Is The Core rotten?

[RichardR]

Sorry about the bad pun. (Actually I’m not.)

There is a new Sci Fi movie out today, called “The Core”. Its premise is that the core of the Earth has stopped spinning, and this has resulted in the Earth’s magnetic field dying, with many adverse consequences.

This movie is apparently being marketed as being based on good science. One of its stars, Hilary Swank, was on TV last night saying this. Hum, well look at an extract from this CNN review: (http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/28/review.core.ap/index.html)

Josh Keyes… is the only guy on the planet smart enough to connect the dots between portentous events that include 32 pacemaker patients suddenly dropping dead in Boston and hundreds of pigeons losing their inner autopilots and hurtling into crowds at London's Trafalgar Square.

The planet's outer core of moist, chewy, liquid nougat has lost its mojo, Keyes concludes. And that spells trouble for Earth's electromagnetic field, which shields the planet from solar radiation, nasty static discharge and other disagreeable cosmic things.

All life will cease in a year as our friend the sun barbecues Earth, Keyes informs a cabal of U.S. leaders.

(snip)

D.J. Qualls as a computer hacker brought in to run interference on the Internet and prevent the sheep of the world from knowing anything's wrong with Mother Earth (as if the lightning superstorm that levels Rome or the searing radiation that toasts the Golden Gate Bridge won't tip someone off).
I may be wrong on this, but isn't this bad science? Specifically:

Do scientists actually know why the Earth’s magnetic field dies and reverses? I know that the relative rotation of the Earth’s core and mantle are possible explanations, but I didn’t think any scientists actually said that was the cause.

Would pacemakers actually drop dead? I understand that too high a magnetic field can kill them, but a reduction?

How can they say that life would cease within one year, since fossil records do not indicate any mass extinctions around previous magnetic field flips?

Would a structure such as a major steel bridge actually curl up and destroy its self, as the movie shows?


I won’t bother with the silly idea of sending a mission to the Earth’s core to “restart” it. They’re allowed one silly idea IMO, as long as the rest of the film stays consistent with some sort of reality. But for a movie that is supposed to be based on good science, do the other points make any sense?

[jj]

I may be wrong on this, but isn't this bad science? Specifically:

Do scientists actually know why the Earth’s magnetic field dies and reverses? I know that the relative rotation of the Earth’s core and mantle are possible explanations, but I didn’t think any scientists actually said that was the cause.

There are models, but interaction between solar field and earth field, and the spinning of conductive material, seems to account for it in some way.

Would pacemakers actually drop dead? I understand that too high a magnetic field can kill them, but a reduction?

Err. Seems, well, shall we say, very "Hollywood".


How can they say that life would cease within one year, since fossil records do not indicate any mass extinctions around previous magnetic field flips?

Because they made it up. It's a movie. They can say it because they don't care what kind of idiotic myth they buy into.


Would a structure such as a major steel bridge actually curl up and destroy its self, as the movie shows?

Err. Well, if we could put a variable field of many, many tesla covering the whole bridge, maybe :D The mechanism as you describe it, well, is just a bit, err, "unusual". Perhaps it was an invisible Godzilla that did it? :rolleyes:



I won’t bother with the silly idea of sending a mission to the Earth’s core to “restart” it. They’re allowed one silly idea IMO, as long as the rest of the film stays consistent with some sort of reality. But for a movie that is supposed to be based on good science, do the other points make any sense?
Anyone who claims that the points you question is based on "good science" uses a very alternative definition of "science", as far as any knowledge I know of.

[arcticpenguin]

Judging from the previews though, it might be just cheesy enough to be enjoyable.

[hgc]

I love witty reviews of bad movies.

From Roger Ebert (http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-core28f.html) in the Chicago Sun-Times:

Yes, the Earth's core has stopped spinning, and in less than a year the Earth will lose its electromagnetic shield and we'll all be toast--fried by solar microwaves. To make that concept clear to a panel of U.S. military men, Professor Josh Keyes (Aaron Eckhart) of the University of Chicago borrows a can of room freshener, sets the propellant alight with his Bic, and incinerates a peach.

To watch Keyes and the generals contemplate that burnt peach is to witness a scene that cries out from its very vitals to be cut from the movie and made into ukulele picks. Such goofiness amuses me.

From Elvis Mitchell (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/28/movies/28CORE.html) in the New York Times:

The premise is simple, if not simplistic: "The core of the Earth has stopped spinning," says Josh Keyes (Aaron Eckhart), a hunky geophysicist with the meticulously tousled head of an alternative pop star.

"Three months and we're back in the Stone Age, a year and we're fried," says the eminent scientist and braggart Dr. Zimsky (Stanley Tucci), who seems to be wearing Millard Fillmore's hair. If the scientists in this movie devoted as much time to working in their fields as they spend getting their coiffures styled, maybe the Earth wouldn't be in so much trouble.

[Dinonychus]

Ok, if the reviews of this movie say it's that bad, I know where I'm gonna be at 2200 hours tonight. And maybe evn with my gf. :D

[Ladewig]

32 pacemaker patients suddenly dropping dead in Boston and hundreds of pigeons losing their inner autopilots and hurtling into crowds at London's Trafalgar Square.


Does the movie mention why such intense effects would be so localized and occur only in major metropolitan areas?

Even if pigeons did lose their inner autopilots (actually inner compasses to be precise), why would they fly into things, they still have their sight.

D.J. Qualls as a computer hacker brought in to run interference on the Internet and prevent the sheep of the world from knowing anything's wrong with Mother Earth

And the several million people whose jobs or hobbies require compasses (airline pilots, ships captains, surveyors, orienteers) wouldn't mention to anyone that the magnetic field is changing?

[Elaborate]

This movie is so bad, and so unscientific, that Popular Science even ran an article (http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,12543,433676,00.html) about it.

[fishbob]

This movie is apparently being marketed as being based on good science. One of its stars, Hilary Swank, was on TV last night saying this Hillary is obviously delusional. Besides, movies based on bad science are most entertaining. Her claims probably lost her some box office.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Even if pigeons did lose their inner autopilots (actually inner compasses to be precise), why would they fly into things, they still have their sight.Because, according to Hollywood, pigeons = Trafalgar Square (ie a recognizable landmark in a foreign city).

Originally posted by Ladewig
And the several million people whose jobs or hobbies require compasses (airline pilots, ships captains, surveyors, orienteers) wouldn't mention to anyone that the magnetic field is changing? I wondered about that too.

[garys_2k]

Don't ordinary automobile compasses still use the earth's magnetic field? I'd be likely to notice if my pretty unlikely to move street suddenly started pointing in a different direction.

Sounds like c-grade to me.

[Ladewig]

Well, I'm hoping that this one is as bad as "Showgirls." That's an entertainingly awful movie.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Dinonychus
Ok, if the reviews of this movie say it's that bad, I know where I'm gonna be at 2200 hours tonight. And maybe evn with my gf. :D So, did you see it? Your review? ;)

[Vorticity]

For some reason I can't quite put my finger on (coughhillaryswankcough), I saw it last night. Mildly entertaining, but the constant needless liberties they took with the little physics drove me nuts throughout.

At one point, one of the "scientists" keeps repeating to the other: "so torque, that's r cross f...". Its like they looked up just one correct equation in a physics book somewhere and then decided to have the guy say it over and over.

One thing that always bothers me in "science" movies is that scientists are always saying "in theory...". In real life, scientists never say that. They'd just say "the such-and-such model predicts that...". Pet peeve of mine.

Plus, the idea of the Earth's core spin constantly starting and stopping again blatantly violates conservation of angular momentum.

And then the line that drove me up the wall: the "arrogant science" character kept saying "its elementary fluid dynamics!". Riiiiight. Knowing how to detonate nukes to get the core to start rotating again is in chapter 1 of most fluid mech books. Sure.

Phil Plait will have a field day with this one.

[Dinonychus]

Originally posted by RichardR
So, did you see it? Your review? ;)

Yup, I did see it with my gf. We both agreed afterward that it was comparable to how Deep Impact was kinda like Armageddon.

Anyway, most everything's been covered, but there was one thing that I doubt anyone noticed. Every other mistake was so glaring that I wouldn't be surprised if no one noticed this yet. Near the end, as they were on their way up, someone, probably someone in the control room of theirs(and how did they communicate to the "terranauts" anyway? I can understand communicating into space, that's line-of-site, but deep into the planet they could still communicate?) figured out they'd be coming up off the coast of Hawaii, that they be coming up through the cracks between two tectonic plates there. *bzzzz* Wrong! Hawaii sits in the middle of a gigantic plate called the Pacific Plate. Hawaii is/was created via volcanoes coming up from the seafloor. This is easily found out if they did a little research.

The one thing I did like and they did do right was when they finnaly reached the surface, or at least the sea floor just outside where they came out, they lost power because the Unoptanium(sp?) no longer had a heat source to provide them with power.

Back to the communications thing. I could understand them being able to communicate until they got under the crust, but after that they've lost their line-of-site communications with even a satillite. It never was mentioned how they communicated with the surface, so I'm left wondering, "how the heck did they do that?"

Other than that, it was a pretty good movie. I might buy it on video or DVD for the laughs.

[phobos]

Originally posted by Dinonychus
The one thing I did like and they did do right was when they finnaly reached the surface, or at least the sea floor just outside where they came out, they lost power because the Unoptanium(sp?) no longer had a heat source to provide them with power.

I suspect it's 'unobtainium'. And if they used that word, then it means that they realise how silly the whole thing is. Unobtainium is a geek term for any material with strange properties needed to build an SF gadget, which unfortunately doesn't seem to exist in the real universe, thus being unobtainable.

Dilithium, tritanium, kryptonite, scrith, illudium, exotic wormhole matter, gravity shielding materials... anything like that. Unobtainium.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium

[jj]

Originally posted by phobos


I suspect it's 'unobtainium'. And if they used that word, then it means that they realise how silly the whole thing is. Unobtainium is a geek term for any material with strange properties needed to build an SF gadget, which unfortunately doesn't seem to exist in the real universe, thus being unobtainable.

Dilithium, tritanium, kryptonite, scrith, illudium, exotic wormhole matter, gravity shielding materials... anything like that. Unobtainium.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium

Try searching for "unobtainium" in rec.audio.* :)

[garys_2k]

Hell, a gold bar is pure "unobtainium" for me.

[CSSMariner]

Hollywood and "Science" is the same quality as Hollywood and "History," mostly, if not total BS. That is unless one wants to include that "Brilliant" Michael Moore, HA! He is about as accurate as his B***-hole buddy, Sadham Hussein, or was that Sadass Insane?

[CSSMariner]

Originally posted by phobos
kryptonite

Krypton, Kr; normal state, colorless, non-metallic gas @ 298K

Krypton is present in the air at about 1 ppm. The atmosphere of Mars contains a little (about 0.3 ppm) of krypton. It is characterised by its brilliant green and orange spectral lines. The spectral lines of krypton are easily produced and some are very sharp. In 1960 it was internationally agreed that the fundamental unit of length, the metre, should be defined as 1 m = 1,650,763.73 wavelengths (in vacuo) of the orange-red line of Kr-33.

Under normal conditions krypton is colourless, odourless, fairly expensive gas. Solid krypton is a white crystalline substance with a face-centered cubic structure which is common to all the "rare gases". Krypton difluoride, KrF2, has been prepared in gram quantities and can be made by several methods.

Close, but still not "Kryptonite," no sir.

[HarryKeogh]

how come in movies where really bad stuff happens to the planet only major cities and their landmarks tend to get blown up? maybe i want to see the largest ball of twine in boise, idaho get hit with a giant asteroid.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Dinonychus

Back to the communications thing. I could understand them being able to communicate until they got under the crust, but after that they've lost their line-of-site communications with even a satillite. It never was mentioned how they communicated with the surface, so I'm left wondering, "how the heck did they do that?"

I saw it yesterday. The science is truly awful, but if you treat it as a comedy (intentional or otherwise), it is pretty enjoyable. My favorite line was when the two federal agents came to pick up the scientist for a classified meeting, "We have no sense of humor."

Anyway, think about all the truly laughable crap they try to pass off as science in this movie, then think about this: not even these hosers could come up with a plausible mechanism for how the control center was able to communicate with the ship.

Also, twice in the movie, the two surviving stars, Hillary Swank and some guy, are trapped in a powerless ship and face certain death. Why weren't they f___ing? How do they expect this to be respected as a B movie without that?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
how come in movies where really bad stuff happens to the planet only major cities and their landmarks tend to get blown up? maybe i want to see the largest ball of twine in boise, idaho get hit with a giant asteroid.
I'd pay to see that. Make your own movie.

[Titananarchy]

I hear that the Bad Astronomer is sharpening up his keyboard as we speak....

...fortunately as he has very little hair on his head, his eyebrows can raise over the top of his skull and emigrate to his neck without much resistance....

[garys_2k]

Originally posted by Dinonychus


The one thing I did like and they did do right was when they finnaly reached the surface, or at least the sea floor just outside where they came out, they lost power because the Unoptanium(sp?) no longer had a heat source to provide them with power.

OK, they lost their heat SOURCE when they left the inner earth, but what were they using as a heat SINK while they were in it? You'd need both to extract energy from the heat.

[RichardR]

They have to have known that the science was as bad as it is. I think they decided to get all the science hopelessly wrong as a gag. The script writers were trying to out do each other in how ridiculous they could make it. The whole movie is meant it as a comedy.

(Please tell me that’s the explanation.)

[Dinonychus]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Also, twice in the movie, the two surviving stars, Hillary Swank and some guy, are trapped in a powerless ship and face certain death. Why weren't they f___ing? How do they expect this to be respected as a B movie without that?

I did say that this was comparable to how Deep Impact was the cleaned up version of Armageddon, so maybe they were aiming for a PG-13 rating instead of a R rating. Besides, they had to jettison the living quarters of the ship in order to blow up one of the nukes. Kinda hard to hide anything when they're f___ing in a chair.

[Phaycops]

I think I'll wait for it to come out on video. Seems funny, though. I just really hate that skinny, fat-lipped horror Hilary Swank. Why is she so ugly?

Anyway, I saw her interviewed on the TV Guide Channel and she said something to the effect of "My character's so smart, it, like, made my brain hurt!" I about died laughing, even more after reading all the riduculous science they get up to :)

[arcticpenguin]

A review from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune (http://www.startribune.com/stories/1553/3785635.html) :

1 out of 4 stars.


Jules Verne and his book "Journey to the Center of the Earth" are not credited in this sci-fi adventure. His heirs should be grateful.

[arcticpenguin]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035780532043&call_page=TS_Columnists&call_pageid=970599109774&call_pagepath=Columnists


There's some science in the movie, but not nearly as much as the studio would have you believe.
...
Paramount claimed that the mega-influential journal, Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences, was on the verge of publishing a scientific paper about the Earth's core that would be clear evidence that "life imitates art" because the paper would support the theme of The Core.
...
In this most recent paper, [Herndon] suggests that the amounts of different helium isotopes in newly laid-down ocean rock indicate that the inner core's nuclear reactor is running down, its ultimate demise approaching.
...
Apparently, Herndon and the Paramount people found each other a few months ago. Science magazine reported that Herndon saw a trailer for the movie, offered his services as a consultant and even "participated in its final editing," although exactly what that means I have no idea.
...
Despite protests from the National Academy of Sciences, Paramount linked the movie as strongly as it could to Herndon's PNAS paper, even implying that the National Academy was issuing a press release to let the world know of this new theory.

The whole affair was silly. Did Paramount actually think that telling the world there is a scientific theory that predicts the Earth's core will run down would send people flocking to The Core? Worse, what did J. Marvin Herndon hope to gain from having his theory linked to this movie? It might be that he's getting desperate.

[RichardR]

The Bad Astronomer just reviewed it on his Website. (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/thecore_review.html)

[Mark]

Does a movie have to have good science to be enjoyable? I mean, I liked Star Wars and many of the Trek films. A LOT. Does the word "Fantasy" still exist?

[alfaniner]

So the core stops spinning. Relative to what? Is the crust still rotating around the stopped core? Or is it spinning with the crust (i.e. no relative motion). Does that mean it was spinning faster than the outer shell before?

[Fade]

The problem with this movie wasn't it's endless list of inaccuracies. The problem with this movie is that it's just bad.

Dialogue, plot, characterization, even special effects were all really bad.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Fade
The problem with this movie wasn't it's endless list of inaccuracies. The problem with this movie is that it's just bad.

Dialogue, plot, characterization, even special effects were all really bad.
Also, not enough nudity.

[Captain Trips]

Originally posted by Mark
Does a movie have to have good science to be enjoyable? I mean, I liked Star Wars and many of the Trek films. A LOT. Does the word "Fantasy" still exist?

I don't think that's the problem -- none of the films in those series were ever advertised as "being based on good science." As such, they didn't have to live up to the credibility of their claims.

Now, The Core is claiming to be scientifically accurate, and that is just plain false advertising. Read The Bad Astronomer's review, link was given in a previous post by RichardR.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

"We have no sense of humor."

Anyway, think about all the truly laughable crap they try to pass off as science in this movie, then think about this: not even these hosers could come up with a plausible mechanism for how the control center was able to communicate with the ship.

Also, twice in the movie, the two surviving stars, Hillary Swank and some guy, are trapped in a powerless ship and face certain death. Why weren't they f___ing? How do they expect this to be respected as a B movie without that?

AP pretty much matched my thinking on this movie.

It was fun to watch as long as you don’t think to hard about the bad science. The movie is pretty much Armageddon meets Fantastic Voyage.

The worst science that I noticed was that the ship stayed in radio contact although it was a few thousand miles below the crust of the earth. This would not work because:

1.) Radio waves and rocks don’t mix
2.) Radio waves and water don’t mix (Much).
3.) Radio waves and molten iron don’t mix.

The Stanley Toucci character was supposed to be a more pompus version of Sagan. I thought that was funny.

Also the follow up line to "We have no sense of humor" was "and we are armed."

[Mark]

Originally posted by Captain Trips


I don't think that's the problem -- none of the films in those series were ever advertised as "being based on good science." As such, they didn't have to live up to the credibility of their claims.

Now, The Core is claiming to be scientifically accurate, and that is just plain false advertising. Read The Bad Astronomer's review, link was given in a previous post by RichardR.

Point taken. That does make a difference.

[Charles Livingston]

Can we here from the bad astronomer on this one. I realize its not quite astronomy so it probably wont make his site (incidentilly which is how I found this great board, I wonder how many others have stumbled upon this board from there or vice versa) as well. Is there a bad geologist out there?

[Kullervo]

That'd be Tricky. He's bad and he's a geologist.

[Larspeart]

I loved Phil Platt's review on www.badastronomy.com. good stuff. i just KNEW he'd rip it.

[Phaycops]

Originally posted by whitefork
That'd be Tricky. He's bad and he's a geologist.

Hmm.....bad in....what sense? Bwahahahahaaa! :D

[Captain Trips]

Originally posted by Charles Livingston
Can we here from the bad astronomer on this one. I realize its not quite astronomy so it probably wont make his site (incidentilly which is how I found this great board, I wonder how many others have stumbled upon this board from there or vice versa) as well. Is there a bad geologist out there?

Several people have already posted the link, he does indeed review this movie. His "justification" is that the Earth is a planet, and therefore is an astronomical object. In truth, he felt he just had to review it, given its "scientific" nature.