2012

2012

Post just about everything that isn't directly related to Spring here!

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

2012

Post by Argh »

If you do not like reading critical reviews (or minor spoilers), stop right here.



Short synopsis: it's about the End of the World As We Know It.

It's almost 3 hours long, and is based on Mayan mythos and a husk of Bad Science. Wasted $18 on this.

Could have been 60 minutes long. Had an ending that was re-shot on video at the last second (the last 15 minutes are pretty much video, it's jarring).

I felt like the actors were trying their best.

The script was, at best, incoherent... and had more holes than a painted lady's nylons. Seriously stupid stuff in there. That said, it's a CG Thriller- I kinda expect them to have a lot of "yeah, right" moments in them. If you are a physicist or engineer, don't watch the movie, though, you will cringe a lot, and your date will be grumpy with you.

But I can't really blame the writers. That's not fair. They clearly had to re-write a lot of the movie on the fly.

This really was one of those movies that was mainly the director's fault, or the producers' (given the kind of movie it was, it's hard to say). They just weren't willing to cut enough to make it work, and it was pretty obvious that the the writers were desperately fixing things a lot.

Given the kinds of multi-gazillion-dollar CG shoots they had in it, it must have seemed like setting money on fire to drop any of them, even though quite a few of them weren't that necessary, and the movie, so full of visual wonders, became a massive drag. There are only so many times you can see OMG THAT'S A LOT OF DESTRUCTION going on before it's, well... boring. Or at least numbing.

In many ways, it was like Titanic, only the whole world is sinking. Hell, they even had a lot of references to that film, and it was about as long... I wish they'd noticed why it worked.
User avatar
Spawn_Retard
Posts: 1248
Joined: 21 Dec 2006, 14:36

Re: 2012

Post by Spawn_Retard »

*possible spoiler*
I liked the movie purly because i felt like i could leave my brain at the door and not pick at what was fact or fiction.

You know from the start, that this movie isn't going to be factual and so you shouldn't watch it and complain later when you've confirmed this. What would be the point in watching the movie? :?

Surprisingly i took a date to see it who had already seen the movie, and she seemed to enjoy it even though it was a long 3 hours.


The story was full of ironic occurrences, cliche biblical happenings (as if it was Noah's arc story, but in the modern day) and it had the most luckiest people in the world. e.g. a man who has had little lessons in flying, ends up flying a huge jet and misses things falling around him.

Overall I'd go back and watch it again, be it in the cinema or from a DVD i enjoyed it that much :).

The length of the movie did not matter to me, although i did actually check the time when i thought the movie had ended once, and noticed i still had about 30 minutes left.

I have to disagree with argh in that the effects were not boring after a certain point, sure you seen a lot of shit blow, but each time it was in a different setting and it was almost a new natural occurrence that the movie hadn't shown. All but a few actors actually played their script well, i especially liked the role of the American president, giving obama a angelic look again, something he has lost since his election.

What is surprising is all the people who believe the movie is factual and have little understanding about anything :p .
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: 2012

Post by Gota »

Oo i am tempted to write horribly abusive adjectives at you Argh.
You do not spend time writing reviews for such films.
This is from the creator of independence day and the day after tomorrow.
WHAT DID YOU EXPECT????
Its Emmerich.
You dont need to be an engineer to laugh at this film but its suppose to be that way.
This is like watching lord of the rings.You know there are no orcs or elves or Sauron but you enjoy the movie all the same.
This is a family film imo :) pure entertainment,3 hours of brainless fun.
User avatar
Spawn_Retard
Posts: 1248
Joined: 21 Dec 2006, 14:36

Re: 2012

Post by Spawn_Retard »

Gota wrote:Oo i am tempted to write horribly abusive adjectives at you Argh.
You do not spend time writing reviews for such films.
This is from the creator of independence day and the day after tomorrow.
WHAT DID YOU EXPECT????
Its Emmerich.
You dont need to be an engineer to laugh at this film but its suppose to be that way.
This is like watching lord of the rings.You know there are no orcs or elves or Sauron but you enjoy the movie all the same.
This is a family film imo :) pure entertainment,3 hours of brainless fun.
Thanks for TL;DR ing my post
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: 2012

Post by Gota »

no problemo.
Master-Athmos
Posts: 910
Joined: 27 Jun 2009, 01:32

Re: 2012

Post by Master-Athmos »

Spoilerish 30 seconds summary:
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/517835

EDIT:
And here something a bit more about the targetted audience (spoilerish!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW2qxFkc ... _embedded#
User avatar
Hoi
Posts: 2917
Joined: 13 May 2008, 16:51

Re: 2012

Post by Hoi »

It's funny that scientists discovered the mayan calendar doesn't end in 2012, but somewhere in 2200-2300.
User avatar
Spawn_Retard
Posts: 1248
Joined: 21 Dec 2006, 14:36

Re: 2012

Post by Spawn_Retard »

Hoi wrote:It's funny that scientists discovered the mayan calendar doesn't end in 2012, but somewhere in 2200-2300.
Wait, what?
Master-Athmos
Posts: 910
Joined: 27 Jun 2009, 01:32

Re: 2012

Post by Master-Athmos »

Technically it never "ends". One cycle should be completed around 2012 though. I didn't hear anything about that point not being 2012 but 2200-2300 (what's that for a timeframe anyway)...
HaloDrone
Posts: 5
Joined: 19 Nov 2009, 12:16

Re: 2012

Post by HaloDrone »

User avatar
JohannesH
Posts: 1793
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 12:43

Re: 2012

Post by JohannesH »

Hoi wrote:It's funny that scientists discovered the mayan calendar doesn't end in 2012, but somewhere in 2200-2300.
Scientists trying to trick you into not panicking.
User avatar
Teutooni
Posts: 717
Joined: 01 Dec 2007, 17:21

Re: 2012

Post by Teutooni »

I was under the impression the Mayan calendar "ending" was more like needing to add a new digit. Sort of like going from year 999 to 1000 in decimal system. Hardly the end of the world. :roll:

Correct me if I'm wrong. :P
User avatar
[TS]Lollocide
Posts: 324
Joined: 30 Nov 2007, 18:24

Re: 2012

Post by [TS]Lollocide »

I know the truth!

Mayan dude 1: "Whoa, this calender is huge!"
Mayan dude 2: "Yeah, we made it pretty long, then we got bored and went to dinner".

MYSTERY SOLVED.
CATALYSM: AVERTED.
User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: 2012

Post by Argh »

That YouTube was really funny.

And you guys thought I was being mean? Look what Rolling Stone had to say, lol...
http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/mov ... 42785/2012
User avatar
Panda
Posts: 2042
Joined: 22 Jun 2006, 00:20

Re: 2012

Post by Panda »

Argh wrote:Look what Rolling Stone had to say, lol...
http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/mov ... 42785/2012
I don't think that Transformers with its giant living robots from outer space should be compared to 2012.
User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: 2012

Post by Argh »

I don't think that was the objective of the comparison, lol.
User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14657
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: 2012

Post by Forboding Angel »

As I've stated elsewhere, I think that most people take movies far too seriously. If I wanted 3 hours worth of IRL, I'd walk outside, not pay 10 bucks to sit in a theatre.

Lets be honest, most of these end of the world scenarios are total crap, that doesn't make them any less entertaining. Remember "The Core"? That movie was so chock full of ridiculousness that it wasn't even funny, it was still neat to watch tho, and the reason is that everyone at some point in their lives does wonder what things would look like. The core of the earth for example. Or faraway distant planets. I love reading early 1900's sci fi novels because the authors didn't know hardly anything about space, and that left everything to imagination. Now we have tons of info about space and so we know that 99.9% of that scifi back then is total crap, but I love the imagination.

2012 looks like a lot of fun... I love watching destruction (seriously... have any of you ever actually played evo? :lol:) and all my female friends that have seen it loved it. You'd be surprised how much chicks dig this sort of stuff.
User avatar
Gota
Posts: 7151
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: 2012

Post by Gota »

Chicks like this movie cause it has a lot of dramatic and sappy moments.
People keep dying,people are sacrificing themselves etc..
User avatar
Spawn_Retard
Posts: 1248
Joined: 21 Dec 2006, 14:36

Re: 2012

Post by Spawn_Retard »

Gota wrote:Chicks like this movie cause it has a lot of dramatic and sappy moments.
People keep dying,people are sacrificing themselves etc..
I second this.
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5306
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: 2012

Post by Jazcash »

Films aren't supposed to be realistic to life stoopid.
Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”

cron