I survived 2012

This is a little overdue, but I need to report that I did sit through the 2 hour and 38 minute *facepalm* experience that was the movie 2012.  I was invited by Christian, and well, there’s no better way to see this movie than with people who will stay up til all hours of the morning humorously ripping it apart with you.  And, apparently he and Maria have a penchant for watching bad movies.  So we went to see it with a small gaggle of astronomers and skeptics from CVille (okay we all fit in my car), not knowing it was 158 minutes long.  Wow.

Of course, you can already read some fantastic reviews by Rebecca of Skepchick, Ian O’Neill over at Discovery, and at Christian’s The Man Version. To chime in with those: the CGI was pretty effing cool, the movie was LONG and the characters uninteresting, women were reduced to useless whiners, and the bad science was barely justified.  Here’s what sticks out in my head all these weeks later (needless to say, with spoilers):

Super-neutrinos. WHAAA? A solar flare (which has to do with the sun’s surface) is caused by a planetary alignment (must be a new property of gravity) sends off a wave of neutrinos (which come from the sun’s interior) but they aren’t BORING neutrinos that barely interact with matter but SUPER ones that pass unimpeded through the actors but heat up the Earth’s core or mantle or whatever layer was mentioned depending on who was talking.  It would be bad enough to base the movie on the silly pseudo-science surrounding the 2012 nonsense as it is, but they had to make up their own silly pseudo-science to make the plot attempt to stick.  At the very least, it gave those in our row a big laugh.

CGI everything. Okay, watching Yellowstone explode was cool.  But some visceral part of me wants for something to be actually destroyed.  A model, a car, something.  This hit me in one of the very first disaster scenes as the main characters are driving through a series of white picket fences. I noticed that the fence shards were CG.  C’mon, can’t you bust up just ONE fence for me and my $9?!

Roland Emmerich thinks we’re morons.  I guess we are for coming along to see this movie, but nevertheless… the cheesy jokes and over the top symbolism that is cliche for any bad movie simply saturated this flick.  The wholesale destruction of various religious monuments gave a “God says eff you” feel to the flick, but he had to rub it in when the wave of destruction hit the Sistine Chapel and a crack running along the ceiling went OUT OF ITS WAY to split exactly between the fingers of God and Adam.  WOW.  Thanks for being so SUBTLE.

THAT’S what you call a happy ending? All of humanity is pretty much dead with almost a hour left to go in the film which centers around these arks that are to carry a minuscule percentage of the Earth’s population (mostly politicians and rich people) and their art to safety.  I wanted spaceships, I got arks. You just DESTROYED THE PLANET and you want me to care that John Cusack is stuck in a water-filled compartment? Check, please.  But at the end they had these few survivors prancing out of the ark onto new land and we’re supposed to be happy about this? I was totally expecting a rainbow and a dove like in all those cartoon versions of Noah’s Ark that I had to watch as a kid.

For all the complaining, it was worth it for the funny and to say I survived it, but I’d recommend only watching it if you have fast-forward as an option.

And if you are really worried about 2012, check out this cool visualization by Information is Beautiful. I have a small beef with the skeptics side which agrees that precession has a beginning or end point or a length of time for termination… I don’t think there is a particular end point, nor does precession changing by half a degree mean anything significant. Minor point, and if someone knows why they said that, I’d like to be corrected!

Then again, maybe we are in trouble…

Click for the rest…

20 comments for “I survived 2012

  1. November 29, 2009 at 17:24

    I saw that film too…
    Computer graphics is very good – all that could be destroyed was destroyed ;-)
    About main idea of film – of course, i do not bellive in end of the word in 2012.

  2. November 29, 2009 at 18:02

    I saw that film on the first day and even settled for the awful seats on the corner. All for one lousy and dumbfounding movie. The end was pathetic. At least if the Russian guys gf lived It’d have been worth my pop corn.

  3. _7654_
    November 29, 2009 at 18:09

    It is also amazing, bar the impossibly bad science regarding the “teen aged mutants chilly hot neutrinos ” and the other, completely marginal issue, of cooling the earth’s core, mantle, crust whatever to normal temperature levels would have taken at least a billion years and most likely would have boiled the oceans away, leaving the arcs stranded somewhere …, that the author/ director did not find the selection method so repulsively immoral from the get go.
    a billion euro for a seat. needless to say, the final act of severalty to save the stranded passengers of the broken arc , those passengers did pay the billion euro each for them to be there in the first place…

  4. November 29, 2009 at 18:27

    LMAO- this is a great review. This movie was awful. I was SO pissed. I waited for a year to see it, I was so excited. I really thought this was going to be one of the best movies ever and it just totally sucked. I think I hated everything about it. I couldn’t even laugh at how stupid it was, I was just too pissed off and disgusted about the whole situation lmao. It’s pretty much like it had nothing to do with 2012- it had nothing to do with anything, really. It was like “One day there will be a lot of explosions on earth- in various places. You won’t know when. You won’t know why. There will be arks but you won’t be on them.” It just sucked so so bad.

  5. November 29, 2009 at 20:00

    Nominated for oscar best film animation.. good film anyway

  6. November 29, 2009 at 22:05

    I actually met someone the other day who LIKED the movie… they LIKED the fact that Emmerich had the balls to expose the TRUTH about 2012. Needless to say I smacked them in the nose, rifled through their jacket, grabbed their wallet and stole all their money. Their cash is now safe with me and they can’t go and buy another 2012 doomsday book.

    Ha! I showed them.

    I didn’t actually assault someone. But I did meet someone who liked 2012. I hated it with all of my soul (there’s not much hate in there, but it’s all I have).

    Great review by the way, and I wholeheartedly agree with you about the “arks” — if they had spaceships I probably would have enjoyed the movie a little more. I think they could have laid on even more CGI and CGI the HELL out of the Solar System. Why stop at Earth? Doomsday the sh*t out of Mars, Venus and Jupiter too. Oh, and blow up Pluto, we have no use for that pebble.
    :D

    Cheers, Ian

    • November 29, 2009 at 23:49

      Only Buzz Aldrin can punch out conspiracy theorists, don’t you know this?

      Also, you probably just made a bunch of third graders cry with that last comment ;-)

  7. apocalypsecakes
    November 29, 2009 at 22:43

    After sitting through that you deserve an Apocalypse Cake.
    http://apocalypsecakes.wordpress.com

    • November 29, 2009 at 23:49

      Those are AWESOME!

      • apocalypsecakes
        November 30, 2009 at 11:22

        Thanks! And thank you for teaching me about super-neutrinos!

  8. 013
    November 29, 2009 at 23:15

    Hilarious review! Thanks for saving me $9. Maybe I’ll catch this disaster when it hits cable.

    Your description of a CGI-heavy, character-, story-, and science-light film fit right in with Transformers and several other films I have heard about recently. I think the movie industry is following a sad trend here.

    I spent my money on The Blindside instead, which ended up being an excellent movie. I’m not a big Sandra Bullock fan, but the story and acting were very good, and they didn’t need CGI to make it happen.

  9. November 30, 2009 at 01:02

    A great film.
    Because I’m a atheist, so I think we will get a better life in 2012, instead death.

    Some of my friends have been watched this film began to worry about their future. Aha, I know this is very funny. Just come on, if whole thing in the film is real. I can’t afford that 1 billion EUR, so I got nothing to afraid.

  10. November 30, 2009 at 03:37

    the film is bad,

  11. November 30, 2009 at 04:31

    LMAO! Best review ever!!

  12. November 30, 2009 at 04:58

    Very amusing review! That’s exactly what I expect from that flick. That’s why I won’t spend money to go and watch it…! Come on, even Douglas Adams’ end of the World makes more sense than this. Plus, it’s more bureaucratic.

    CGI fences + super-neutrinos + end-of-the-world-crab = thanks for the laugh.

  13. November 30, 2009 at 05:24

    Great review!

    As expected, this Hollywood product is just a cartoon of the 2012 theories. A poor materialistic view about the changes we´re facing, all transferred to a particular date… Because it´s not Earth´s crust what will become unestable, but the boundary between the physical and the psychic world that´s actually crunching. And scaring people is precisely what keeps them inside the isolated egg that ego may represent. So don´t be a frightened egg-head, and have the courage to ask yourself what today´s accelerated changes really represent to you. Well, just if you feel you have to. That´s, in my opinion, the best we might take from this movie.

  14. November 30, 2009 at 08:22

    Best review ever! Thanks a lot!

  15. November 30, 2009 at 09:09

    Great review!

    The whole 2012 “we are all going to die” is a little much for me. I won’t be finish paying off my car by then and I have some student loans. Gosh, maybe I should forgo paying for anything and just enjoy life or build an ark or something.

    http://anlimarey.wordpress.com/

  16. Tim
    December 1, 2009 at 14:14

    I think I’ll bit-torrent this, or at least wait for the 2nd run. I really, really want to see it for maximum ridiculosity, but I’m just not willing to spend $10 on it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *