Phil Plaitt Has His Work Cut Out For Him....

[dudalb]

One of Our Glorious Leader's favorite pastimes is poking fun at the Bad Science that shows up in Science FIction Movies.
I just saw 2012 and , I am telling you, Phil Plaitt is going to go crazy deciding where to start with the cruddy science in this film. I think "Mutating Neutrinos" (which cause all the fuss in the film) is a good place to start.

[JFrankA]

One of Our Glorious Leader's favorite pastimes is poking fun at the Bad Science that shows up in Science FIction Movies.
I just saw 2012 and , I am telling you, Phil Plaitt is going to go crazy deciding where to start with the cruddy science in this film. I think "Mutating Neutrinos" (which cause all the fuss in the film) is a good place to start.

You know, I haven't seen the film yet, just the trailer, and I find it absolutely hilarious that a car is traveling just as fast as the crumbling rock behind it. So like, the ground is falling at a rate of exactly 60 miles per hour???? :D

Also, the scene where the plane is taking off and the ground is crumbling below it is bothering me as well. I don't fly so I don't know for sure, but if such an unlikely thing were happening, would that cause a lot of havoc with the plane's instruments? Wouldn't that also completely change the air currents and/or the magnetic field so the plane wouldn't be controllable? (Err...also make it near impossible to eventually land... :) )

[dudalb]

You know, I haven't seen the film yet, just the trailer, and I find it absolutely hilarious that a car is traveling just as fast as the crumbling rock behind it. So like, the ground is falling at a rate of exactly 60 miles per hour???? :D

Also, the scene where the plane is taking off and the ground is crumbling below it is bothering me as well. I don't fly so I don't know for sure, but if such an unlikely thing were happening, would that cause a lot of havoc with the plane's instruments? Wouldn't that also completely change the air currents and/or the magnetic field so the plane wouldn't be controllable? (Err...also make it near impossible to eventually land... :) )


You are dead right, but the film gets a lot worse then that.
We won't even get into it's blatent peddling of Conspriacy Theories...

[Pixel42]

There was an article about viral marketing in yesterday's Guardian prompted by the unexpected consequences the viral marketing for this film has had for NASA:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/nov/14/2012-roland-emmerich-viral-marketing

When Columbia Pictures launched a marketing campaign for 2012 – the latest disaster movie from serial Earth molester Roland Emmerich, where the planet, played by America, is set for impending doom – they didn't do it by halves.

First, there was a teaser trailer showing a tsunami crashing over the Himalayas. The Earth was going to end in 2012, it said, and the world's governments aren't doing enough to prepare us. Search "2012", it said, for "the truth" (the "truth" turned out to be over 1,000 real websites and 175 real books obsessed with 2012 as the end of time).

Then, there was a fake website – the "Institute for Human Continuity" – which consisted of a screen stating that for 25 years they'd been assessing threats to the continuation of mankind, and the results were in.

The "odds of global destruction" in 2012 had been confirmed at 94% (goodbye mortgage) and "to ensure your chance of survival, register for the lottery". In other words, it was a web campaign that seemed to say: "Look, the end of time might actually be coming, so enjoy a film about it why you still can, yeah?"

Many didn't get the joke. Tens of thousands from all over the world panicked, called Nasa, wrote letters – couldn't they do some saving of people too?

"I think people are really, really worried about the world coming to an end," said David Morrison of Nasa. "Kids are contemplating suicide. Adults tell me they can't sleep and can't stop crying."

Indeed, Nasa got so many queries, they set up a specific site to deal with them ...

This later comment made me laugh out loud:

Even the obviously fanciful bus-station posters for recent sci-fi hit District 9 – featuring a crossed-out alien, text saying "Bench for humans only", and a request for alien sightings – saw the marketing team get more that they bargained for. Tens of thousands called the hotline with sightings, assuming it was a real request.

[MageLite]

This later comment made me laugh out loud:

That's not funny, that's just depressing.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm looking forward to it because I love movies where the entire planet falls apart.

~~ Paul

[thatguywhojuggles]

I watched it last night and enjoyed it. Fully recognizing that it is completely ridiculous. But I love the "end of the world" genre, including zombie films.

[Horatius]

I'm looking forward to it because I love movies where the entire planet falls apart.

~~ Paul



You'll be disappointed, then. It doesn't really fall apart, it just shifts about a bit.

[JFrankA]

I'm looking forward to it because I love movies where the entire planet falls apart.

~~ Paul

May I recommend the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy? :D

[justcharlie09]

That's not funny, that's just depressing.

I have to agree. Kids contemplating suicide and their parents crying uncontrollably?

Over 2012????

Face-to-palm. It's enough to make me want to cry uncontrollably just being reminded that people are so gullible.

I won't watch the movie. Period. Now, if they make a Shawn of the Dead-type spoof version, then maybe I'll check it out.... other than that...nah...pass.

I'm too angry with the whole 2012 thing to let any $$ go to someone trying to make bank off of it. :D

[rjh01]

May I recommend the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy? :D

Best disaster movie ever made. I got the original one made for TV. No other movie since is like it.

[GanipGnop]

If you don't want to waste $10 seeing this at the theater but you want to know some of what happens in the film themoviespoiler has a short spoiler of the film. It isn't perfect but it is a bit more detailed than the movie trailer.

The link for this spoiler can be found on this page:

http://www.themoviespoiler.com/

[JFrankA]

If you don't want to waste $10 seeing this at the theater but you want to know some of what happens in the film themoviespoiler has a short spoiler of the film. It isn't perfect but it is a bit more detailed than the movie trailer.

The link for this spoiler can be found on this page:

http://www.themoviespoiler.com/

Bookmarked!!!! Thank you! :)

[dudalb]

I'm looking forward to it because I love movies where the entire planet falls apart.

~~ Paul

Problem is the film falls apart a long way before the earth does.
One of the signs of Emmerich's incompetence as a writer/director is he shows almost nothing of what the reaction of population of the world as they realized they are all gonna die dawns on them. That would take some skill as a writer and a director, which Emmerich does not possess. It's like Deep Impact made by Ed Wood.

[dudalb]

I watched it last night and enjoyed it. Fully recognizing that it is completely ridiculous. But I love the "end of the world" genre, including zombie films.


Sorry, but there are good end of the world films and bad ones, and 2012 ia a very bad one.
I HATE people who give bad films a pass because they are in a specific Genre.

[LarianLeQuella]

Also, the scene where the plane is taking off and the ground is crumbling below it is bothering me as well. I don't fly so I don't know for sure, but if such an unlikely thing were happening, would that cause a lot of havoc with the plane's instruments? Wouldn't that also completely change the air currents and/or the magnetic field so the plane wouldn't be controllable? (Err...also make it near impossible to eventually land... :) )

Well, it all depends. If the airplane is above stall speed (in some aircraft, as slow as 80 knots), what the ground is doing is totally irrelevant. As long as there is airflow over the wings that will generate enough lift to counteract the weight (and thrust to counter the drag), the baby will fly.

And instruemnts don't keep an airplane in the sky either. As long as you are able to set a pitch and power setting that you know will keep you airborne (or climbing, depending on what you want to do), then insturments are irrelevant. A fly-by-wire aircraft may have some problems, but very few aricraft are actually fly-by-wire (unless it's wires and pulleys, and those aren't the same thing, and thus unaffected by magnetic fields and the like).

As for landing, I;'ve actually landed an arplane on a grass strip. All you need to know is the weight of the airplane, the pressure altitude (also known as density altitude) and you're good to go (pressure altitude takes into account things like temperature and the actual altitude of the field). It's just a matter of finding enough flat ground. Heck, we had claculations for landing the KC-135 on the polar ice caps in the event of thermo-nuclear-war.

[NoisyAstronomer]

Saw it on Friday... I know, I know!

It is fairly amusing to laugh at the ridiculousness, but if you plan to do that, remember that it is 2 hours and 38 minutes long. That's a LOT of movie badness.

Super neutrinos FTL!

[dudalb]

Yeah, the film is vastly overlong, and except for the dumb speech by the Scientest and last minute change of heart by the Evil G8 Heads the last 40 minutes are pretty boring and devoid of unintentional laughs,but a lot of Ed Wood Style Comedy gold in the first two hours.
And the effects are very good. The CGI crew are about the only people who emerge with my respect from this fiasco.

[Niggle]

You know, I haven't seen the film yet, just the trailer, and I find it absolutely hilarious that a car is traveling just as fast as the crumbling rock behind it. So like, the ground is falling at a rate of exactly 60 miles per hour???? :D

Also, the scene where the plane is taking off and the ground is crumbling below it is bothering me as well. I don't fly so I don't know for sure, but if such an unlikely thing were happening, would that cause a lot of havoc with the plane's instruments? Wouldn't that also completely change the air currents and/or the magnetic field so the plane wouldn't be controllable? (Err...also make it near impossible to eventually land... :) )

Depends on the aircraft. Generally, the instruments you're talking about aren't "controlling" anything, just feeding you information. AFAIK, you can ignore them and fly most craft by eye, at least while you're that close to the ground.

There are exceptions. One I know of is the avionics package on a Seahawk helicopter (Sikorsky). The main difference between it and the package on its twin, the Black Hawk, is that it's made to adjust for the shifting "ground level" over the ocean. It can be set to a kind of autopilot that keeps the helicopter a set distance above the water, no matter how bad the swells are. But I don't think that would apply at takeoff, and I don't believe the movie is showing a helicopter.

In short, the ground crumbling out from under it would mess up the instrument readings, but it wouldn't matter unless the aircraft were on autopilot (disclaimer: IANA pilot).

[Hutch]

Problem is the film falls apart a long way before the earth does.
One of the signs of Emmerich's incompetence as a writer/director is he shows almost nothing of what the reaction of population of the world as they realized they are all gonna die dawns on them. That would take some skill as a writer and a director, which Emmerich does not possess. It's like Deep Impact made by Ed Wood.

He may lack skill, but the sucker of a movie made $275M for the weekend, so I'm afraid Mr. Emmerich may not understand science, but he does enjoy doing math--especially addition to this bank account....

[dudalb]

He may lack skill, but the sucker of a movie made $275M for the weekend, so I'm afraid Mr. Emmerich may not understand science, but he does enjoy doing math--especially addition to this bank account....

Just proves that PT Barnum was right,no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the public......

My own favorite WTF aviation moment is when the Russian's plane expects to refuel in Hawaii, while, basically, every single fault in the world has gone crazy with earthquake and volcanic activity, and the find they cannot refuel because Hawaii has been destroyed by Volcanic activity.Hawaii is one big Volcano, what the hell did they expect?

[Aerik]

My father's one-liner opinion on 2012:

Hey, I already seen Poseidon Adventure.

[dudalb]

My father's one-liner opinion on 2012:

The last half hour of the film, with Cusack and Company trying to sneak onto one of the Arks through a duct system, is a blatent ripoff of Poseidon Adventure,as is the capsized Ocean Liner earlier. It's like Emmerich was out to ripoff every disaster film
very made. The problem is he did so damn little with the stolen goods.

[WhatWouldZeusDo]

I think I'll just wait for the Rifftrax.

[dudalb]

I think I'll just wait for the Rifftrax.

OH, I cannot wait for Mike and the rest of the Rifftrax gang to get ahold of 2012.

[Outback Jack]

I was basically forced to see it yesterday. I AM a pilot :) and we got an unusually long overnight yesterday. We got into the hotel at 12 noon, for Pete's sake! I figured that a couple of movies would be a good way to kill some time. Unfortunately this movie was the lesser evil of about 10 choices. (On the bright side, I only payed 5 bucks.)

It was basically what I expected. Great CGI and a really, really, really dumb story.

On the bright side, I found it laugh-out-loud funny in many places! I don't think it was trying to be funny, but it certainly was!

My biggest problem (out of a very long list) with the movie was:
What engineering genius designed the main boarding door of an Ark at the BOTTOM level of the ship!?!?

Tech opinions of an airline pilot: As previously mentioned, if the planes were near flying speed, then they would be able to fly. The only instrument needed would be an airspeed indicator and even that would only be a want; not a need. However, IMHO, some of the cracks in the ground would have seriously damaged the landing gear before it was able to take flight.

And my final rant is that this movie shows planes taking off 3 times. ALL 3 OF THEM have the ground dropping away from the plane just before it begins flying. ALL 3 planes do their imitation of the first B-25 off the Hornet and then go about their merry way. How many times do they think they can pull the same gag and still have it be frightening instead of tedious? (Answer: Apparently at least 3 times!)

[cow_cat]

Controversially, I almost enjoyed it :jaw-dropp

Yes yes , dispite the super neutrinos boiling the earth's core (but curiously absolutely nothing else at all), cringeworthy speeches by the plucky scientist, and driving through the center of a collapsing building aside, the cataclysmic scenes were very well done. The special effects were darn good.

My main annoyance with the film was the whole takeoff-while-the-world-collapses-around-you moment which happened three times! Sorry, but if your airspeed is less than the stall speed of the aircraft, then sorry but cranking back on the stick and gritting your teeth ain't gonna do squat. Mind you, it's not the first film to do this.

[dudalb]

On the bright side, I found it laugh-out-loud funny in many places! I don't think it was trying to be funny, but it certainly was!

One of the best unintentional laugh riots since Ed Wood. And it was when it was trying to be serious that it got to be the funniest.

[Horatius]

Sorry, but if your airspeed is less than the stall speed of the aircraft, then sorry but cranking back on the stick and gritting your teeth ain't gonna do squat. Mind you, it's not the first film to do this.



But they didn't even do that! They take off from the Las Vegas airport, and they stay low enough long enough to clip the Fake Eiffel Tower, which is a hell of a long way along the Strip! Here's a tip: when you've got **** collapsing all over the place near the ground, Fly Higher!

[dudalb]

Oh a few of us enjoyed it, but not in the way that Roland Emmerich intended. I doubt he though of it as one of the best comedies of the year.......
I have images of somebody bringing up the many,many,plotholes in the film and Emmerich just going "Suspension of Disbelief! Suspension of Disbelief" a la Johnny Depp as Ed Wood in the excellent Tim Burton Movie .

[cow_cat]

But they didn't even do that! They take off from the Las Vegas airport, and they stay low enough long enough to clip the Fake Eiffel Tower, which is a hell of a long way along the Strip! Here's a tip: when you've got **** collapsing all over the place near the ground, Fly Higher!

Well, that bit confused me even more. I wasn't going to elaborate in the previous post, but here goes.

As I see it, as the plane leaves the runway, it's going too slow for flight. But that's ok, since there is a large drop at the end of the runway. So after dropping for about 5 seconds, they're now level with the strip, doing all of the flying between buildings and the aforementioned teeth-gritting fly-by-willpower.

So... The airfield is 2000' above the strip? Cos that's the only way that scene would have worked. Anyway, i'm confused.

[JFrankA]

Well, it all depends. If the airplane is above stall speed (in some aircraft, as slow as 80 knots), what the ground is doing is totally irrelevant. As long as there is airflow over the wings that will generate enough lift to counteract the weight (and thrust to counter the drag), the baby will fly.

And instruemnts don't keep an airplane in the sky either. As long as you are able to set a pitch and power setting that you know will keep you airborne (or climbing, depending on what you want to do), then insturments are irrelevant. A fly-by-wire aircraft may have some problems, but very few aricraft are actually fly-by-wire (unless it's wires and pulleys, and those aren't the same thing, and thus unaffected by magnetic fields and the like).

As for landing, I;'ve actually landed an arplane on a grass strip. All you need to know is the weight of the airplane, the pressure altitude (also known as density altitude) and you're good to go (pressure altitude takes into account things like temperature and the actual altitude of the field). It's just a matter of finding enough flat ground. Heck, we had claculations for landing the KC-135 on the polar ice caps in the event of thermo-nuclear-war.


Depends on the aircraft. Generally, the instruments you're talking about aren't "controlling" anything, just feeding you information. AFAIK, you can ignore them and fly most craft by eye, at least while you're that close to the ground.

There are exceptions. One I know of is the avionics package on a Seahawk helicopter (Sikorsky). The main difference between it and the package on its twin, the Black Hawk, is that it's made to adjust for the shifting "ground level" over the ocean. It can be set to a kind of autopilot that keeps the helicopter a set distance above the water, no matter how bad the swells are. But I don't think that would apply at takeoff, and I don't believe the movie is showing a helicopter.

In short, the ground crumbling out from under it would mess up the instrument readings, but it wouldn't matter unless the aircraft were on autopilot (disclaimer: IANA pilot).


Tech opinions of an airline pilot: As previously mentioned, if the planes were near flying speed, then they would be able to fly. The only instrument needed would be an airspeed indicator and even that would only be a want; not a need. However, IMHO, some of the cracks in the ground would have seriously damaged the landing gear before it was able to take flight.

Thanks guys. I did figure that the instruments would be affected, but I didn't know ho badly that would affect a pilot's ability to fly and land.

As to the physics of flying, I know the basics, just didn't know the dynamics. Thanks for the lessons! :)

[Kud Dukan]

You know, I haven't seen the film yet, just the trailer, and I find it absolutely hilarious that a car is traveling just as fast as the crumbling rock behind it. So like, the ground is falling at a rate of exactly 60 miles per hour???? :D


Not only that, but the crumbling earth seems to follow them. So apparently, the world hates John Cusack specifically.




My main annoyance with the film was the whole takeoff-while-the-world-collapses-around-you moment which happened three times! Sorry, but if your airspeed is less than the stall speed of the aircraft, then sorry but cranking back on the stick and gritting your teeth ain't gonna do squat. Mind you, it's not the first film to do this.

That really bothered me too. The film needed more variety. Too many of those "we made it at the last possible second" scenarios. They get boring after a while.

That said, I enjoyed the movie for what it was...stupid, mindless fun. That's all I expected (especially after reading before I saw film about the neutrino bit), so I wasn't let down. I just went to see the effects, and when it came to those, I wasn't disappointed. :D

[dudalb]

I think for a lot of people the Artichoke principle applies...you go through so much to get to so little. For some, the cool SFX are not worth sitting through so much stupidity.

[NoisyAstronomer]

Everyone praises the CGI... but one bit of that bothered me. As the car crashed through some white picket fences, even THOSE were CG! I mean, you can't afford to crash through a few fences for me?

[SphereGuy]

Everyone praises the CGI... but one bit of that bothered me. As the car crashed through some white picket fences, even THOSE were CG! I mean, you can't afford to crash through a few fences for me?

You'd be surprised how much CGI there is. I saw a special years ago (I think it was tied to a Star Wars movie release) that showed such simple things as skid marks and rain were CGI. Even flying food in a food fight scene. I was watching a kids show just the other night where a laptop shorts out and the smoke rising from it was obviously CGI, cartoonish at that. I'm thinking it would be quite a field to get into.

[Soapy Sam]

Best End of World movie?
"On the Beach" gets my vote.

[JFrankA]

You'd be surprised how much CGI there is. I saw a special years ago (I think it was tied to a Star Wars movie release) that showed such simple things as skid marks and rain were CGI. Even flying food in a food fight scene. I was watching a kids show just the other night where a laptop shorts out and the smoke rising from it was obviously CGI, cartoonish at that. I'm thinking it would be quite a field to get into.

Well, it would make sense that CGI is done more than the real thing now. Less danger, less money, less retakes.

I know there is something to be said for the, err, "real" thing, but if a movie like 2012 could be made cheaper and make more money, CGIing everything makes a lot of financial sense.

[richardm]

apparently, the world hates John Cusack specifically.

Oh. So there are some realistic elements in the film then?

[Checkmite]

Also, the scene where the plane is taking off and the ground is crumbling below it is bothering me as well. I don't fly so I don't know for sure, but if such an unlikely thing were happening, would that cause a lot of havoc with the plane's instruments? Wouldn't that also completely change the air currents and/or the magnetic field so the plane wouldn't be controllable? (Err...also make it near impossible to eventually land... :) )

Well, no. Or yes, the plane's instruments would be acting funny, but it could still be controlled just fine by hand.

[jhunter1163]

www.wbai.org

Michael Shermer was on Michio Kaku's radio show today talking about 2012 and the associated woo. Check it out (between 5 and 6 pm on Wednesday 11/18 in the archives.)