Box office retardiculosity!

It's just another thriller. Assuming that the audience for this movie believes the world will end soon is like assuming that the audience for V believes that the world is being manipulated by lizard people (David Icke excepted).

Not that I want to give the average person too much credit, but people might not be going to see the movie because they believe 2012 will bring the "end of the world". Perhaps they're going to watch it because they want some entertainment and there's nothing else "good" in the theaters.

("Good" being in the mass-appeal sense. Not in terms of the technical aspects of how the movies was made. Etc.)

Also...

"Sony said "2012," with a budget of $200 million, had the highest worldwide opening ever for an original movie."

Is that adjusted for inflation (of the money supply)?

All the ads for it here show the jesus statue breaking in what seems to me to be a very strange manner*. Obviously it was constructed out of inferior stone with a natural flaw in it. I've been reading all sorts of hidden meanings into this in front of my (mostly secular) family and friends, none of whom are planning to see it as far as I know.

*though I suppose we won't know if it is sensible until someone goes and runs a wave into it.

The movie was surprisingly good, as long as you didn't demand strict scientific authenticity and just went - as most people do - to see something spectacular that you wouldn't ordinarily see.

It doesn't matter if it's not totally true to life. People don't care about that. If they're at all remotely like me, they don't go to movies primarily to see people beset with existential angst or ev eryday problems that are all around us ad nauseam; they go to be taken out of the ordinary for a couple of hours and any move that competently delivers that will be successful.

The only issue is if it entertains, and "2012", no matter how false it's underying premises, was entertaining! It was funny; it was thrilling; the CGI was great, if somewhat improbable in many regards.

What sold me on going was John Cusack's presence. You don't expect to see him in a movie like this and he was excellent (as were many other cast leaders).

There's nothing worse than going to a movie expecting wonders and being thoroughly disappointed. In this case I expected average and got a great movie. You can't argue with that.

Of course, the continuing box office (or lack of it!) will show if this movie really does have legs and how many people agree with my assessment.

What's with your vendetta against Roland Emmerich? He makes dumb but fun Hollywood cotton candy. There's nothing wrong with that.

coldequation, what's up with you reading so much into a few blog posts? chill.

"The only issue is if it entertains."

Of course, what constitutes as "entertaining" varies from person to person. There's also the question of, is merely being entertaining enough? There are people - and if you can speak on behalf of other people, so can I - who demand wit, intelligence and a modicum of originality in their entertainment as well.

Since I haven't seen the movie, I can't speak to its quality. But I have seen enough commercials and previews to know that the CGI (or at least what I've seen) is not "great". It's lousy and fake. But most CGI is lousy and fake. Very few movies manage to get CGI right. "District 9" pulled it off, but there aren't many others.

Sage, you're absolutely right, I was speaking on behalf of the entire world rather than simply pointing out that different people have different tastes and it's entirely pompous to imagine you have a better perspective than they do on what's entertaining for them or to belittle people who simply want 2 hours of escapism. My apologies.

I have no idea what possessed me to think that different people might have different views and that when it comes to entertainment, it's only your own view that matters. Please do forgive me. I'll never venture an opinion which differs from yours ever again. And you're right again, of course. Your view of CGI is _the_ view and everyone else is wrong. I have no idea why I imagined even for a split second that there could be an alternative.