2012

Nov 30, 2009 19:45

So I chickened out on seeing New Moon because it's like a million years long. Two hours and two minutes. Nobody needs that much preternatural teen sulkies. So I bought a ticket to see 2012, which started at 3:40, figuring that I probably hadn't missed much even though it was a little past 4. And I think I had missed about five minutes, because they ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 8

waltermonkey December 1 2009, 02:08:28 UTC
This was one of the few aspects I liked - it seemed realistic. I didn't ever think I was supposed to feel it was OKAY for the G8 to bone most of the rest of the world. That's just how that organization works. It's what it's for. But then I'm a cynical conspiracy theorist.

For moral conscience you have Chewie, who gets on board the ark and goes, "Hey, you could fit ten people in here! WTF???" I sort of hoped this comment would flower into an actual subplot (and I didn't really buy that in 3 years he had never seen a blueprint of the ark).

I was much more bothered by little physical details like:

If you lived in LA, why would you vacation in Yellowstone, which is 800 miles away?

If you're in the Himalayas in December, and suddenly you're treading seawater, that shit is one degree above freezing. You're instantly paralyzed.

Why would the president and Woody Harrelson commit suicide by standing in the path of the apocalypse? If you don't want to live in The Road Warrior, why not eat a bullet years before?

Reply

arcana_mundi December 1 2009, 02:17:14 UTC
Yeah, no way was he so totes uninformed about the whole process when he was neck deep in that shit.

The movie doesn't really seem anything but yawn-stretch about the survival of the rich. I didn't get the sense that anyone thought it wasn't OK, other than that one wee speech by Chewie. And the lies told by Oliver Whatsit that indicated that there was a pretty clear idea about the higher road.

The LA/Yellowstone thing bugged me too. They made it seem like it was a daytrip away. And also the water thing. The suicide thing, not so much.

Reply

waltermonkey December 1 2009, 02:33:33 UTC
The suicide thing is part of a larger problem: If the only characters who die in the first 2 hours of the film are the ones who CHOOSE to, the stakes are actually incredibly low no matter how much CG destruction you see.

One of the two kids should have died. Or one of the Russian twins. Or the stepdad. SOMEBODY.

Reply

arcana_mundi December 2 2009, 01:51:08 UTC
Dude, the stepdad totally DID die.

As far as the suicide goes, if I was going to choose to die in the apocalypse in a few years, I'd totally stick around for the orgy of fun which would be the time until it hit. I'd drink, smoke, screw, jump out of airplanes, and generally have the time of my life. But I'd kind of like to give survival a go. Not sure I'd be totes into just going down with the Titanic.

Reply


trunkbutt December 1 2009, 02:58:41 UTC
It kind of strikes me that this is just what would happen... the rich would get saved because they could afford to fund the saving. The white folk are pretty rich, so they're in the clear. Cataclysm's coming, baby, and we ain't got time to divvy up the artwork and handpick the smarties. Not good or fair, but since when it world policy either? It would be one fucked up world, but I really do think that's the world you'd end up with.

You know... when, uh, the crust of the earth goes flying all around by itself...

Reply

creases December 1 2009, 14:36:47 UTC
I'm pretty sure property rights would be the first thing to go out the window in a genuine world-destroying apocalypse.

Reply


m_nivalis December 1 2009, 09:44:42 UTC
So much word.
(I assume you've seen Cleolinda's take on it? - not sure if the community is friendslocked or not - but it's worth to join it)

Reply

arcana_mundi December 2 2009, 01:51:31 UTC
That is hilarious!

Reply


Leave a comment

Up