The Vatican is destroyed, and a conveniently placed crack comes between Adam and God's finger. So maybe Emmerich is trying to say God isn't real. Or maybe he just doesn't know what the hell he is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Well I suppose if the film dabbled too much in that area, Kirk Cameron would cry foul. After all, 2012 is a Mayan thing, not necessarily Judeo-Christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,059 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Or perhaps Emmerich just likes destroying famous landmarks, regardless of any message.Besides the Maya Calender doesn't depict the end of the world, just the end of the cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genius_Gone_Insane 5 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 The Vatican is destroyed, and a conveniently placed crack comes between Adam and God's finger. So maybe Emmerich is trying to say God isn't real. Or maybe he just doesn't know what the hell he is doing.HAHA!!! That's really funny!! Nice!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Do you think the humor in it was intentional?Some of it. Certainly not everything we laughed at.Anyone who thinks Emmerich didn't have his tongue surgically grafted to his cheek when he made this needs to get out more. This was about as dumb as action movies get and yet people still try to take these rides seriously.It's not just here that I've heard it either - I shit you not - on the way out of the cinema I heard this one dumb bint complain to her fella "it was too far-fetched" -- She actually said that about 2012. No doubt she went straight home and tuned into Eastenders on telly, the gormless sod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,792 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Or perhaps Emmerich just likes destroying famous landmarks, regardless of any message.I saw a small promo interview, and he said he does that because seeing them being destroyed may make people valorate those monuments more.or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Besides the Maya Calender doesn't depict the end of the world, just the end of the cycle.My theory is that the calendar guy died and they figured they covered enough to let it slide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 In 3 years I probably won't even care. We'll spend the 21st opening Christmas presents since the 24th and 25th won't happen.I'll be in mid joy after opening a spectacular present and won't even notice when the earth goes kaboom.Bull. You'll be in bed with your wife. Well if that's one of his points, does he also have God or Jesus returning to Earth at the end of the movie?Nope.The Vatican is destroyed, and a conveniently placed crack comes between Adam and God's finger. So maybe Emmerich is trying to say God isn't real. Or maybe he just doesn't know what the hell he is doing.He's going for pointless symbolism without really having a clue what he's trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightscape94 965 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 The Vatican is destroyed, and a conveniently placed crack comes between Adam and God's finger. So maybe Emmerich is trying to say God isn't real. Or maybe he just doesn't know what the hell he is doing.I think you are reading way too much into this. I would think that Emmerich was more concerned with how interesting the visual was rather than any secret agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 I think he just wanted to blow shit up. Famous shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 But he didn't show anything in New York! Which is very surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docteur Qui 1,544 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 I for one was mighty disturbed by the destruction. I very recently lost a loved one and have seen the effects of that one person ripple through many, many others, and I just can't get my mind around the billions that were slaughtered for entertainment on screen. Not once was the gravity of the loss of almost the entire human race convincingly displayed on screen. It was a shocked expression and some relieved laughing. Pretty much it. I know this is popcorn entertainment and hardly something to be taken seriously, but I just couldn't enjoy it that much.That and the approximate 2,012 cliches present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 I love cliches and Iove seeing thousands of little cgi people dying at once. Orcs also look cool when falling to their death, as LotR proved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,059 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 I for one was mighty disturbed by the destruction. I very recently lost a loved one and have seen the effects of that one person ripple through many, many others, and I just can't get my mind around the billions that were slaughtered for entertainment on screen. Not once was the gravity of the loss of almost the entire human race convincingly displayed on screen. It was a shocked expression and some relieved laughing. Pretty much it. I know this is popcorn entertainment and hardly something to be taken seriously, but I just couldn't enjoy it that much.That and the approximate 2,012 cliches present.I just lost my father last month so I can sympathize with you. But as you said it's just a popcorn flick. I know quite a few films feature death and at times it can be hard to watch, especially after the loss of a loved one. But I usually try to avoid movies or things that might affect me for awhile after someone close to me has passed or left.For that very reason I haven't even opened my DVD of UP and it may be awhile before I watch my copy of Star Trek, both feature the loss of of loved ones in more serious terms.In 3 years I probably won't even care. We'll spend the 21st opening Christmas presents since the 24th and 25th won't happen.I'll be in mid joy after opening a spectacular present and won't even notice when the earth goes kaboom.Bull. You'll be in bed with your wife. Shhhh..... this is a family site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 So the filmmakers just went for the shock value of seeing beloved cultural landmarks destroyed. That's understandable. It grips the audience more than seeing an unnamed farm house in the middle of an unnamed midwestern state get destroyed. It's a movie centered around the destruction of the world and the end of pretty much all life as we know it. There's already one article about a certain key religious icon that they did not touch, and that's fine with me.I don't mind being symbolically killed in a movie as massive earthquakes and tsunamis consume my little corner of the globe. It's a movie.As for not showing the destruction of NYC again, it might still be too soon. There are plenty of other cities to toast in the meantime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,059 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Well Emmerich's already taken out chunks of New York in 3 of his previous films so maybe it was the ole "been there, done that" and time to show some new destruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 I would have liked to have seen the leaning tower of Pisa to finally lean all the way over! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AI 0 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Overall, I enjoyed it. it is without a doubt spectacular in effects.The characters I didn't give a rat's ass about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I for one was mighty disturbed by the destruction. I very recently lost a loved one and have seen the effects of that one person ripple through many, many others, and I just can't get my mind around the billions that were slaughtered for entertainment on screen. Not once was the gravity of the loss of almost the entire human race convincingly displayed on screen. It was a shocked expression and some relieved laughing. Pretty much it. I know this is popcorn entertainment and hardly something to be taken seriously, but I just couldn't enjoy it that much.That and the approximate 2,012 cliches present.I just lost my father last month so I can sympathize with you. But as you said it's just a popcorn flick. I know quite a few films feature death and at times it can be hard to watch, especially after the loss of a loved one. But I usually try to avoid movies or things that might affect me for awhile after someone close to me has passed or left.For that very reason I haven't even opened my DVD of UP and it may be awhile before I watch my copy of Star Trek, both feature the loss of of loved ones in more serious terms.I too am in the same boat as both of you, and the opening segment of UP was indeed extra heartbreaking (I made the 'mistake' of watching it the first time a few days ago, not really knowing what to expect). Star Trek however, didn't move me in that manner and as for 2012....well....I guess these movies have cardboard characters for a reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naïve Old Fart 9,504 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 In my very humble opinion...the only good to sruface from an Emmerich film is John WIlliams The Patriot.So go figure. I'm with you on that one, Luke. "The Patriot" is a nasty, manipulative, partisan, piece of work, that is also innacurate historically (The Brits did NOT burn people in churches!).I saw "2112"-oops, sorry, I meant "2012" last night, and I was rather taken with it. The special effects brook no arguement, and should win next March at The Oscars. What moved me about it was the questions it asked. Who gets to live, and why (if The U.K. is under water, then what exactly is The Queen queen of?). When, and how do you tell millions-no, billions-of people that they are going to die? It also served up a timely reminder that all the money in The World cannot buy you life, as the Russian billionaire found out to his cost. It had everything one could expect from a Roland Emmerich film- a cute couple, cute kids, and the obligatory cute dog. Don't expect too much from it, and it will hold your attention for 2 1/2 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 More like 3 hours. The movie was waaaay too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 In my very humble opinion...the only good to sruface from an Emmerich film is John WIlliams The Patriot.So go figure. I'm with you on that one, Luke. "The Patriot" is a nasty, manipulative, partisan, piece of work, that is also innacurate historically (The Brits did NOT burn people in churches!).Who cares about historical accuracy when the trade off is Isaacs terrific villian (who must hold the record for movie villian who kills the highest number of the protagonist's family members). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 okay, somehow i was counting Ann as family as well, and seeing that she was killed with most of her family too in the church.....yea my bad about the inflated numbers. Then again Moff Tarkin, and Nero wiped out entire planets. OKay, Isaacs did it in more personal style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 The record is two? Is that a different category from, say, Braveheart, where Edward Longshanks' policies bring about the deaths of William Wallace's father, brother, and wife. 1,2,3.But yes, Jason Isaacs was personal.I used to think of The Patriot as a similar movie for Gibson as Braveheart. I don't think it aged quite as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 The record is two? Is that a different category from, say, Braveheart, where Edward Longshanks' policies bring about the deaths of William Wallace's father, brother, and wife. 1,2,3.Different category. Main villian, preferably onscreen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 So then even "The Punisher" (newest one) wouldn't count, since those were killed by goons.This is a stumper. That might be the record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 The special effects brook no arguement, and should win next March at The Oscars.No, Star Trek should. 2012's may be more spectacular, but Trek uses them better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,059 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I found this fan made 2012 trailer somewhat amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Hah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now