*** Official 2012 Discussion Thread - Page 2

Cameron did that in Terminator 2 as well, with a child playing with a truck, didn't he? And Singer destroyed an entire city playset in Superman Returns.

It's not only bad directors who do that.

In DAT, people fled to lower latitudes. It wasn't politically correct, it was just that Mexico happens to be south of the US!

In 2012, the ships' destination of Africa was just a shorthand way of saying that just as humans once before spread out from Africa to the rest of the globe, so they will again. It didn't need to be Africa, but the promise of humanity again repopulating the Earth wouldn't have been as obvious -- and obvious is all Emmerich knows.

I thought the movie made it abundantly clear she drowned - I don't think we needed the shot of the dog at the end to confirm that.

I also thought she should've survived if just because she loved that dog so much!  Anyone that devoted to their dog is okay by me! 

Am I the only one who thinks it was a big continuity goof that the dog ended up with the twins when the pooch should've been with the little girl?  

But it was the kind of movie where an improbable reversal of fate wouldn't have been surprising. "Oh no she's dead! ...No wait, she's alive!"

I never picked up his name either.

Very entertaining film despite the ridiculousness of some of the close calls, especially with the airplanes. Roland Emmerich is definitely the modern king of the disaster flick.

Have to say I saw this with probably the best behaved audience I've sat with in awhile. No cell phones, no talking, no people constantly running in/out of the theater. Everyone was glued to the screen from start to finish and there was even a smattering of applause at the end, which hardly ever happens in theaters around here.

lol, never thought i'd read Cameron, Singer and Emmerich in the same thread .

Re: T2, obviously there is a correlation of John, Sara's child, humanity symbolized in the child playing w/the truck, the whole playground representing peaceful times, etc. it was still serving plot/character solidly. plus it helped to shed light into why Sarah is the way she is in that sequence.

Re: Superman Returns, despite me not liking the film, it was still 'barebones' working/service-able. the destruction of the toy model reveals luther's evil inside/greed/character, furthers the plotpoint of where the film is going.

but the best Emmerich can do is: oh look, 'child of the world' playing w/toy boat. boat overturns, oh no. boo. does it further any of the characters? nope. the only thing it does is point towards where the film is going to end like SR, but it's sad that that is the only function of that scene and it really feels like a throwaway scene. if you did cut it most of 2012 & just LEFT the scenes of destruction, i think it'd've been powerful.

this reminds me a lot of Pearl Harbor, would've been great if you just left people w/the visceral impact o the devastation.

You nailed it for me Nelson.  My son wanted to see this so off we went.  Have to say this was one of the more palatable Emmerich films.  It was the best cast of all his films.  No one annoyed me, except the usually enjoyable Platt, but he was a tad over the top for my tastes.

Caught a matinee of this today and thought it was pretty awful. The destruction scenes were good, but 2 hrs, 40 min. was EXCRUCIATINGLY LONG!!! I didn't care for The Day After Tomorrow at all, but I think I'd almost prefer to sit through it again over 2012 even though they're practically the same movie when you get down to it. I'd give it a very big

I suppose, but I didn't think she was an important enough character for them to bring her back to life.  She got a semi-heroic death, so I was sure she was dead and not gonna come back later...

That's a good one...  drop a nuke into the earth core to fix the problem.  Isn't that already in a movie from back when?  The visuals were impressive but they'll be just as impressive on a 60" at home.  You're right about the Deep Impact with copycat tidal waves and cruise ship that was overturned.  How about the scene right before the USS Kennedy slams on top of the White House, from the wrong side.  Glover gets up from being covered with ash much like the scene in Volcano.  Have all the writers left the building?

2012 is a very nice movie and is directed by a tallented director who has already given Independence day and day after tomorrow kind of most famous movies. In 2009, 2012 has really done good business and attracted many people on theaters.

Yep, over $767 million worldwide so far.

Watched it again last night for the second time.  Still love it, but a couple of things jumped out at me:

-They mention the Vice President's helicopter (or plane) going down near Pittsburgh in the ash cloud generated by the Yellowstone eruption. The very next scene is in Las Vegas where the ash cloud has not yet arrived. Isn't Las Vegas a lot closer to Yellowstone than Pittsburgh? Wouldn't the ash cloud have reached there first?

-Near the end, the computer displays seem to indicate the height of the tsunami wave approaching the arks is around 1500 feet. So if the wave is only 1500 feet high, how is it that so much water is reaching the heights of the Himalayas and almost to the summit of Mt. Everest at nearly 30,000 feet to imperil the arks?

Obviously there is very little realistic in this film (we can hope and pray), but those seemed like two obvious goofs that jumped out during a casual viewing.

A little disappointed with the LFE on the DVD.  I turned on the bass boost during the action scenes as the sound seemed a little less-than-impressive without it.