[quote]
I’m pretty sure Eve wasn’t talking about a movie.
In Godzilla, since the lizard reproduced asexually, it had a love affair with itself.
Actually, the Mathew Broderick character hooked up with the reporter, his old college girlfriend.
And I’m pretty sure Sublight wasn’t talking about a city or a movie.
(Think former GQ moderators…)
From The Associated Press:
“Scientists Warm Up to Day After Tomorrow”
“My first reaction was, ‘Oh my God, this is a disaster because it is such a distortion of the science. It will certainly create a backlash,”’ said Dan Schrag, a Harvard University paleoclimatologist. “I have sobered up somewhat, because the public is probably smart enough to distinguish between Hollywood and the real world.”
He now hopes the movie will do for interest in global warming what “Jurassic Park” did for dinosaurs.
Here’s another scientist:
Several scientists who are familiar with the film were charitable, even overlooking the rapidity with which events unfold in the movie. “The science is bad, but perhaps it’s an opportunity to crank up the dialogue on our role in climate change,” NASA research oceanographer William Patzert said of the premise.
Also
At first, NASA reacted to the movie by ordering government scientists not to discuss it with the media. The space agency later “clarified” its instructions, saying it did not want to muzzle scientists, some of whom had said officials were trying to limit discussions of global warming because Bush had called for more research.
A winning personality.
Now that’s what I call Ivory Tower. Such naivete…I almost want to pat him on the head and offer my shoulder to cry on when he discovers just how wrong he is…
Global warming causes an ice age. I mean, how can you argue with science like that? :rolleyes:
Oh God. Since this is a public message board I’ll refrain from expressing certain personal opinions of one of the scientists quoted, with whom I’m well acquainted and for whom I have little respect. Artistic license is to be expected to some degree in books and movies, but something as far over the top as this movie is IMHO never acceptable as an educational/motivational tool. Of the scientists I know personally who work on global warming issues, none of them think this movie is especially helpful in that regard. To me, “several scientists” foolishly thinking it’s okay doesn’t equate with the “many” that astorian referred to.
Also, quite honestly, the reporter’s writing smacks of the sort of vagueness that is useful in creating an air of greater controversy than actually exists. NASA did not provide any official assistance (science-wise) to the movie producers and its primary mission is not climate change research; the U.S. Climate Change Science Program is the lead agency involved in global warming, so NASA scientists were not encouraged to steal someone else’s thunder, as it were. Apparently, it occurred to someone that since NASA has a much higher name recognition with the public, it would likely be getting a lot inquiries anyway. That generated the Response to Questions internal memo I mentioned earlier, which is part of the “coordinated inter-agency response to any media questions of validity regarding the science on which the movie’s premise is based.” And yes, there is internal grumbling at NASA about politics in relation to research, but then there is grumbling about all sorts of things (like just how climate change funding gets apportioned between various agencies). No conspiracies of silence here, just bureaucracy in action.
Actually, I thought that it actually COULD, as odd as it sounds. I mean, sure, the movie is probably slightly inaccurate (in the same way as Volcano was “slightly unlikely”), but I believe that the tiny kernel of fact at the center of that mountain of crap is accurate.
I think the whole global-warming causes ice age theory has been dismissed, though I’m no climatologist. From what I’ve read, global warming doesn’t cause global anything, it just changes the climate everywhere, like an overdosage of El Nino.
I’ll see it because I too am a sucker for disaster movies.
Plus, I want to see exactly how they intend to evacuate 2/3 of the continental United States.
HA!
I saw the preview tonight and thought the exact same thing.
I like disaster movies too.
Not for any other reason than…
“Well no matter how messed up the world can get… It can’t get that bad!”
Or can it…
cue erie space music
I used to marvel at this guy’s films of wholesale destruction of familiar monumental buildings. Just because, you know… such a thing could never happen in real-life. That seems so long ago.
I was wondering how this guy’s films are going to fare post WTC. I’m interested to find out.
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/8653654.htm
Tell them there’s Global Warming. It’s the middle of freaking May!
Sorry, not good at condensing links in the SDMB format. But if you care to check it out, look at the 2nd half of the second paragraph on the right column. This fuck took time out of our busy lives of cleaning out the remnants of our lives to preach Global Warming to us. The flood, by the way, was devastating because of the ice storm we had. :wally
I’d love to see this movie, and will when I see it for free like BfC. But won’t pay for it. Why? First the trailer has someone mention a tornado hitting L.A. Nope, calling bullshit and all the rest of the arguments I could use. By the time the climate is so screwed up to get a tornado heading down Rodeo Drive (propbably following train tracks) humans will be long gone.
Second, Al Gore is set to have a “rally/press conference” in NYC after the movie is shown. This isn’t entertainment people, it’s an agenda.
Well, global warming could disturpt the Gulf Stream, causing much of Northern Europe to have much colder weather. But global warming causing a world-wide glacial advances, from the New York to Tokyo? No way.
Personally, I wish they would do a movie based on Niven, Pournelle, and Flynn’s Fallen Angels. That would be a good ice age disaster type movie.
gotta admit that I’m going to see it because the originating book was written by my two favorite paranormal “experts” Art Bell (who is much better than George Noury) and Whitley Strieber.
I saw preview today, and it had a scene of a huge wall of water coming down a New York City street (much like the wall of flame from Independence Day, actually). This struck a chord with me, because I used to have recurring nightmares about seeing a huge wave coming the street.
I don’t care what anyone says, I’m going to see this, simply because I like a good summer popcorn disaster movie, and to hell with any scientific inaccuracies.
Although even I have standards, for example, I refused to see The Core.
Coupla years ago, a tornado touched down in downtown Salt Lake City. A video clip of it shows up all the time on TLC. Don’t see what’s so out of the question about the same happening sometime in LA. I’m just saying.
Re: Day After Tomorrow, it’s a Roland Emmerich joint; of course it’s going to be crap. Won’t stop me from seeing it; I enjoy hooting at the silliness.
I want to see it and I can’t wait to see way the Bad Astronomer has to say about it.