Is 2012 Movie Just Another Epic Destruction Flick?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jim mcnamara
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Movie
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the 2012 movie, focusing on its portrayal of catastrophic events and the challenges of suspending disbelief for viewers with a science background. Participants express their views on the film's entertainment value versus its scientific plausibility, as well as their personal experiences and reactions to the movie.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants find it difficult to suspend disbelief due to the film's scientific inaccuracies and over-the-top CGI effects.
  • Others appreciate the movie as pure entertainment, despite acknowledging that some viewers might take its scenarios seriously.
  • A few participants express disappointment with the film's pacing and length, suggesting it could have been more engaging.
  • There are comments on the effectiveness of the visual effects and the overall experience of watching the film as a distraction from reality.
  • Some participants note that certain movies allow for easier suspension of disbelief than others, highlighting personal preferences.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of the film's scientific claims and the role of science advisors in its production.
  • One participant humorously mentions a drinking game related to the film's scientific inaccuracies.
  • Another participant critiques the repetitive escape scenarios of the main characters throughout the film.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express a mix of opinions, with some enjoying the film for its entertainment value while others critique its scientific credibility and narrative structure. There is no consensus on the film's overall merit or its impact on viewers' perceptions of science.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the film's scientific explanations and the reliance on dramatic storytelling, which may detract from its plausibility. The discussion reflects a range of personal experiences and interpretations of the film's themes.

jim mcnamara
Mentor
Messages
4,789
Reaction score
3,852
2012 movie - :(

In order to buy into literature, stage plays, and movies, you have to suspend disbelief to get the most out of it.

If you have a science background you, like me, may find it hard to do that - suspend disbelief during this flick. The cgi stuff is absolutely cataclysmic, the plot and pace are like Indiana Jones movies, but the movie is really hard to swallow. IMO. The last 40 minutes are kinda slow Earth-convulsions-wise.

It is your eight bucks. Or 6 euros or whatever.

Anyone else have a teenager in the family and been dragged to the movie? :(
 
Physics news on Phys.org


I love 'end of the world' movies for pure entertainment, but when you walk out of the movie with half of the people thinking it could and might really happen, I lose faith in humanity.
 


I saw it last night, and over all I was a little dissapointed. Part of it could have been that I saw it at midnight and didn't realize that it was a 3 hour movie.
 


Science doesn't reflect reality, but they did mention neutrinos :wink:

The movie has fantastic visual effects, lots of destruction, lava flows, and tsunamis. It progressed fast. It's a good way to get your mind off your worries for 2.5 hours without getting drunk.
 


Fan boy. Par excellence...
 


Yeah I thought that the movie was pretty good too actually...
 


what said:
It's a good way to get your mind off your worries for 2.5 hours without getting drunk.
Sappy love movies with lots of (psychological) drama work best for me.
 


For some reason I am able to suspend disbelief in some movies better than others. James Bond? Star Trek? Not a problem. Armageddon? Day After Tomorrow? The Core? Gag.
 


russ_watters said:
For some reason I am able to suspend disbelief in some movies better than others. James Bond? Star Trek? Not a problem. Armageddon? Day After Tomorrow? The Core? Gag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_(2007_film)"

My friends and I played a drinking game: Drink when your physics hurts. We ended up exempting a lot of repeated things just to survive (including the entire premise of the movie).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10


NeoDevin said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_(2007_film)"
So I've heard. One aspect for sure that irritates me is Sunshine proudly publicized that the movie had a science advisor. The others I listed too - they seemed to try to imply plausibility.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11


Maybe they meant that they asked their science advisor questions like:

How high would a tidal wave have to be to wash over Himalayas?

What would it look like if California fell off the continent?

Does it matter whether or not Pluto is involved with the planetary alignment and should we care?

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I will watch it with a grain of salt, or start a short lived cult religion... I'm not sure which.
 
  • #12


As with most 'epic destruction' movies, you really have to not think about the story at all. You just sit back, get bored for the first 20 mins when they introduce the characters and give some crappy pseudo-science explanation about why the Earth is going to explode this time, and then enjoy the 2 hour ride of destruction.

The special effects are really quite good even though the destruction is REALLY over the top in most cases. But the movie is enjoyable if you stop thinking rationally, lol.

One thing I didn't like is how the main characters escape like 5 times in identical ways: with the ground breaking away beneath their car/plane/whatever and they only JUST get away. Ok maybe that could happen once, if you are the main character in a movie that still has 1.5 hours to go, but after 3 or 4 times I want to see them crashing into the depths for once too.