|
Post by earthmother on May 29, 2004 2:17:17 GMT -5
Last night I saw the movie The Day After Tomorrow. It was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Even Dennis Quaid couldn't save it. The special effects were excellent, but they weren't enough to carry what was at best a "B" plot with cardboard characters you couldn't have cared less about if you tried (except for the homeless guy and his dog).
But Fox is guilty of more than just making a bad movie. By portraying the whole issue of global warming in such a ridiculously unrealistic way, they have trivialized the science and reality behind this frightening trend. I know that all Fox cared about was making a summer blockbuster disaster movie that would rake in millions of $$, but unfortunately, the very serious issue of global warming will get washed out along with the giant tidal surge that destroyed Manhattan in the movie.
Apart from the disservice this movie does to the serious issue of global warming, I'm concerned that Al Gore has decided to embrace this movie as part of his cause. I understand what Al is doing--he's trying to use the movie to bring attention to an idea he holds very near and dear to his heart, that we on Earth are destroying our habitat and will someday pay a very high price for our reckless behavior unless we change our ways . . . now. That's one of the reasons we all love Gore so much; he's one of the few politicians around who truly understands and appreciates environmental concerns. But I think Gore might've been better off keeping a lower profile with this movie. I know he has publicly said that the science behind the movie is accurate but the way the events play out is not. But you know damn well that, between the movie being so bad and the fact that it totally misrepresents how climate change would happen, his endorsement of this very bad and inaccurate movie will be just one more thing for people to use against him.
|
|
|
Post by LeftistIndependent on May 29, 2004 5:58:36 GMT -5
Well since this movie sounds pretty bad, maybe I will wait to see it until it comes out at the ghetto dollar theater or out on DVD. Is this film supposed to be based on scientific reasoning or just typical fantasy? Based on what you said it sounds like just another attempt to take a scientific issue and blow it out of proportion with bs and nonsense. Sounds like its all about the money rather then informing people of global warming.
|
|
|
Post by earthmother on May 29, 2004 8:29:07 GMT -5
You got that right. Hey, this is Fox, okay? You wouldn't expect them to put something out there that's meant to raise people's awareness of real issues, would you? All Fox had in mind with this movie was $$. It does have a basis in fact as far as saying that human behavior is contributing to global warming, but that's as far as it goes. The way they show the rapid climate change is 100% fantasy. And not good fantasy, at that.
Save it for a DVD, fer sher.
|
|
|
Post by ErinB on May 29, 2004 9:32:25 GMT -5
They spend so much on special effects and hype, you'd think they would take a little time to think of some meaningful plot and dialog. I don't think I will even bother with renting the DVD. Thanks for the heads up, Earthmother.
|
|
|
Post by earthmother on May 29, 2004 12:19:11 GMT -5
Hey, y'all! This is just one humble person's opinion! I didn't mean to say no one should go see the movie or rent the DVD! After all, Al endorsed it. He WANTS you to see the movie. Maybe my opinion is wrong! Well, other than that it was utterly lacking in plot, suspense, good dialogue, good acting, depth of characterization, and . . . let me see . . . oh, yeah, scientific accuracy . . . it's a great flipping movie!
|
|
|
Post by ErinB on May 29, 2004 13:40:01 GMT -5
And hey, they blow stuff up right?
|
|
|
Post by MProffitt on May 29, 2004 16:13:10 GMT -5
Yes it was a little cheesy, (but then I generally enjoy a good cheesy movie now and then), but I think most of us here really do know the true and accurate information about global warming and what to expect - 80% of the public does not. Prime example - instead of bitching about the gas prices they should be bitching about the fuel economy of our cars and trucks, and the price of or lack thereof affordable hybred cars and trucks. It's an important message being sent inside action entertainment to sell to the public. You will never make an impact on the "Survivor" public unless to make an impact - people would not sit through or pay attention if it was not a little overdone.
Remember, the movie Jaws - it too was cheesy, but it sure made alot of people think twice about the Ocean, and some people still think Great Whites do hunt its prey.
Or, remember the move the "Day after", not as cheesy but it sure scared people.
Just my opinion -
|
|
|
Post by earthmother on May 30, 2004 6:08:28 GMT -5
Now, ya see, there's the difference. Jaws was a really well-done movie. The fear was palpable, the suspense unbearable. Also, you cared about the characters. I've seen Jaws in reruns probably a dozen times since it first came out, and each time, I enjoy it. Jaws gets me squirming in my seat because of the suspense. The Day After Tomorrow had me squirming in my seat our of sheer boredom. You knew who would and wouldn't live right from the beginning (all right, I won't spoil it for anyone here in case people go see it). And truthfully, I really didn't CARE if anyone lived or died.
Spielberg is a master film maker, which is why Jaws was so good. Also, of course, Roy Scheider, Robert Shaw, and Richard Dreyfus were excellent in their roles. The Jaws movies that followed the first one all fell flat, largely because they weren't directed by someone with the talent of Spielberg. I think The Day After Tomorrow could've been a better movie than it was, but for me, it fell very flat.
|
|
|
Post by restoredemocracy on May 30, 2004 20:12:40 GMT -5
Earthmother, you left out Al Gore's point that the movie depicted global warming happenig at a much faster rate than it's actually happening at as well as the fact that this movie wasn't the best way to promote the issue of global warmig but at least it's addressing the issue of global warming and is getting the issue before the public. This is a very important step. People will now be talking about global warming which they wouldn't now be doing without this movie. This movie is a good way to get this issue in front of millions of people.
|
|
|
Post by earthmother on May 31, 2004 16:00:12 GMT -5
The fact that the movie shows climate change happening much faster than it possibly could is what I meant by the scientific inaccuracies of the movie. I agree that it's good to get this issue before the public, but I think that, in showing it in such an inaccurate way (i.e., too fast), it trivializes the whole issue. I'm afraid people will use the scientific inaccuracies to say the whole thing is flawed.
|
|
|
Post by restoredemocracy on May 31, 2004 17:36:22 GMT -5
Sorry but you're once again misquoting what Al Gore actually said. Al Gore actually said that the movie depicted gloobal warming happening at a rate that's faster than it's actually happening. Al Gore actually said that the movie isn't perfect. The point is that this flawed movie is getting the issue of global warming and its consequences in front of the public. Iwould really appreciate it if you would correctly quote what Al Gore actually said. Had you done so, you wouldn't now be attacking him and that's what I'm objecting to.
|
|
|
Post by earthmother on Jun 1, 2004 3:36:51 GMT -5
Oh, good lord, restoredemocracy. I knew I was in trouble the minute I saw your post again. Weren't you banned from here a while back for harassing people? So you're going to start in with me again? Well, it doesn't matter, because I won't be dragged into it with you. Go take your broken record elsewhere.
And be warned: As a moderator, I can, and will, delete your posts if you continue to harass me or anyone else. We've got your number. Behave yourself or you're outta here.
|
|
|
Post by earthmother on Jun 1, 2004 3:59:55 GMT -5
RD--I just finished reading through the posts in the other threads, and I see that you've now not only got my feathers ruffled but also those of the administrator. Did it ever occur to you that you're a highly abrasive person? That you pick on the most inane things? That you beat dead horses to death? That you twist and misconstrue everything people say even when they very obviously have the most innocent of intentions? Go pick on the people who are NOT Gore supporters and leave the rest of us alone.
You have been warned three times today by two different people. I don't believe in censorship, and I only delete posts when they break the rules of the forum. One thing you are not allowed to do here is harass members. You have been banned before for harassment (both here and at AGDems), and you will be banned again if this behavior continues. Back off or pay the price.
P.S. to anyone who's reading through here. I gather Chris beat me to the punch on this one. The harassing post disappeared. Hopefully this member either got the message or has been banned.
|
|
|
Post by MProffitt on Jun 1, 2004 9:54:14 GMT -5
Earthmother - I give you Jaws in the suspense department, bad example on my part. I was only trying to point out that through the inaccuracies of the movie with regards to the eating habits of the shark (they eat anything - and don't hunt their prey), it scared the crap out of alot of people. I'm just hoping that through all the inaccurates, poor plot and expected ending, of this movie - it will still cause people to think a little. Esp. in light of the fact that the Bush Administration would lead one to believe that it does not exist and its a fantasy of wild and crazy people, and that they might just look the information up for themselves. And that the press just might talk about global warming itself with some seriousness, which again shows how this pResident misleads people. The current gas prices are helping people think about their dependency on foreign gas. The weather last week and this weekend at the same time the release of the movie has got to get people wondering.
|
|
|
Post by earthmother on Jun 1, 2004 10:30:01 GMT -5
MProfitt--All points graciously accepted and agreed with. I just thought Jaws was a really well-done movie and not in the same league as The Day After Tomorrow. Didn't mean to get so defensive about it! So, MP, your points, as always, are well taken, and I do agree with you.
|
|