list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Day After Tomorrow on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/The_Day_After_Tomorrow/222036/default.aspx Title: The Day After Tomorrow
Year: 2004
Director: Roland Emmerich
Plot: Directed by Roland Emmerich, this mega-budget, special-effects-laden epic revolves around the onset of an international series of crises brought on by the long-term results of the greenhouse effect. At the eye of the storm is paleoclimatologist (a professor dedicated to the study of weather patterns throughout the ages) Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid), who voluntarily takes on the preservation of the world in the dawn of the next ice age and all the disaster that comes along with it -- violent hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tidal waves, massive floods, etc. Hall must also contact his son, Sam (Jake Gyllenhaal), who was in the middle of an academic competition in New York City when the chaos begun. In addition to facing the largest-scale onslaught of natural catastrophes in the history of humankind, Jack, in his journey north, must contend with the masses fleeing south in an attempt to resettle in a warmer climate. The Day After Tomorrow also features Emmy Rossum, Sela Ward, and Joe Cobden. ~ Tracie Cooper, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 11
Number of Lists: 40
Number of blog posts: 11
Number of discussion threads: 6
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:46:24 GMTThe Day After Tomorrow2004Roland EmmerichDirected by <a href="/players/P____88961/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Roland Emmerich</a>, this mega-budget, special-effects-laden epic revolves around the onset of an international series of crises brought on by the long-term results of the greenhouse effect. At the eye of the storm is paleoclimatologist (a professor dedicated to the study of weather patterns throughout the ages) Jack Hall (<a href="/players/P____58161/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Dennis Quaid</a>), who voluntarily takes on the preservation of the world in the dawn of the next ice age and all the disaster that comes along with it -- violent hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tidal waves, massive floods, etc. Hall must also contact his son, Sam (<a href="/players/P____29408/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jake Gyllenhaal</a>), who was in the middle of an academic competition in New York City when the chaos begun. In addition to facing the largest-scale onslaught of natural catastrophes in the history of humankind, Jack, in his journey north, must contend with the masses fleeing south in an attempt to resettle in a warmer climate. The Day After Tomorrow also features <a href="/players/P___296588/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Emmy Rossum</a>, <a href="/players/P____74659/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Sela Ward</a>, and Joe Cobden. ~ Tracie Cooper, All Movie Guide11Tag Target (>10)401163http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u46830j3xwc.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Day_After_Tomorrow/222036/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/4/29/41846.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 4/29/2009 8:46:24 AM
Body: Wow, I can't believe I stayed up to watch this movie on HBO. It's such a disappointment. The only thing that is worth seeing in this movie is the special effects, that is, the effects for tornadoes -- the snowstorm special effects are typical fake snow and ice for the most part. And why were the wolves that escaped from the NYC Zoo CGI characters? Why didn't they just edit together footage of actual wolves with quick shots of CGI animals? The acting is pretty bad, thanks to the weak script. Although the scientific lingo sounds good, none of the actors can make any of it realistic. One particularly poor performance is from the actor who plays the "Vice-President". He was able to make it hard to believe that somebody that idiotic and confrontational would be able to get elected to the second-highest office in the US government, but his performance was unable to make the character believable. The movie drags frequently, sometimes to show the scenery. However, the movie is edited in a way that makes you wanting more to see of the scenery. Other parts of the visuals were fantastic, there just wasn't enough screen time to appreciate those moments. There are also a lot of errors in this movie, not just with the science. When you see these, you are going to seriously question if anybody behind-the-scenes actually researched how things presented in the script worked. This is a movie I would recommend you skip. But if you really want to see a movie, place this near the very bottom of your "To See" List.
]]>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:46:24 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog4/29/2009 8:46:24 AMWow, I can't believe I stayed up to watch this movie on HBO. It's such a disappointment. The only thing that is worth seeing in this movie is the special effects, that is, the effects for tornadoes -- the snowstorm special effects are typical fake snow and ice for the most part. And why were the wolves that escaped from the NYC Zoo CGI characters? Why didn't they just edit together footage of actual wolves with quick shots of CGI animals? The acting is pretty bad, thanks to the weak script. Although the scientific lingo sounds good, none of the actors can make any of it realistic. One particularly poor performance is from the actor who plays the "Vice-President". He was able to make it hard to believe that somebody that idiotic and confrontational would be able to get elected to the second-highest office in the US government, but his performance was unable to make the character believable. The movie drags frequently, sometimes to show the scenery. However, the movie is edited in a way that makes you wanting more to see of the scenery. Other parts of the visuals were fantastic, there just wasn't enough screen time to appreciate those moments. There are also a lot of errors in this movie, not just with the science. When you see these, you are going to seriously question if anybody behind-the-scenes actually researched how things presented in the script worked. This is a movie I would recommend you skip. But if you really want to see a movie, place this near the very bottom of your "To See" List. http://www.spout.com/groups/DOOMSDAY/Re_Disaster_Most_Likely_to_End_the_World/612/39251/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: seely
Post To: DOOMSDAY
Post Date: 1/8/2009 12:03:52 PM
Body: Whoa... just read rjspragues post and am thoroughly creeped out! Apparently we think alike... I *swear* I didn't read his post before posting mine! [quote user="seely"] Hmm... I think its not going to be any one disaster, but a disaster leading to a chain of disasterous events. I'm predicting we'll start off with a super-volcanic eruption (they say theres one ready to go anytime in Yellowstone), kind of like we saw in Volcano but on a more global scale. This in turn will lead to a The Day After Tomorrow -like ice age as ash gathers in the air and the world becomes dark and freezes over. And then, as 3/4 of the earth's population is wiped out and all our cities and technology are destroyed, the aliens will fly in and enslave what is left of the human race after taking control of our planet. [/quote]
]]>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:03:52 GMTseelyDOOMSDAY1/8/2009 12:03:52 PMWhoa... just read rjspragues post and am thoroughly creeped out! Apparently we think alike... I *swear* I didn't read his post before posting mine! [quote user="seely"] Hmm... I think its not going to be any one disaster, but a disaster leading to a chain of disasterous events. I'm predicting we'll start off with a super-volcanic eruption (they say theres one ready to go anytime in Yellowstone), kind of like we saw in Volcano but on a more global scale. This in turn will lead to a The Day After Tomorrow -like ice age as ash gathers in the air and the world becomes dark and freezes over. And then, as 3/4 of the earth's population is wiped out and all our cities and technology are destroyed, the aliens will fly in and enslave what is left of the human race after taking control of our planet. [/quote] http://www.spout.com/groups/DOOMSDAY/Re_Disaster_Most_Likely_to_End_the_World/612/39190/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: seely
Post To: DOOMSDAY
Post Date: 1/7/2009 9:59:02 AM
Body: Hmm... I think its not going to be any one disaster, but a disaster leading to a chain of disasterous events. I'm predicting we'll start off with a super-volcanic eruption (they say theres one ready to go anytime in Yellowstone), kind of like we saw in Volcano but on a more global scale. This in turn will lead to a The Day After Tomorrow -like ice age as ash gathers in the air and the world becomes dark and freezes over. And then, as 3/4 of the earth's population is wiped out and all our cities and technology are destroyed, the aliens will fly in and enslave what is left of the human race after taking control of our planet.
]]>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:59:02 GMTseelyDOOMSDAY1/7/2009 9:59:02 AMHmm... I think its not going to be any one disaster, but a disaster leading to a chain of disasterous events. I'm predicting we'll start off with a super-volcanic eruption (they say theres one ready to go anytime in Yellowstone), kind of like we saw in Volcano but on a more global scale. This in turn will lead to a The Day After Tomorrow -like ice age as ash gathers in the air and the world becomes dark and freezes over. And then, as 3/4 of the earth's population is wiped out and all our cities and technology are destroyed, the aliens will fly in and enslave what is left of the human race after taking control of our planet. http://www.spout.com/groups/DOOMSDAY/Re_Disaster_Most_Likely_to_End_the_World/612/39187/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: rjsprague
Post To: DOOMSDAY
Post Date: 1/7/2009 9:47:34 AM
Body: I would suggest that it won't be any one thing, but a combination of events happening in rapid succession. For instance, a super-volcano erupts, burying much of the land in ash. Several tsunami's wreak havoc on the coastal areas of the world. The fresh water bodies are polluted by the volcanic ash, and our own pollutants making the water undrinkable. The greater part of humanity dies out via starvation or dehydration, or in the ensuing chaos of scavenging that occurs. That would be an amusing film to watch. I suppose as far as realism goes for apocalypse time... I'll say The Day After Tomorrow. It had a lot of interesting hypotheticals, even if it was just pseudo-science. I think there was one where the earth's magnetic shielding drops due to the core of the earth not doing its thing. The solar winds did a number on the surface of the earth. And then a team travels into the earth to try to get the core moving again. (Amusing)
]]>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:47:34 GMTrjspragueDOOMSDAY1/7/2009 9:47:34 AMI would suggest that it won't be any one thing, but a combination of events happening in rapid succession. For instance, a super-volcano erupts, burying much of the land in ash. Several tsunami's wreak havoc on the coastal areas of the world. The fresh water bodies are polluted by the volcanic ash, and our own pollutants making the water undrinkable. The greater part of humanity dies out via starvation or dehydration, or in the ensuing chaos of scavenging that occurs. That would be an amusing film to watch. I suppose as far as realism goes for apocalypse time... I'll say The Day After Tomorrow. It had a lot of interesting hypotheticals, even if it was just pseudo-science. I think there was one where the earth's magnetic shielding drops due to the core of the earth not doing its thing. The solar winds did a number on the surface of the earth. And then a team travels into the earth to try to get the core moving again. (Amusing) http://www.spout.com/groups/DOOMSDAY/Re_Disaster_Most_Likely_to_End_the_World/612/39170/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: throwingapie
Post To: DOOMSDAY
Post Date: 1/6/2009 7:49:40 PM
Body: I really think global climate change (The Day After Tomorrow (2006)) or an asteriod, as you said, will do us in, but I s'pose I'll mention supervolcanic eruptions. You know, like Yellowstone Caldera (recently active), which is decidedly way more interesting than global warming. We'd expect volcanic winter and/or a swarm of hypercanes, depending on location and size, resulting in the extinction or mass bottlenecking of the human race. Past eruptions here and the VEI here. Oooo, yay.
]]>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:49:40 GMTthrowingapieDOOMSDAY1/6/2009 7:49:40 PMI really think global climate change (The Day After Tomorrow (2006)) or an asteriod, as you said, will do us in, but I s'pose I'll mention supervolcanic eruptions. You know, like Yellowstone Caldera (recently active), which is decidedly way more interesting than global warming. We'd expect volcanic winter and/or a swarm of hypercanes, depending on location and size, resulting in the extinction or mass bottlenecking of the human race. Past eruptions here and the VEI here. Oooo, yay. http://www.spout.com/groups/Coming_Soon/Holiday_DVDs_12_23_12_30_Wes_Anderson_Johnny/216/38864/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: spout
Post To: Coming Soon
Post Date: 12/26/2008 4:58:29 PM
Body: Did you get gift cards for Christmas? Here's how to spend them over the next two weeks. SkyPIlot's Top 3 December DVD Picks 1. Bottle Rocket is in the Criterion Collection! Watch the trailer. For those who haven't seen Bottle Rocket, it's a quirky slacker comedy/heist flick, like...Reality Bites meets Ocean's 13. No wait, is there really anything like early Wes Anderson (except later Wes Anderson)? This edition has loads of special features including eleven deleted scenes and the original 13-minute, b&w Bottle Rocket short from 1992. 2. Burn After Reading -- Watch the trailer. It won't convert any unbelievers into the Coen cult, but a lot of it's worth watching over and over again (especially the parts with Brad Pitt). 3. And it goes without saying that everyone should pick up one copy of The Dark Knight, a second copy to keep in your glove box, and a third to keep in your hope chest. Watch the trailer. Check out Kevin Kelly's DVD gift guide for documentary and box set recommendations. Dec. 23 DVD releases 1. The Johnny Depp Triple Feature -- It's just one of those cheapie 3-sets, like the ones you find at Target, but get a load of this playlist: Edward Scissorhands -- Watch the trailer. Wow, I was not ready for this when I was 9 years old. Benny & Joon -- Watch the trailer. Looks funny, sweet, and sad. From Hell -- Watch the trailer. In this gritty, hallucinatory murder mystery, Depp is an opium-addicted detective on the trail of Jack the Ripper. Dark stuff, but worth a look. 2. The Jake Gyllenhaal Triple Feature is definitely worth some consideration as well. Donnie Darko -- Watch the trailer. The movie that made befuddled teens everywhere watch a film commentary for the first time, Donnie Darko is charming, touching, and strange. Very good, but in my opinion the real gem of this set is the The Good Girl. The Good Girl -- Watch the trailer. In this very under-appreciated dark comedy, Gyllenhall is a sensitive teen obsessed with J.D. Salinger (what sensitive teen isn't?) and has a short-lived affair with Jennifer Aniston. Aniston is unhappily married to a pot-smoking John C. Reilly. Great minor role from Tim Blake Nelson. The Day After Tomorrow -- Watch the trailer. Bombastic and boring, but hey--two good films out of three ain't bad! Other new triple features: Gene Hackman (The French Connection, Hoosiers, Mississippi Burning), Tom Hanks (Bachelor Party, The Man With One Red Shoe, That Thing You Do!), Kevin Costner (Bull Durham, Dances With Wolves, No Way Out). 3. Hamlet 2 -- Watch the trailer. Steve Coogan is really talented, but the trailer doesn't quite sell me on it. Does anyone recommend it? 4. Death Race -- Watch the trailer. Jason Statham, as usual, is threatening and very watchable, but this fair car action thriller doesn't come close to matching the crazed, exhilarating original -- Death Race 2000. Watch the trailer to Death Race 2000. Dec 30 releases 1. Towelhead -- Watch the trailer. In this coming-of-age story, 13 year old Jasira has to deal with American racism and the romantic attentions of Aaron Eckhart (yikes!). It's written by the author of American Beauty, and it looks really good. 2. Strangers With Candy -- Watch the trailer. This is a big-screen prequel to the mind-bending comedy series that starred Amy Sedaris and a pre-fame Stephen Colbert. (He played the science teacher Mr. Noblet, remember?) 3. Ghost Town -- Watch the trailer. Ricky Gervais (of The Office and Extras) can see ghosts, and one of them is Greg Kinnear. I've heard some good things about this film. 4. Bangkok Dangerous -- Watch the trailer. This is the one where Nic Cage uses a boat propellor to cut off a guy's hand. 5. An American Carol -- Watch the trailer. Kelsey Grammar plays the Scrooge character in this spoof of the classic Christmas tale. 6. Babylon A.D. -- Watch the trailer. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Michelle Yeoh would kick Vin Diesel's butt. 7. The Love Guru -- Watch the trailer. Paul Moore saw this Mike Meyers vehicle, and Paul said that although it's not bad per se, we've seen all these jokes before in the Austin Powers series. Re-releases 1. Lost in Translation (limited edition) -- Watch the trailer. Includes deleted scenes, a conversation with Bill Murray and Sofia Coppola, plus the "City Girl" music video from Kevin Shields. 2. Atonement (limited edition) -- Watch the trailer. Includes some making-of featurettes and commentary from director Joe Wright. I haven't seen this one yet. 3. A Beautiful Mind (limited edition) -- Watch the trailer. I still haven't seen this one yet either! Includes deleted scenes with commentary from director Ron Howard, plus feature commentaries from Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldman. 4. History of Ninja, Volume 1 -- Ten ninja movies on three discs means over 15 hours of "entertainment." Contents: Ninjitsu, Ninja, Ninja Hunt, Purple Hood Ninja, Purple Hood Ninja 2, The Hero of Swallow, Ninja Power Force, Ninja Kids Phantom Force, Golden Ninja Invasion, and last but not least, Cyber Ninja. I like how you can just switch around the words in the titles to get ideas for new ninja movies: Phantom Cyber Force, Golden Hood Hunt, Ninja Kids Invasion, Golden Hunt of the Purple Cyber Swallow. If we're lucky, those will appear in History of Ninja, Volume 2. By the way, Cyber Ninja reminds me of Dr. Ronald Chevalier, author of all ten Cyborg Harpy trilogies. Watch Dr. Chevalier's tips on inspiration.
]]>Fri, 26 Dec 2008 21:58:29 GMTspoutComing Soon12/26/2008 4:58:29 PM Did you get gift cards for Christmas? Here's how to spend them over the next two weeks. SkyPIlot's Top 3 December DVD Picks 1. Bottle Rocket is in the Criterion Collection! Watch the trailer. For those who haven't seen Bottle Rocket, it's a quirky slacker comedy/heist flick, like...Reality Bites meets Ocean's 13. No wait, is there really anything like early Wes Anderson (except later Wes Anderson)? This edition has loads of special features including eleven deleted scenes and the original 13-minute, b&amp;w Bottle Rocket short from 1992. 2. Burn After Reading -- Watch the trailer. It won't convert any unbelievers into the Coen cult, but a lot of it's worth watching over and over again (especially the parts with Brad Pitt). 3. And it goes without saying that everyone should pick up one copy of The Dark Knight, a second copy to keep in your glove box, and a third to keep in your hope chest. Watch the trailer. Check out Kevin Kelly's DVD gift guide for documentary and box set recommendations. Dec. 23 DVD releases 1. The Johnny Depp Triple Feature -- It's just one of those cheapie 3-sets, like the ones you find at Target, but get a load of this playlist: Edward Scissorhands -- Watch the trailer. Wow, I was not ready for this when I was 9 years old. Benny &amp; Joon -- Watch the trailer. Looks funny, sweet, and sad. From Hell -- Watch the trailer. In this gritty, hallucinatory murder mystery, Depp is an opium-addicted detective on the trail of Jack the Ripper. Dark stuff, but worth a look. 2. The Jake Gyllenhaal Triple Feature is definitely worth some consideration as well. Donnie Darko -- Watch the trailer. The movie that made befuddled teens everywhere watch a film commentary for the first time, Donnie Darko is charming, touching, and strange. Very good, but in my opinion the real gem of this set is the The Good Girl. The Good Girl -- Watch the trailer. In this very under-appreciated dark comedy, Gyllenhall is a sensitive teen obsessed with J.D. Salinger (what sensitive teen isn't?) and has a short-lived affair with Jennifer Aniston. Aniston is unhappily married to a pot-smoking John C. Reilly. Great minor role from Tim Blake Nelson. The Day After Tomorrow -- Watch the trailer. Bombastic and boring, but hey--two good films out of three ain't bad! Other new triple features: Gene Hackman (The French Connection, Hoosiers, Mississippi Burning), Tom Hanks (Bachelor Party, The Man With One Red Shoe, That Thing You Do!), Kevin Costner (Bull Durham, Dances With Wolves, No Way Out). 3. Hamlet 2 -- Watch the trailer. Steve Coogan is really talented, but the trailer doesn't quite sell me on it. Does anyone recommend it? 4. Death Race -- Watch the trailer. Jason Statham, as usual, is threatening and very watchable, but this fair car action thriller doesn't come close to matching the crazed, exhilarating original -- Death Race 2000. Watch the trailer to Death Race 2000. Dec 30 releases 1. Towelhead -- Watch the trailer. In this coming-of-age story, 13 year old Jasira has to deal with American racism and the romantic attentions of Aaron Eckhart (yikes!). It's written by the author of American Beauty, and it looks really good. 2. Strangers With Candy -- Watch the trailer. This is a big-screen prequel to the mind-bending comedy series that starred Amy Sedaris and a pre-fame Stephen Colbert. (He played the science teacher Mr. Noblet, remember?) 3. Ghost Town -- Watch the trailer. Ricky Gervais (of The Office and Extras) can see ghosts, and one of them is Greg Kinnear. I've heard some good things about this film. 4. Bangkok Dangerous -- Watch the trailer. This is the one where Nic Cage uses a boat propellor to cut off a guy's hand. 5. An American Carol -- Watch the trailer. Kelsey Grammar plays the Scrooge character in this spoof of the classic Christmas tale. 6. Babylon A.D. -- Watch the trailer. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Michelle Yeoh would kick Vin Diesel's butt. 7. The Love Guru -- Watch the trailer. Paul Moore saw this Mike Meyers vehicle, and Paul said that although it's not bad per se, we've seen all these jokes before in the Austin Powers series. Re-releases 1. Lost in Translation (limited edition) -- Watch the trailer. Includes deleted scenes, a conversation with Bill Murray and Sofia Coppola, plus the "City Girl" music video from Kevin Shields. 2. Atonement (limited edition) -- Watch the trailer. Includes some making-of featurettes and commentary from director Joe Wright. I haven't seen this one yet. 3. A Beautiful Mind (limited edition) -- Watch the trailer. I still haven't seen this one yet either! Includes deleted scenes with commentary from director Ron Howard, plus feature commentaries from Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldman. 4. History of Ninja, Volume 1 -- Ten ninja movies on three discs means over 15 hours of "entertainment." Contents: Ninjitsu, Ninja, Ninja Hunt, Purple Hood Ninja, Purple Hood Ninja 2, The Hero of Swallow, Ninja Power Force, Ninja Kids Phantom Force, Golden Ninja Invasion, and last but not least, Cyber Ninja. I like how you can just switch around the words in the titles to get ideas for new ninja movies: Phantom Cyber Force, Golden Hood Hunt, Ninja Kids Invasion, Golden Hunt of the Purple Cyber Swallow. If we're lucky, those will appear in History of Ninja, Volume 2. By the way, Cyber Ninja reminds me of Dr. Ronald Chevalier, author of all ten Cyborg Harpy trilogies. Watch Dr. Chevalier's tips on inspiration. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/23/38761.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/23/2008 12:00:52 PM
Body: Should special effects only be used to service a film’s story, or is it perfectly fine for movies to feature extraneous spectacle? That’s a debate that comes up often among cineastes, but ultimately there’s room for both functions. Sometimes, in cases like Jurassic Park and The Matrix, both categories of effects may even faultlessly coexist in the same film. Yet there is one kind of effects employment that’s intolerable to all film-loving parties: the gratuitous exploitation for the sole purpose of brazen gimmickry. It’s this kind of effects work that goes beyond spectacle. It’s not so much a show as a show off. For one example of this cinematic sin check out Karina’s review of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, in which she references a scene featuring an inessential and irrelevant rocket launch in the background of an otherwise intimate moment between two lovers on a sailboat. Actually, that’s apparently only a minor citation in a “a film about the feat of its own whiz-bang, Frankensteinian digital imagery, drunk on its own accomplishment to an extent that feels quasi-ethical.” Hardly the first movie to commit such a crime, sure, but Benjamin Button seems to be the most thoroughly guilty exploiter since Forrest Gump (both films, incidentally, were scripted by Eric Roth). So, in (dis)honor of Roth’s repeat offense, let’s take a short look at the worst exploitations of special effects in the last 15 years: Forrest Gump (1994): digital erasure of Gary Sinise’s legs Only a year earlier, we had marveled at Jurassic Park’s showcase of computer effects as the ultimate in movie magic. Then, Robert Zemeckis crushed our imaginations by turning CG into a means for mere tricks. The composites were cool enough, but Zemeckis had to go one step further and flaunt Lt. Dan’s lack of legs, just because he could. Was the effect neat? Yeah, for a minute, but it was also completely unnecessary. Star Wars prequels (1999-2005): computer-generated Yoda Some people believe George Lucas’ greatest effects foul to be Jar-Jar Binks. Others cite his awful CG Jabba in the 1997 special edition of A New Hope. Both were cheap exploitations, no doubt about it, but Lucas’ worst employment of CG was turning Yoda into a digitally rendered character. This isn’t just another excuse for us to defend and celebrate Muppets, either. Rather, it’s a defense and celebration of The Empire Strikes Back, which is a perfect film and is such despite its inclusion of a puppet version of Yoda. Why didn’t Lucas go the extra yard and turn the droids and Wookies into CG characters? Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004): computer-generated werewolf One of the most hated uses of CG, particularly to horror fans, is for werewolf effects. After all, the greatest-looking werewolf of all time, from An American Werewolf in London, was achieved with makeup rather than a computer. Yet just because computer effects exist, filmmakers seemingly attempt to better Rick Baker’s Oscar-winning technique with CG werewolves in movies like Van Helsing, Cursed and this, the third installment in the Harry Potter franchise. Or, is it that computer effects are just cheaper than makeup? Because they do indeed look cheap. Prisoner of Azkaban may have been nominated for a Visual Effects Oscar, but it probably lost because of Professor Lupin’s cartoonish transformation into a werewolf. Even if you believe Azkaban to be the best film in the franchise, you have to admit it could have been all the more exceptional had Alfonso Cuaron only put David Thewlis in the makeup chair and not into the hard drive. The Day After Tomorrow (2004): computer-generated wolves If there’s one thing even lamer than using CG for werewolves, it’s using CG for wolves. The former is at least an imaginary creature that requires some kind of effects to fabricate its existence. The latter can be found at a zoo, in the wild, or through an animal wrangler. It’s not even like the three wolves in The Day After Tomorrow, which appear in one minor sequence, had to seem preternatural like the dogs in Hulk. Apparently there were actually real wolves initially used, but they weren’t acceptable to Roland Emmerich, and so digital wolves were added later in post production. But did they have to be entirely substituted for? Or was Emmerich on a computer-generated power trip? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008): computer-generated monkeys You’re probably not shocked to see another George Lucas production here. There’s some disagreement over which was the worst part of this latest Indiana Jones film, the “nuke the fridge” sequence or the moment when Shia LaBeouf swings through the jungle with a bunch of CG monkeys. The former scene (pictured, since the internet seems to be pretending the monkey scene doesn’t exist) was certainly the downturn of the franchise, but the latter was its greatest offense. Had it not been in the film — and it truly could have been avoided — a lot of people might have forgiven Lucas and Steven Spielberg for the movie’s other faults. But as South Park bluntly put it, those guys raped their character. And they also raped and exploited the whole visual effects industry while they were at it. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:00:52 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/23/2008 12:00:52 PMShould special effects only be used to service a film’s story, or is it perfectly fine for movies to feature extraneous spectacle? That’s a debate that comes up often among cineastes, but ultimately there’s room for both functions. Sometimes, in cases like Jurassic Park and The Matrix, both categories of effects may even faultlessly coexist in the same film. Yet there is one kind of effects employment that’s intolerable to all film-loving parties: the gratuitous exploitation for the sole purpose of brazen gimmickry. It’s this kind of effects work that goes beyond spectacle. It’s not so much a show as a show off. For one example of this cinematic sin check out Karina’s review of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, in which she references a scene featuring an inessential and irrelevant rocket launch in the background of an otherwise intimate moment between two lovers on a sailboat. Actually, that’s apparently only a minor citation in a “a film about the feat of its own whiz-bang, Frankensteinian digital imagery, drunk on its own accomplishment to an extent that feels quasi-ethical.” Hardly the first movie to commit such a crime, sure, but Benjamin Button seems to be the most thoroughly guilty exploiter since Forrest Gump (both films, incidentally, were scripted by Eric Roth). So, in (dis)honor of Roth’s repeat offense, let’s take a short look at the worst exploitations of special effects in the last 15 years: Forrest Gump (1994): digital erasure of Gary Sinise’s legs Only a year earlier, we had marveled at Jurassic Park’s showcase of computer effects as the ultimate in movie magic. Then, Robert Zemeckis crushed our imaginations by turning CG into a means for mere tricks. The composites were cool enough, but Zemeckis had to go one step further and flaunt Lt. Dan’s lack of legs, just because he could. Was the effect neat? Yeah, for a minute, but it was also completely unnecessary. Star Wars prequels (1999-2005): computer-generated Yoda Some people believe George Lucas’ greatest effects foul to be Jar-Jar Binks. Others cite his awful CG Jabba in the 1997 special edition of A New Hope. Both were cheap exploitations, no doubt about it, but Lucas’ worst employment of CG was turning Yoda into a digitally rendered character. This isn’t just another excuse for us to defend and celebrate Muppets, either. Rather, it’s a defense and celebration of The Empire Strikes Back, which is a perfect film and is such despite its inclusion of a puppet version of Yoda. Why didn’t Lucas go the extra yard and turn the droids and Wookies into CG characters? Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004): computer-generated werewolf One of the most hated uses of CG, particularly to horror fans, is for werewolf effects. After all, the greatest-looking werewolf of all time, from An American Werewolf in London, was achieved with makeup rather than a computer. Yet just because computer effects exist, filmmakers seemingly attempt to better Rick Baker’s Oscar-winning technique with CG werewolves in movies like Van Helsing, Cursed and this, the third installment in the Harry Potter franchise. Or, is it that computer effects are just cheaper than makeup? Because they do indeed look cheap. Prisoner of Azkaban may have been nominated for a Visual Effects Oscar, but it probably lost because of Professor Lupin’s cartoonish transformation into a werewolf. Even if you believe Azkaban to be the best film in the franchise, you have to admit it could have been all the more exceptional had Alfonso Cuaron only put David Thewlis in the makeup chair and not into the hard drive. The Day After Tomorrow (2004): computer-generated wolves If there’s one thing even lamer than using CG for werewolves, it’s using CG for wolves. The former is at least an imaginary creature that requires some kind of effects to fabricate its existence. The latter can be found at a zoo, in the wild, or through an animal wrangler. It’s not even like the three wolves in The Day After Tomorrow, which appear in one minor sequence, had to seem preternatural like the dogs in Hulk. Apparently there were actually real wolves initially used, but they weren’t acceptable to Roland Emmerich, and so digital wolves were added later in post production. But did they have to be entirely substituted for? Or was Emmerich on a computer-generated power trip? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008): computer-generated monkeys You’re probably not shocked to see another George Lucas production here. There’s some disagreement over which was the worst part of this latest Indiana Jones film, the “nuke the fridge” sequence or the moment when Shia LaBeouf swings through the jungle with a bunch of CG monkeys. The former scene (pictured, since the internet seems to be pretending the monkey scene doesn’t exist) was certainly the downturn of the franchise, but the latter was its greatest offense. Had it not been in the film — and it truly could have been avoided — a lot of people might have forgiven Lucas and Steven Spielberg for the movie’s other faults. But as South Park bluntly put it, those guys raped their character. And they also raped and exploited the whole visual effects industry while they were at it. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/25/37652.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/25/2008 7:01:15 PM
Body: Catherine Hardwicke hit one out of the park for female directors this past weekend, but she had a lot of help. Not only was she working with a pre-sold property, she also had a very manageable budget of $37 million. Quite different from the $2 million she had to work with on Thirteen a few years back. Of course, she had similar budgets on Lords of Dogtown ($25 million) and The Nativity Story ($35 million), and both were box office disappointments. Still, she’s going to keep on being trusted with more money — if Summit is smart they’ll keep her on for at least the first Twilight sequel, which will surely come with a higher price tag — and as long as she continues with genre films, she’s sure to remain a profitable director. Not every talented filmmaker does well with more money. Danny Boyle, for instance, typically bombs with bigger budgets. And a lot of foreign auteurs strike out when handed costly studio-produced genre or franchise pics (Jeunet’s Alien Resurrection is a favorite example). But there’s the occasional filmmaker who, like Steven Soderbergh or Christopher Nolan, can make something worthwhile out of any budget they’re allotted. And then there are the many indie filmmakers who quickly find themselves at home with modestly priced broad comedies, such as the case with Seth Gordon easily transitioning from the Slamdance doc The King of Kong to the star-studded Hollywood holiday pic Four Christmases, out this week. Who will be the next small-scale filmmaker to successfully rise up and prove him or herself worthy of bigger budgets? SpoutBlog has selected five directors we’d like to see given an economic boost, each because he or she would likely deliver something more interesting and popular than the usual Hollywood product. James Marsh (Man on Wire; The King) He recently gave us one of the most entertaining documentaries of all time (Man on Wire), and it’s likely that he could also give us an equally entertaining blockbuster of some kind. His best gateway would be a big deal crime caper, along the lines of Soderbergh’s Ocean’s series or even the more modestly priced The Bank Job. He pretty much already showed he could shoot a riveting heist film with his re-enactment scenes in Man on Wire. Maybe he can also hold on to the French angle by helming one of those Melville or Dassin films that are always being announced and never actually being made. Marsh’s follow-up to Man on Wire will be a relatively small British crime drama (one-third of Channel 4’s series of David Peace adaptations), but afterward he needs to be heavily wooed by the American studios. Larry Fessenden (Wendigo; The Last Winter) He makes some of the most interesting “horror” films around (people sometimes call them “art horror”), but they’d be even better with a little extra cash to spend on special effects. His last two films kind of lose their heat in their third acts, when the cheaply constructed monsters and ghosts appear. But had The Last Winter cost $5 million instead of $50,000, it might have grossed $33 million domestically rather than $33,000. And its not like Hollywood wouldn’t be into Fessenden’s pro-nature plots. If they can give Roland Emmerich more than a hundred million for The Day After Tomorrow, they can give a guy like Fessenden less than $10 and actually get a smarter, more entertaining genre flick. Shane Carruth (Primer) He gave us one of the biggest mindf*cks in the history of cinema with his 2004 Sundance-winning sci-fi film Primer, but he hasn’t really been heard from since. According to Wikipedia, he’s been planning his follow-up for the past two years and is ready to start on the financing, so here’s an idea: Hollywood should get on that. If this former engineer has spent that long working out the details of his next project, it’s likely to be smarter than most of the speedily scripted science fiction released by the studios. And it’s certainly time for an intelligent blockbuster dealing with time travel or space travel or something else in that vein. Sure, Darren Aronofsky went from math-nerd sci-fi (Pi) to a big-budget disappointment (The Fountain), but now he’s coming back strong with The Wrestler and is set to helm a RoboCop remake next. Carruth could have a similar career without the bomb in the middle if one studio hands him just a fraction of what they gave Aronofsky. Anything’s going to be an increase over Primer’s $7,000 budget. Gregg Araki (The Doom Generation; Mysterious Skin; Smiley Face) His most recent movie, the stoner comedy Smiley Face, should have been given the same size push as The Pineapple Express, which interestingly enough proved that indie darling David Gordon Green could be trusted with bigger budgets. Unfortunately, Araki continues to be a mere cult favorite. But he’s not necessarily a Hal Hartley or John Waters; he can break out if given the chance to. The world is just waiting for him to become the missing link between Judd Apatow and Gus Van Sant. Or is a bisexual filmmaker not the most perfect person to handle the ever-increasing-in-popularity bromantic comedies? Helen Hunt (Then She Found Me) This actress-turned-filmmaker could be the 21st century Nora Ephron if only Hollywood believed that women could want something a little less cheesy than Sleepless in Seattle. Too bad movies like Sex and the City and Twilight are showing us female audiences actually prefer things even cheesier. But even a slight increase on Then She Found Me’s $3.5 million budget could give Hunt the ability to deliver a thoughtful cross between romantic comedy and Hallmark melodrama that might just elevate the tastes of moviegoers, or at least attract more intelligent women to the multiplex. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:01:15 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/25/2008 7:01:15 PMCatherine Hardwicke hit one out of the park for female directors this past weekend, but she had a lot of help. Not only was she working with a pre-sold property, she also had a very manageable budget of $37 million. Quite different from the $2 million she had to work with on Thirteen a few years back. Of course, she had similar budgets on Lords of Dogtown ($25 million) and The Nativity Story ($35 million), and both were box office disappointments. Still, she’s going to keep on being trusted with more money — if Summit is smart they’ll keep her on for at least the first Twilight sequel, which will surely come with a higher price tag — and as long as she continues with genre films, she’s sure to remain a profitable director. Not every talented filmmaker does well with more money. Danny Boyle, for instance, typically bombs with bigger budgets. And a lot of foreign auteurs strike out when handed costly studio-produced genre or franchise pics (Jeunet’s Alien Resurrection is a favorite example). But there’s the occasional filmmaker who, like Steven Soderbergh or Christopher Nolan, can make something worthwhile out of any budget they’re allotted. And then there are the many indie filmmakers who quickly find themselves at home with modestly priced broad comedies, such as the case with Seth Gordon easily transitioning from the Slamdance doc The King of Kong to the star-studded Hollywood holiday pic Four Christmases, out this week. Who will be the next small-scale filmmaker to successfully rise up and prove him or herself worthy of bigger budgets? SpoutBlog has selected five directors we’d like to see given an economic boost, each because he or she would likely deliver something more interesting and popular than the usual Hollywood product. James Marsh (Man on Wire; The King) He recently gave us one of the most entertaining documentaries of all time (Man on Wire), and it’s likely that he could also give us an equally entertaining blockbuster of some kind. His best gateway would be a big deal crime caper, along the lines of Soderbergh’s Ocean’s series or even the more modestly priced The Bank Job. He pretty much already showed he could shoot a riveting heist film with his re-enactment scenes in Man on Wire. Maybe he can also hold on to the French angle by helming one of those Melville or Dassin films that are always being announced and never actually being made. Marsh’s follow-up to Man on Wire will be a relatively small British crime drama (one-third of Channel 4’s series of David Peace adaptations), but afterward he needs to be heavily wooed by the American studios. Larry Fessenden (Wendigo; The Last Winter) He makes some of the most interesting “horror” films around (people sometimes call them “art horror”), but they’d be even better with a little extra cash to spend on special effects. His last two films kind of lose their heat in their third acts, when the cheaply constructed monsters and ghosts appear. But had The Last Winter cost $5 million instead of $50,000, it might have grossed $33 million domestically rather than $33,000. And its not like Hollywood wouldn’t be into Fessenden’s pro-nature plots. If they can give Roland Emmerich more than a hundred million for The Day After Tomorrow, they can give a guy like Fessenden less than $10 and actually get a smarter, more entertaining genre flick. Shane Carruth (Primer) He gave us one of the biggest mindf*cks in the history of cinema with his 2004 Sundance-winning sci-fi film Primer, but he hasn’t really been heard from since. According to Wikipedia, he’s been planning his follow-up for the past two years and is ready to start on the financing, so here’s an idea: Hollywood should get on that. If this former engineer has spent that long working out the details of his next project, it’s likely to be smarter than most of the speedily scripted science fiction released by the studios. And it’s certainly time for an intelligent blockbuster dealing with time travel or space travel or something else in that vein. Sure, Darren Aronofsky went from math-nerd sci-fi (Pi) to a big-budget disappointment (The Fountain), but now he’s coming back strong with The Wrestler and is set to helm a RoboCop remake next. Carruth could have a similar career without the bomb in the middle if one studio hands him just a fraction of what they gave Aronofsky. Anything’s going to be an increase over Primer’s $7,000 budget. Gregg Araki (The Doom Generation; Mysterious Skin; Smiley Face) His most recent movie, the stoner comedy Smiley Face, should have been given the same size push as The Pineapple Express, which interestingly enough proved that indie darling David Gordon Green could be trusted with bigger budgets. Unfortunately, Araki continues to be a mere cult favorite. But he’s not necessarily a Hal Hartley or John Waters; he can break out if given the chance to. The world is just waiting for him to become the missing link between Judd Apatow and Gus Van Sant. Or is a bisexual filmmaker not the most perfect person to handle the ever-increasing-in-popularity bromantic comedies? Helen Hunt (Then She Found Me) This actress-turned-filmmaker could be the 21st century Nora Ephron if only Hollywood believed that women could want something a little less cheesy than Sleepless in Seattle. Too bad movies like Sex and the City and Twilight are showing us female audiences actually prefer things even cheesier. But even a slight increase on Then She Found Me’s $3.5 million budget could give Hunt the ability to deliver a thoughtful cross between romantic comedy and Hallmark melodrama that might just elevate the tastes of moviegoers, or at least attract more intelligent women to the multiplex. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/4/36940.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/4/2008 12:01:19 PM
Body: Before you go to the polls today, you need to understand where the candidates stand on the really big issues. No, I don’t mean silly stuff like the economy. I mean the issues that threaten to plunge the world into an era of scorched, apocalyptic savagery. Sure, an ongoing war in the Middle East and gradual climate change are kind of scary, but how will Obama and McCain respond to the threats that can wipe out 99% of humanity overnight? These are dire times, and doomsday cinema has made one thing clear: this will probably be our last president before Armageddon sweeps from sea to shining see, so we’d better choose wisely. After the jump we look at where the candidates stand on the issues, from Alien Invasion to Zombie Plague. Near Earth Object Collision The possibility of a near Earth object (such as a huge comet or meteor) striking Earth and wiping out all life has been used films like Deep Impact and Armageddon, and it’s actually quite possible. It’s unlikely to happen in the next four years, but over the next several millennia, a devastating impact event is very likely. It doesn’t hurt to be prepared. Under which administration would we be least likely to be burned to a crisp when the big one hits? Obama: BarackObama.com has a .PDF available for download describing the candidate’s positions on issues pertaining to science and innovation. It’s pretty hard to find, the document is filed under the “Additional Issues” section of the website. There’s plenty of good stuff in there, but NASA, the organization most likely to be watching out for huge rocks in the sky, is only mentioned in a very small paragraph on the second to last page. The points are rather general, along the lines of “make it better.” McCain: JohnMcCain.com is much more explicit in outlining the candidate’s policies on space. While he doesn’t mention detection of near Earth objects, he does set aside a paragraph to explain why expensive and dangerous manned space missions are important. He says they exhibit courage and are illustrative of America’s status as a superpower. Who comes out on top? I’d have to say McCain. Preventing human extinction in the event of an interstellar impact requires two things: One, preparedness in the form of early warnings and sufficient response technology. And two, the balls to do something about it. While Obama’s commitment to increase basic research funding over the next ten years will help us be prepared, McCain’s fighter pilot instincts and commitment to put men aboard insanely suicidal space missions is essential. Both Deep Impact and Armageddon feature astronauts (who are often just exceptional fighter pilots) making the ultimate sacrifice to save innocent lives. Biological Terrorism Remember that scene in 12 Monkeys where the crazy scientist/terrorist is going through airport security with vials of a super-virus he engineered to wipe out the human race, and the security guard seems only mildly curious before letting him pass? While the TSA seems mostly useless, a biological attack certainly wouldn’t be that easy now. That said, we’re still not even close to being safe from the threat of viruses that melt flesh, turn people into savage killers, or transform humanity into flesh-hungry zombies. What are the candidates going to do to protect us from these threats? Obama: In the aforementioned .PDF on science policy, Obama laments that under the Bush administration “DARPA has retreated from its traditional commitment to invest in long-term, high-risk, high-return research.” Translation: let’s put money into technology that will protect us from far-out, freaky, sci-fi shit. This includes “microsystems, nanotechnology, … synthetic biology, and advanced manufacturing.” So not only will we be prepared for a biological strike, we’ll have a garrison of mech warriors up and running by 2012. McCain: National security is seen as a strong issue for McCain. Indeed, his ideas about tightening border security seem practical and effective, especially keeping a closer eye on the contents of the millions of shipping containers that enter our ports every year. He also has an interesting, and very Republican, idea about involving the private sector in disaster response. True, FedEx is better at tracking shipments than FEMA, but in the event of a contagious zombie plague, the last place you’ll want to go is WalMart, unless you’re planning on looting chainsaws, shotguns, and football pads. Who comes out on top? I may be going against conventional wisdom here, but I’ve got to say Obama. Super secret DARPA funding will lead to technologies that will not only save us, but will totally kick ass. In all seriousness, though, Obama’s willingness to actually talk to the people who are mad at us convinces me he’ll be more effective at stopping terrorism. Alien Invasion A staple of science fiction for well over a century, an attack from outer space would be the ultimate test for a president. The goal here is to be like Bill Pullman’s inspiring President Whitmore from Independence Day, and nothing like Jack Nicholson’s corrupt President Dale from Mars Attacks!. Obama: Obama’s increased funding of science research and DARPA, as mentioned above, would be helpful. But his charisma and diplomatic tact will have little affect on a superior race that views humanity as little more than a colony of pests. McCain: McCain’s strength on defense and his priority on manned space missions would make militarized space flight a reality within a few short years. Unlike terrestrial conflicts, we might benefit from the Republican shoot first, ask questions later defense policy. A full-scale invasion of Earth would take a considerable amount of planning. Under a McCain administration, those flying saucers performing reconnaissance missions would be quickly destroyed, sending a powerful message back to Alpha Centuri: Don’t mess with us. Who comes out on top? McCain, hands down. Bill Pullman’s President Whitmore practically is John McCain. They’re both decorated fighter pilots from Vietnam. And I’m sure McCain would jump back in the cockpit if humanity needed him. Environmental Calamity From The Day After Tomorrow to Wall-E, environmental disasters are common in film. An essential element in these tales is hubris on the part of the world leaders, who don’t act until it’s far too late. Since Al Gore is not running this year, which candidate is better prepared to prevent the world from filling up with trash and toxic gas? Obama: I’ve got to give Obama credit because his environmental policies actually deal with something beyond climate change and energy independence, issues like mercury, air pollution, and water shortages. Of course curbing greenhouse gas emissions is the big enchilada, and his plan seems pretty good. It’s also almost identical to McCain’s plan, at least that’s my impression after perusing each candidate’s website. McCain: McCain’s cap and trade plan to address greenhouse gases looks pretty good (which, considering the record of his party, is a tremendous compliment). One discrepancy is that McCain seems more willing to offer free carbon credits to certain industries that could be stifled by a cap and trade system (like big oil). Neither site is very clear on how such exceptions would be granted. Who comes out on top? Obama, but in a way, it’s a shame. The Democrats pretty much always have a leg up on the Republicans when it comes to the environment, and that’s never been truer than in the last eight years. But this is one issue where McCain’s claim that he would be nothing like Bush is totally legit. As far as Republicans go, McCain is actually pretty green, but Obama still edges him out. Hopefully McCain represents a new kind of Republican, because preventing an ecological apocalypse will require bipartisan effort. If not, we’d better start building a huge spaceship and an adorable little robot to clean up after us. Conclusion: Well, it looks like a tie. Whichever candidate wins, things are looking up in my opinion. Now all we need to do is stave off World War III until January 20. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:01:19 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/4/2008 12:01:19 PM Before you go to the polls today, you need to understand where the candidates stand on the really big issues. No, I don’t mean silly stuff like the economy. I mean the issues that threaten to plunge the world into an era of scorched, apocalyptic savagery. Sure, an ongoing war in the Middle East and gradual climate change are kind of scary, but how will Obama and McCain respond to the threats that can wipe out 99% of humanity overnight? These are dire times, and doomsday cinema has made one thing clear: this will probably be our last president before Armageddon sweeps from sea to shining see, so we’d better choose wisely. After the jump we look at where the candidates stand on the issues, from Alien Invasion to Zombie Plague. Near Earth Object Collision The possibility of a near Earth object (such as a huge comet or meteor) striking Earth and wiping out all life has been used films like Deep Impact and Armageddon, and it’s actually quite possible. It’s unlikely to happen in the next four years, but over the next several millennia, a devastating impact event is very likely. It doesn’t hurt to be prepared. Under which administration would we be least likely to be burned to a crisp when the big one hits? Obama: BarackObama.com has a .PDF available for download describing the candidate’s positions on issues pertaining to science and innovation. It’s pretty hard to find, the document is filed under the “Additional Issues” section of the website. There’s plenty of good stuff in there, but NASA, the organization most likely to be watching out for huge rocks in the sky, is only mentioned in a very small paragraph on the second to last page. The points are rather general, along the lines of “make it better.” McCain: JohnMcCain.com is much more explicit in outlining the candidate’s policies on space. While he doesn’t mention detection of near Earth objects, he does set aside a paragraph to explain why expensive and dangerous manned space missions are important. He says they exhibit courage and are illustrative of America’s status as a superpower. Who comes out on top? I’d have to say McCain. Preventing human extinction in the event of an interstellar impact requires two things: One, preparedness in the form of early warnings and sufficient response technology. And two, the balls to do something about it. While Obama’s commitment to increase basic research funding over the next ten years will help us be prepared, McCain’s fighter pilot instincts and commitment to put men aboard insanely suicidal space missions is essential. Both Deep Impact and Armageddon feature astronauts (who are often just exceptional fighter pilots) making the ultimate sacrifice to save innocent lives. Biological Terrorism Remember that scene in 12 Monkeys where the crazy scientist/terrorist is going through airport security with vials of a super-virus he engineered to wipe out the human race, and the security guard seems only mildly curious before letting him pass? While the TSA seems mostly useless, a biological attack certainly wouldn’t be that easy now. That said, we’re still not even close to being safe from the threat of viruses that melt flesh, turn people into savage killers, or transform humanity into flesh-hungry zombies. What are the candidates going to do to protect us from these threats? Obama: In the aforementioned .PDF on science policy, Obama laments that under the Bush administration “DARPA has retreated from its traditional commitment to invest in long-term, high-risk, high-return research.” Translation: let’s put money into technology that will protect us from far-out, freaky, sci-fi shit. This includes “microsystems, nanotechnology, … synthetic biology, and advanced manufacturing.” So not only will we be prepared for a biological strike, we’ll have a garrison of mech warriors up and running by 2012. McCain: National security is seen as a strong issue for McCain. Indeed, his ideas about tightening border security seem practical and effective, especially keeping a closer eye on the contents of the millions of shipping containers that enter our ports every year. He also has an interesting, and very Republican, idea about involving the private sector in disaster response. True, FedEx is better at tracking shipments than FEMA, but in the event of a contagious zombie plague, the last place you’ll want to go is WalMart, unless you’re planning on looting chainsaws, shotguns, and football pads. Who comes out on top? I may be going against conventional wisdom here, but I’ve got to say Obama. Super secret DARPA funding will lead to technologies that will not only save us, but will totally kick ass. In all seriousness, though, Obama’s willingness to actually talk to the people who are mad at us convinces me he’ll be more effective at stopping terrorism. Alien Invasion A staple of science fiction for well over a century, an attack from outer space would be the ultimate test for a president. The goal here is to be like Bill Pullman’s inspiring President Whitmore from Independence Day, and nothing like Jack Nicholson’s corrupt President Dale from Mars Attacks!. Obama: Obama’s increased funding of science research and DARPA, as mentioned above, would be helpful. But his charisma and diplomatic tact will have little affect on a superior race that views humanity as little more than a colony of pests. McCain: McCain’s strength on defense and his priority on manned space missions would make militarized space flight a reality within a few short years. Unlike terrestrial conflicts, we might benefit from the Republican shoot first, ask questions later defense policy. A full-scale invasion of Earth would take a considerable amount of planning. Under a McCain administration, those flying saucers performing reconnaissance missions would be quickly destroyed, sending a powerful message back to Alpha Centuri: Don’t mess with us. Who comes out on top? McCain, hands down. Bill Pullman’s President Whitmore practically is John McCain. They’re both decorated fighter pilots from Vietnam. And I’m sure McCain would jump back in the cockpit if humanity needed him. Environmental Calamity From The Day After Tomorrow to Wall-E, environmental disasters are common in film. An essential element in these tales is hubris on the part of the world leaders, who don’t act until it’s far too late. Since Al Gore is not running this year, which candidate is better prepared to prevent the world from filling up with trash and toxic gas? Obama: I’ve got to give Obama credit because his environmental policies actually deal with something beyond climate change and energy independence, issues like mercury, air pollution, and water shortages. Of course curbing greenhouse gas emissions is the big enchilada, and his plan seems pretty good. It’s also almost identical to McCain’s plan, at least that’s my impression after perusing each candidate’s website. McCain: McCain’s cap and trade plan to address greenhouse gases looks pretty good (which, considering the record of his party, is a tremendous compliment). One discrepancy is that McCain seems more willing to offer free carbon credits to certain industries that could be stifled by a cap and trade system (like big oil). Neither site is very clear on how such exceptions would be granted. Who comes out on top? Obama, but in a way, it’s a shame. The Democrats pretty much always have a leg up on the Republicans when it comes to the environment, and that’s never been truer than in the last eight years. But this is one issue where McCain’s claim that he would be nothing like Bush is totally legit. As far as Republicans go, McCain is actually pretty green, but Obama still edges him out. Hopefully McCain represents a new kind of Republican, because preventing an ecological apocalypse will require bipartisan effort. If not, we’d better start building a huge spaceship and an adorable little robot to clean up after us. Conclusion: Well, it looks like a tie. Whichever candidate wins, things are looking up in my opinion. Now all we need to do is stave off World War III until January 20. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/digitalconquest/archive/2008/9/16/35194.aspx Post By: digitalconquest
Post To: digitalconquest Blog
Post Date: 9/16/2008 12:31:59 PM
Body: We all like our guilty pleasures. Go ahead admit it, nothing to be ashamed of. I’ll start. I like disaster films, usually no matter how bad or nonsensical they might be. I also have lots of problems with Roland Emmerich’s INDEPENDENCE DAY, but must admit sometimes I just like to putting my brain down next to me on the couch, sitting back, and watching cities being destroyed and aliens blowing the shit out of everything. So, suffice to say, yeah, I’m a hypocrite. I scream obscenities about the director for his lack of creative depth or originality, but at the same time, I can be an eight your old boy watching Sci-Fi Theater on a boring Sunday afternoon all over again. The same can be said for Emmerich’s last effort (or lack thereof) with THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. Sure, it’s implausible, even extremely hokey and exploitative when it comes to trying to pull at the heartstrings, but did anyone rush out to see this for its high dramatic moments? Or did they just want to see humanity destroyed by the elements? Come on, you wanted to witness people freezing instantly, tornadoes tearing apart big cities, and the world’s largest flood envelop New York City. So let’s count the destructive scoreboard, that’s Natural Disasters with 33 and New York with a big whopping 0. Much like ID4, Emmerich manages to put together a very likeable cast. The main focus centers on the Hall family. Dennis Quaid plays the paleoclimatologist who figures the earth, as we know it, is coming to an end. His son, Sam, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, is stuck in New York City for a big scholastic tournament when disaster strikes. Meanwhile, Dr. Lucy Hall as doting wife, caring mother and incredible children’s Leukemia physician, stands by trying to get the last sick child out of the local hospital before they are all doomed. Before anything can approach After School Special calamity, we are kept busy with unlikely scientific events until the incredible catastrophe hits us in the face not with one, but several disasters. There are tornados, tidal waves and floods, hail the size of cantaloupes, and the impending ice age all rolled into one. Of course, this means a race against time. The government doesn’t listen until it’s too late. People need to head south or they will become instant flesh-cicles. Dad needs to put on them snowshoes and traipse his frozen ass through the new icy tundra to New York and save his kid. While waiting for his father to come to the rescue, Sam only has so much time to tell Laura, his high school sweetheart (Emmy Rossum), how he feels in order to get some extra warmth on those long cold nights. Meanwhile, Mom can’t believe nobody seems to care about this last dying child in the evacuated hospital, and before Graham Chapman in a British Military uniform can say, “Wait for it,” along comes the final ambulance and driver left to save the day. And best of all, we get fellow Hobbit Ian Holm and a couple of comrades together, drinking some expensive Scotch and waiting nostalgically for their inevitable end. You can add the “yada yadas” and the “Oh boys” now, but thanks to the cast and the talent behind the sincerity, it isn’t as bad as it sounds. At least not until about a half hour after it is all over and you start to think about it. Outside of its presentation, great effects and all its entertainment value, the film is instantly forgettable. This is strictly soaked with butter popcorn time, folks. Check the brain at the door and enjoy the end of the world. I keep mentioning the disasters and the effects, and simply put, they are a marvel to look at. They are more detailed than usual, with headlights of airborne cars shining through and smashing in the middle of tornadoes or tidal waves, instant military flesh freezing, and the largest swirling cloud you are ever likely going to see. It’s CGI time, but it looks great, at least on the small screen. I felt I had better movies to spend my hard-earned cash on at the time than another Emmerich flick on the big screen. The sound effects are multi-layered and effective, the music by Harald (ALIEN VS PREDATOR) Kloser and Thomas (THE THIRTEENTH FLOOR) Wanker is appropriately melodramatic, while David (THE DOORS, WHAT DREAMS MAY COME) Brenner’s editing keeps everything moving fast across the screen despite its over two hour long running time. I could go over the list of special effects and makeup artists, not to mention some of the amazing stunts that the stunt crew probably will never get noticed for, but it would take too long to cover it all. Suffice to say, they are the backbone to making this production work. Given its big advertising campaign and the loud fanfare for THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, I was surprised by the lack of extras on the disc. You get two commentaries, one with director Roland Emmerich and producer Mark Gordon and the other more technical one with co-writer Jeffrey Nachmanoff, director of photography Ueli Steiger (who does some amazing work here), editor David Brenner and production designer Barry Chusid. There are two deleted scenes, which are actually only one scene with the other being more of an alternative version. Both are inconsequential to the plotline. Last on the disc is a pretty interesting sample of laying in the 8-track sound to complete the overall audio effect. It’s pretty cool to check out each layer playing separately during the helicopter scene, displaying how everything fits together. The final extra is a DVD-Rom feature that is suppose to take you to a special website link so you can watch about an hour worth of exclusive “making of” footage. Unfortunately, since my DVD-Rom drive is also a CD-drive (or at least that’s the only thing that made sense), I couldn’t get it to work. It just sat there and told me to put it in my computer DVD Drive, which was where I was sitting at to begin with when checking out the extras. Looking over my review, yes, I’m still a hypocrite. I can understand someone reading this tirade of complaints and cynical jaded jabs at this brain-dead movie as being a negative recommendation of THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. They would be right! Yet, I can’t help but enjoy it. Sure, it won’t have the nostalgic power to match revisiting EARTHQUAKE, THE TOWERING INFERNO, or even THE SWARM, but someday it might. If that happens, it will be one with several disasters on the screen and behind the camera.
]]>Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:31:59 GMTdigitalconquestdigitalconquest Blog9/16/2008 12:31:59 PMWe all like our guilty pleasures. Go ahead admit it, nothing to be ashamed of. I&rsquo;ll start. I like disaster films, usually no matter how bad or nonsensical they might be. I also have lots of problems with Roland Emmerich&rsquo;s INDEPENDENCE DAY, but must admit sometimes I just like to putting my brain down next to me on the couch, sitting back, and watching cities being destroyed and aliens blowing the shit out of everything. So, suffice to say, yeah, I&rsquo;m a hypocrite. I scream obscenities about the director for his lack of creative depth or originality, but at the same time, I can be an eight your old boy watching Sci-Fi Theater on a boring Sunday afternoon all over again. The same can be said for Emmerich&rsquo;s last effort (or lack thereof) with THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. Sure, it&rsquo;s implausible, even extremely hokey and exploitative when it comes to trying to pull at the heartstrings, but did anyone rush out to see this for its high dramatic moments? Or did they just want to see humanity destroyed by the elements? Come on, you wanted to witness people freezing instantly, tornadoes tearing apart big cities, and the world&rsquo;s largest flood envelop New York City. So let&rsquo;s count the destructive scoreboard, that&rsquo;s Natural Disasters with 33 and New York with a big whopping 0. Much like ID4, Emmerich manages to put together a very likeable cast. The main focus centers on the Hall family. Dennis Quaid plays the paleoclimatologist who figures the earth, as we know it, is coming to an end. His son, Sam, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, is stuck in New York City for a big scholastic tournament when disaster strikes. Meanwhile, Dr. Lucy Hall as doting wife, caring mother and incredible children&rsquo;s Leukemia physician, stands by trying to get the last sick child out of the local hospital before they are all doomed. Before anything can approach After School Special calamity, we are kept busy with unlikely scientific events until the incredible catastrophe hits us in the face not with one, but several disasters. There are tornados, tidal waves and floods, hail the size of cantaloupes, and the impending ice age all rolled into one. Of course, this means a race against time. The government doesn&rsquo;t listen until it&rsquo;s too late. People need to head south or they will become instant flesh-cicles. Dad needs to put on them snowshoes and traipse his frozen ass through the new icy tundra to New York and save his kid. While waiting for his father to come to the rescue, Sam only has so much time to tell Laura, his high school sweetheart (Emmy Rossum), how he feels in order to get some extra warmth on those long cold nights. Meanwhile, Mom can&rsquo;t believe nobody seems to care about this last dying child in the evacuated hospital, and before Graham Chapman in a British Military uniform can say, &ldquo;Wait for it,&rdquo; along comes the final ambulance and driver left to save the day. And best of all, we get fellow Hobbit Ian Holm and a couple of comrades together, drinking some expensive Scotch and waiting nostalgically for their inevitable end. You can add the &ldquo;yada yadas&rdquo; and the &ldquo;Oh boys&rdquo; now, but thanks to the cast and the talent behind the sincerity, it isn&rsquo;t as bad as it sounds. At least not until about a half hour after it is all over and you start to think about it. Outside of its presentation, great effects and all its entertainment value, the film is instantly forgettable. This is strictly soaked with butter popcorn time, folks. Check the brain at the door and enjoy the end of the world. I keep mentioning the disasters and the effects, and simply put, they are a marvel to look at. They are more detailed than usual, with headlights of airborne cars shining through and smashing in the middle of tornadoes or tidal waves, instant military flesh freezing, and the largest swirling cloud you are ever likely going to see. It&rsquo;s CGI time, but it looks great, at least on the small screen. I felt I had better movies to spend my hard-earned cash on at the time than another Emmerich flick on the big screen. The sound effects are multi-layered and effective, the music by Harald (ALIEN VS PREDATOR) Kloser and Thomas (THE THIRTEENTH FLOOR) Wanker is appropriately melodramatic, while David (THE DOORS, WHAT DREAMS MAY COME) Brenner&rsquo;s editing keeps everything moving fast across the screen despite its over two hour long running time. I could go over the list of special effects and makeup artists, not to mention some of the amazing stunts that the stunt crew probably will never get noticed for, but it would take too long to cover it all. Suffice to say, they are the backbone to making this production work. Given its big advertising campaign and the loud fanfare for THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, I was surprised by the lack of extras on the disc. You get two commentaries, one with director Roland Emmerich and producer Mark Gordon and the other more technical one with co-writer Jeffrey Nachmanoff, director of photography Ueli Steiger (who does some amazing work here), editor David Brenner and production designer Barry Chusid. There are two deleted scenes, which are actually only one scene with the other being more of an alternative version. Both are inconsequential to the plotline. Last on the disc is a pretty interesting sample of laying in the 8-track sound to complete the overall audio effect. It&rsquo;s pretty cool to check out each layer playing separately during the helicopter scene, displaying how everything fits together. The final extra is a DVD-Rom feature that is suppose to take you to a special website link so you can watch about an hour worth of exclusive &ldquo;making of&rdquo; footage. Unfortunately, since my DVD-Rom drive is also a CD-drive (or at least that&rsquo;s the only thing that made sense), I couldn&rsquo;t get it to work. It just sat there and told me to put it in my computer DVD Drive, which was where I was sitting at to begin with when checking out the extras. Looking over my review, yes, I&rsquo;m still a hypocrite. I can understand someone reading this tirade of complaints and cynical jaded jabs at this brain-dead movie as being a negative recommendation of THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. They would be right! Yet, I can&rsquo;t help but enjoy it. Sure, it won&rsquo;t have the nostalgic power to match revisiting EARTHQUAKE, THE TOWERING INFERNO, or even THE SWARM, but someday it might. If that happens, it will be one with several disasters on the screen and behind the camera. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/bad/MemberTagFilms.aspxbad
Number of films tagged: 65

Number of people who tagged: 48

Number of times used: 71

]]>Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:26:01 GMT654871Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hope/MemberTagFilms.aspxhope
Number of films tagged: 278

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 78

]]>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:03:04 GMT2783578Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/disaster/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisaster
Number of films tagged: 460

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 20

]]>Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:23:17 GMT4601420Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/father-son/MemberTagFilms.aspxfather-son
Number of films tagged: 20

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 23

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:50:39 GMT201423Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/globalwarming/MemberTagFilms.aspxglobalwarming
Number of films tagged: 55

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 8

]]>Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:12:44 GMT5588Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/global-warming/MemberTagFilms.aspxglobal-warming
Number of films tagged: 9

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 9

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:35:19 GMT979Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/tornado/MemberTagFilms.aspxtornado
Number of films tagged: 80

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 7

]]>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:15:01 GMT8067Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/what-if/MemberTagFilms.aspxwhat-if
Number of films tagged: 4

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 5

]]>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 03:43:27 GMT455Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/blizzard/MemberTagFilms.aspxblizzard
Number of films tagged: 62

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 5

]]>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:32:06 GMT6245Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/weather/MemberTagFilms.aspxweather
Number of films tagged: 146

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 5

]]>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:02:07 GMT14645Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/good-intentions/MemberTagFilms.aspxgood-intentions
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Sun, 17 Dec 2006 04:05:18 GMT222Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/global-chaos/MemberTagFilms.aspxglobal-chaos
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:52:34 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/global-mageddon/MemberTagFilms.aspxglobal-mageddon
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:09:26 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/subzero/MemberTagFilms.aspxsubzero
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:10:34 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/ecologicaldisaster/MemberTagFilms.aspxecologicaldisaster
Number of films tagged: 24

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:06:55 GMT2400Tag