2012 (Roland Emmerich + Disaster + END OF THE WORLD!) - Page 3  

Didn't they just cover similar ground in "Knowing"?

Think of Knowing as a worst case scenario, whereas 2012 is a pretty freaking awful but not extinction-level scenario.

 They just showed some new footage at the end of "The Mentalist".  Even if the story stinks...The effects just make you want to go see it anyway.  It truly is amazing how far computer graphics have come.  So realistic.

I saw that clip at the end of The Mentalist and my goodness, i've never seen mass destruction done so nerve shatteringly well in any movie i've seen.

All over this thing!

And that was on a TV screen, imagine it on a full-size theater screen with digital surround sound.

Emmerich + B-actors = garbage, but Emmerich plus this cast could be fun.

But the preview is driving me crazy because I keep shouting at the pilot to pull up and fly above all the mayhem. I mean really.

Seriously! Glad someone else pointed this out. They're taking off in like a Lear Jet and still after what must have been about 30 seconds after they "took off" they were still flying through canyons of destruction and dodging falling freeway all around them. If the rest of this film is that dumb then this film is a real piece of garbage. I've been less than impressed by Emmerich since ID4 and that was at a time when an effects film like that was somewhat fresh.

I'm extremely worried that this will be a 2.5 hour movie, and it will have about 10 minutes of kick-ass special effect destruction (much of what we've seen in the trailers) and the other 2+ hours of it will just be horrible cookie cutter character moments that will make you want to fall asleep. 

What?  You want interesting, well written characters in a movie?  You're SO picky. 

I often feel that way about Michael Bay pictures, but Roland Emmerich pictures usually deliver on the spectacle from beginning to end. Independence Day remains among the most effective blockbusters ever made, and the rest of his pictures at the very least keep your attention throughout. None of which is to say that we're unlikely to get cookie cutter characters, just that we won't have to endure them in a vacuum.

I just hope the movie doesn't have too much Amanda Peet. I must be the only male in America that can't stand her.

That new trailer looks wicked. I'm very excited, should make for one kick-ass Blu-ray for the HT.

Regarding the jet flying low, it looked to me that since the entire continent (the portion LA sits on anyway) was heaving upwards at an alarming rate and angle, it meant that it was matching the plane as it gained altitude?

I just assumed the plane's flying low because the pilot is more concerned with avoiding what is directly in his path rather than trying to pull up and avoid fall objects at the same time. That and because they want a cool looking effects scene.

For me, that trailer turned me off to see this film as it looked ridiculous to me.





Crawdaddy

It seems a lot of people have forgotten about the 'Popcorn movie" concept. Folks - can't you just sit back and enjoy a mindless disaster flick for what it is - entertainment? Its a movie, nothing more. If I sat around nitpicking every movie I ever saw I wouldn't get past the first ten minutes of it.

I can, yes, but why should I have to?  There are lots of movies that, for the same ticket price, not only entertain me, but also move me, inspire me, and make me think.  Why should I be satisfied with a movie that merely entertains when, for the same price, I can see one that accomplishes so much more?

No one could possibly forget about the concept of a "popcorn movie",  because some verision of this point gets made about, oh, every ten minutes or so.

Not everyone has the same taste in popcorn movies. Not everyone agrees on what makes a good popcorn movie. And then, of course, not everyone likes popcorn (but anyone who doesn't probably wouldn't have the slightest interest in a Roland Emmerich film).

Emmerich has one of the most erratic track records of any big-budget director working today (even more so than Michael Bay, IMO). My approach to any of his films is always wait-and-see.

I always try to keep an open mind (even when the movie is based on an utterly ridiculous premise like doomsday is coming in 2012) but if I don't end up liking this movie, it won't because of snobbery- it'll be because it's not a good movie.

Opposite reaction here, the trailer made me want to see it even more.



Whats wrong with enjoying a film that merely entertains? Are we all snoots here?  Many films this year entertained me, even some of the bad movies entertained me. They won't find a place in my 100 favourite movie list, but I still got something out of watching it, whether it's a feast for my eyes or a good chuckle. I don't look for excuses to hate or miss a movie.



Last years 30,000 BC was abominable, with some critics complaining that it wasn't violent enough for the story it was telling. But I enjoyed some of the visuals.




That's right. Though not being "a good movie" hasn't always stopped me from enjoying movies that a lot of people actively disliked. It may be a character flaw on my part, but I can live with that.

I liked The Day After Tomorrow, but the trailers for this give me a bad feeling.

I made a comment about a trailer that turned me off in seeing an upcoming film, that's it.  That's not an indictment on anybody else that may have an opposite view of that trailer and/or film.  In short, getting into a long played-out old argument about what constitutes a good popcorn movie or accusations that I'm being a film snob are issues that don't need to be discussed right now.  At least on my part, others can do as they please.





Crawdaddy

There's nothing wrong with calling it like you see it. And eventhough I hated Transformers 2, I gotta give it to you for not being 'afraid' to say that you liked it when so many people acted like that movie beat them up and took their chocolate milk money.

Okay Robert no harm done. I think we can all agree this film won't have a snowballs chance in hell of being nominated for Best Picture in next years Oscars... I dunno though didn't they increase the noms from 5 to 10?

Michael your review of Transformers 2 was a shocker, and instantly set you apart from some of your colleagues.

I wasn't embarrassed in admitting to enjoying TF2 Travis, but the amount of hatred from people who hadn't even seen the film yet was making me angry. And than I saw Michael's review and I felt a bit better about it.

Neither do I (no one WANTS movies to be bad).  On the other hand, if good REASONS to hate or miss a movie are quite obvious to me, I won't willfully ignore them.  I see no reason not to focus on that which is entertaining by being good.
Edited by RobertR - 10/13/09 at 1:38pm

My general disdain for most "mindless popcorn" flicks is that their boffo box-office returns (which typically greenlight sequels before the first weekend is over) make it increasingly difficult for smaller-budget, less VFX-heavy, thoughtful films to compete (or even get made in the first place).  In my mind, it's creating a snowball effect that could spiral to "Idiocracy" levels if we're not careful.

There are silly movies that I want to see, but I make a point of waiting until home video to watch them - I don't feel like I want to contribute to their box-office returns (never mind that having 1-year old twins makes it impossible for me to actually go to theaters anymore, but I digress... )

I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere that movies like this actually help indie films. With the big profits from blockbusters, studios can take chances on indie films because they can risk the loss.

Perhaps you're right.  But I'm equally disappointed by the idea that a $45 million "smart" film can be viewed as a bigger risk than a $200 million "popcorn" movie.

Could lead to Idiocracy? I think that world is only a matter of time.

That being said, I don't blame the studios. They're just giving people what they want. If 500 Days Of Summer or Away We Go (for example) made $200 million, you'd see more movies like that.