PDA

View Full Version : Bad Astronomy coming this fall



Rodina
2002-Aug-23, 11:42 PM
http://www.cinemovies.fr/medias/ba/thecorebavo_240.mov

Watch this trailer and cringe!

mallen
2002-Aug-25, 03:57 AM
Ouch. It hurts. Make it stop.

Seriously, it's bad. I've never seen a premise so broken and stupid. In just that short trailer, they get more Bad Astronomy/Science than most bad movies do in the full-length feature. (I won't spoil it... see for yourself.)

Maybe if I close my eyes and keep reciting "It's just a dream" I will wake up in my bed and everything will be alright.

The Mad Prophet
2002-Aug-25, 06:42 AM
AAAAAAARRRRGGHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Jeebus crisp that looks bad. Train wreck bad. I can't wait to see it.

Geo3gh
2002-Aug-25, 07:00 AM
Ow.

You know, I think the Rocky Horror Picture Show had better science.

Riff-Raff:
"This gun emits a beam of pure antimatter."

Audience:
"Does that mean it doesn't matter?"


_________________
Jeff Schwarz
__________________________________________________
I have Invader's blood marching through my veins
like giant radioactive rubber pants! The pants
command me! Do not ignore my veins!
--Invader ZIM

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Geo3gh on 2002-08-25 03:01 ]</font>

Rodina
2002-Aug-25, 11:11 AM
I like how it arbitrarily sets 700,000 years as being, well, long enough between cataclysms.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Aug-25, 04:43 PM
On 2002-08-25 07:11, Rodina wrote:
I like how it arbitrarily sets 700,000 years as being, well, long enough between cataclysms.

I didn't watch it, what does it say?

By coincidence, 700,000 years is roughly the time between the great eruptions of the Yellowstone caldera--2 million years ago, 1.3 mya, and 0.6 mya. So, anytime soon!

Rodina
2002-Aug-25, 05:13 PM
Grapes -

This thing has to be watched to be believed.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Aug-25, 05:23 PM
I cringe in any movie where someone says "noo kyoo luhr".

g99
2002-Aug-25, 05:53 PM
How did the core stop? Did someone put on the brakes? Or at the begining of the movie do you see a bald headed man stroking a white persian cat giving the orders for their goofy stupid easy to kill sidekick to press the button to start the laser that will stop the core?

Plus how will "a thousand megaton nuclear bomb" restart the core? Finally why dont they just send down Al Roker to run laps around the core like it is a giant hamsterwheel? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

I definitely agree that there is absolutely no scvience in this movie. This is even worse than the aliens killing weapon in signs. Finally there is no thing on earth that can withstand the pressure of even a mile of rock on them, so how can they last several thousand? Heck they have just figured out in the last 50years how to build something to go down to 3 miles of ocean water. How can they last several thousand miles of a more dense material? ARRRGGG...My Brain is dwindling even now from watching that preview!! N.........[BRAIN SYSTEM FAILURE. SHUTTING DOWN...REBOTTING..FAILURE...SHUTTTING DOWN PERMANENTLY] Wow that seems like a great movie i hope it does not happen in real life... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

David Hall
2002-Aug-25, 08:48 PM
On 2002-08-25 13:23, The Bad Astronomer wrote:

I cringe in any movie where someone says "noo kyoo luhr".


I'm getting to the point where I cringe at just about any movie. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

But this one sure has buried the needle at the top of the cringe-o-meter. Uggh.

Was the trailer for Armageddon this bad? What do you think, will this movie top the big A for bad science? At least Armageddon had a sort-of reasonable situation.

The Shade
2002-Aug-26, 02:37 PM
I want my $8.00 back. Oh, wait, I just saw a preview. I still feel I'm owed $8.00. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Man, that movie is so full of scientific holes, I could see clear through to the other side of the Earth. Hello China! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Plot analysis:

-This happens every 700,000 years. Wow! One wonders how complex life (plants & animals) ever made it through all of that.

-If the core stopped spinning in the past, how did it start to spin up again? In the movie, the current core-stoppage is rectified by using noo-Kyul-urh weapons. Maybe Atlantis or Lemuria helped during the past events?

I already know some people are going to ask me questions about this movie, and I'm already cringing about it. Sigh!

_________________
Books make a lot of money.
Tourism helps generate a lot of money.
Maybe that's what drives the conspiracy theorists?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Shade on 2002-08-26 10:38 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Shade on 2002-08-26 15:03 ]</font>

kucharek
2002-Aug-26, 03:30 PM
The worse the movie, the more Bad Astronomy hurts. Anyone remembers the old The Day the Earth Caught Fire (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0054790)? The astronomy/physics in it are as bad as in this "Core" movie, but it had a good plot and characters.

Harald

Russ
2002-Aug-26, 04:30 PM
We were discussing this last week on one of the other forums under the title "Core". I can't find it now so it must have scrolled off.

Some of the things that came up on the other thread:
1) What natural mechanism could stop the core from spinning?
2) What natural mechanism could restart it spinning?
3) What possible use would a nuuukuuular bomb be in restarting the spin? To start a static core spinning would require a vectored thrust, Nuc's produce spherical thrust.
4) If the core stops spinning on it's own, that is a lot of angular momentum to disipate. Where did all of the energy go? Into the mantle? That'd cause all of the volcanos on Earth to errupt at once and maybe make some new ones.
5) If it restarted spinning in the past, what was the mechinism? That would consume HUGE amounts of energy. Where did that come from?

A BOTTOMLESS PIT OF BAD ASTRONOMY, PHYSICS, GEOLOGY, VULCANOLOGY, ET. AL. AD INFINITUM!!!! Thus spoke Zarathustra! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

Valiant Dancer
2002-Aug-26, 04:38 PM
On 2002-08-23 19:42, Rodina wrote:

http://www.cinemovies.fr/medias/ba/thecorebavo_240.mov

Watch this trailer and cringe!





This movie and premise discussed here

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=1981&forum=4&8

Is there such as thing as horrid physics? "Bad" just doesn't seem to be enough.

Supposed premise: Man-made core rotation stoppage by years of nuclear waste dumping into the bowels of the earth. Team of losers, I mean heros, go down to the core to set off a bunch of thermonuclear devices to kick start the core.

Real premise: Hemp growing in back yard. Had to smoke it and get idea for this movie. Claims to have good(tm) physics. Much like the Enterprise Mission presents the Truth(tm).

David Hall
2002-Aug-26, 04:55 PM
You know, the more I think about it, it appears this is just a version of Armageddon heading down instead of up.

Spare Time Continuum
2002-Aug-27, 05:50 AM
Maybe it should be renamed to "I'm a-diggin'"...

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kaptain K
2002-Aug-27, 10:31 AM
Armageddon sick. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

2002-Aug-28, 03:25 AM
Hey these actors deserve Oscar nods, to deliver lines like that without cracking up, that's talent man!

Ain't America great? No matter how stupid the Idea or useless the product, someone here will buy it. Don't believe me?
Then I've got two words for you....Pet Rock!

Sum0
2002-Aug-28, 10:51 AM
UpcomingMovies.com's The Core section ( http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hp&cf=prev&id=1808403562 ) points out the fact you'd be crushed to death. It also says that the script now says the Earth's core has suffered a change in temperature, not that it's stopped spinning.

nebularain
2002-Aug-28, 11:06 AM
Actually, what it says is:


Premise: When something happens to cause the core of the planet to change in temperature, threatening to stop the planet from revolving, ....

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif Boy, this just keeps on getting better and better!

David Hall
2002-Aug-28, 02:08 PM
One thing I keep noticing is a lot of misunderstanding about poles shifting or reversing. I think a lot of people think that the physical poles shift, causing the entire planet to do a backflip. But there's no evidence whatsoever for such large physical alteration in the planet's orientation, save perhaps in the early history of the solar system when very large collisions may have knocked it for a loop.

The only pole shifts that have been known to occurr are with the magnetic poles. These poles shift around constantly, and have exchanged north for south many times in the Earth's history. To give this movie credit (can I do that?), this is what this trailer actually seems to be implying with it's mentions of lethal radiation and such. But while there may be some nasty effects from a drop in magnetic field strength, they would be long term effects, and nothing as disasterous as this movie depicts.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Aug-28, 02:36 PM
On 2002-08-28 10:08, David Hall wrote:
The only pole shifts that have been known to occurr are with the magnetic poles.

The "physical poles" shift some, continually.

David Hall
2002-Aug-28, 02:46 PM
On 2002-08-28 10:36, GrapesOfWrath wrote:

The "physical poles" shift some, continually.


Yes, of course. I had tried to allow that by talking only about "large shifts", but I didn't want to complicate things.

Precession and the other Milankovitch Cycles (http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm) do alter the alignment of the physical poles, but those are small, and regular shifts. They may affect climate over the very long term, but not disaters of the sort this movie depicts.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Aug-28, 02:57 PM
On 2002-08-28 10:46, David Hall wrote:
Precession and the other Milankovitch Cycles (http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm) do alter the alignment of the physical poles, but those are small, and regular shifts.

There are physical pole shifts much larger than that. The shifts due to annual weather changes are hundreds of times bigger than those, and the Chandler wobble is even bigger than that--and it's shift is not even regular.

aurorae
2002-Aug-28, 09:43 PM
On 2002-08-28 10:08, David Hall wrote:
One thing I keep noticing is a lot of misunderstanding about poles shifting or reversing. I think a lot of people think that the physical poles shift, causing the entire planet to do a backflip. But there's no evidence whatsoever for such large physical alteration in the planet's orientation, save perhaps in the early history of the solar system when very large collisions may have knocked it for a loop.


I have read that our Moon has kept our planets pole fairly stable, and have also read that Mars is supposed to have had large variation in the orientation of its physical pole in the past.

I've never completely understood this, but have seen it in several sources (for one, it is included in the book Rare Earth).

I'm also curious, if this is true, what would we expect to find on Mars that would have been the result? And, does what we observe there now follow?

Sum0
2002-Aug-29, 09:46 AM
On 2002-08-28 17:43, aurorae wrote:
I have read that our Moon has kept our planets pole fairly stable, and have also read that Mars is supposed to have had large variation in the orientation of its physical pole in the past.


The way I understand it, the moon's gravity keeps the Earth's procession in check. Without the moon the Earth might "tip over" like Uranus, or less destructively simply suffer harsher seasons. I would assume the Moon "pulls" the Earth towards the correct orientation.

But why is Pluto on its side with Charon's relatively large mass?

n810
2002-Sep-02, 06:25 PM
Pluto is on it's side, asleep, like the disney dog it's named for (yes thats a joke)

But seriously, I could flip the earth over all by myself. Just get me a really big (I mean huge) lever, stick it under the south pole, and use the moon as a fulcrum. I'll take my insignifgant 120lbs and push down real hard, and flip that south pole north!

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

(edited for speeling, i knoew I should have had another cup of coffee before I tried to sound quasi-intellegent.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: n810 on 2002-09-02 14:27 ]</font>

gethen
2002-Sep-19, 06:22 PM
Wondering if this book is ostensibly "based" on an sf book of the same title. The book writer at least tried to obey the laws of physics. This looks like pure fantasy.

irony
2002-Sep-26, 06:06 PM
I doubt any of you out there want to take advice from a girl who considers Kenpachiro Satsuma a great actor and Eight Legged Freaks a modern classic, but here's my two cents. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

I actually want to see this... it looks like a real hoot. I loved Armageddon. There was something about that movie that made me want to cheer it on. Every time I thought it couldn't get any worse, it did a spectacular job of topping itself. If this one is half as terrible and a third as much fun, it'll easily be worth eight bucks.

LunarOrbit
2002-Sep-29, 07:40 PM
Obviously the writers of this movie don't know what they're talking about because the Earth is completely hollow... that's where the Nazi's and Reptilians are hiding.

At least that's what conspiracy nuts keep telling me... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif


Kel


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Lunarorbit on 2002-09-29 15:46 ]</font>

2002-Sep-30, 01:36 PM
Saw the trailer in the theatres **cringe** yesterday before The Tuxedo (mmm...Jennifer Love Hewitt) My friend and I where literally sitting there with our mouths open, "There are so many things wrong with that, I do not know where to start.)

Anyways, the part about the core stopping is still in there, so either they are sending out the wrong trailer, or they changed it back.

My friend and I agreed, this is a renter, once only, and then never spoken of again.

David Hall
2002-Sep-30, 05:17 PM
The worst thing about a movie like this is that you almost have to see it, just to find out whether or not it's really as bad as it looks.

At least now we have video stores, so we don't have to shell out full price at a theater. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Luriko-Ysabeth
2002-Oct-02, 02:35 AM
Cthulhu wrote:

//Anyways, the part about the core stopping is still in there, so either they are sending out the wrong trailer, or they changed it back.//

It was in the one I saw on Sunday, too.

(I then spent the rest of the trailer and most of the next one trying to figure out how on earth they thought the core *could* be spinning respective to the rest of the earth without being braked back into place by friction with the outer core or the mantle, depending. I mean, the lithosphere slides around, but it's going under or over pieces of itself and it's got nothing but air to hold it down...)

Granted, the trailer was attached to a movie in which cars exploded in Big Flaming Balls Of Gas whenever Lucy Liu *looked* at them funny, but at least the only exploding car that had anything to do with the plot blew up from an actual bomb.

I mean, incidental Bad Science is one thing. The plot depending on Bad Science is another thing altogether -- it'd be like a mystery's solution depending on the corpse's wounds bleeding when the murderer touched it.

Chip
2002-Oct-02, 07:18 AM
On 2002-08-26 11:30, kucharek wrote:
"Anyone remembers the old The Day the Earth Caught Fire (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0054790)? The astronomy/physics in it are as bad as in this "Core" movie, but it had a good plot and characters."

I remember The Day the Earth Caught Fire. Grim and well acted though. Science aside, an interesting premise: The end of the world as seen from the viewpoint of a reporter working for a London tabloid newspaper. I recall a dramatic, subtle moment where they're sitting in a pub, 120F outside, waiting for the Americans and the Russians to collectively release gigantic nuclear explosions on the other side of the planet. (It will somehow nudge the Earth into a stable orbit.) When they reach "zero" in the countdown, silently, a bit of dust falls from the ceiling.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-10-02 03:20 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Oct-02, 08:10 AM
On 2002-10-01 22:35, Luriko-Ysabeth wrote:
(I then spent the rest of the trailer and most of the next one trying to figure out how on earth they thought the core *could* be spinning respective to the rest of the earth without being braked back into place by friction with the outer core or the mantle, depending. I mean, the lithosphere slides around, but it's going under or over pieces of itself and it's got nothing but air to hold it down...)
Well, the parts of the Sun have different rotation rates, so maybe... Actually, the Earth's core probably does rotate at a slightly different rate--but on the order of hundreds of years, not days.

g99
2002-Oct-02, 02:31 PM
This is a quote from the scifi.com site:

"Jon Amiel, director of the upcoming SF action film The Core, told SCI FI Wire that his movie differs significantly from Journey to the Center of the Earth and other films with a similar premise. "I'd say that the only thing this movie has in common with Journey is that concept of an inner-space movie as opposed to an outer-space movie," Amiel said in an interview. "It doesn't have anything in common with anything I've seen before, which was another attraction to making it. It's related to movies like Armageddon, where a bunch of brilliant misfits go off to save the world, but there the similarities end.

The Core also has a much different, scientifically plausible tone, he said. "Even as an eight-year-old seeing Journey I didn't believe a word of it." For instance, "There's a famous scene where James Mason, who's still dressed in his impeccable Victorian tweeds and ascot, with a tiny little canvas backpack, says, reading into his notebook, 'Day 256. We now have reached...' It was a deliciously misguided piece of work. I don't think there was a single one of Jules Verne's suppositions that was close to being accurate."

Added Amiel, "I hope the film we're making is one that scientists will enjoy on [a certain] level. They'll enjoy pooh-poohing some of the factual liberties we're taking, and they'll get that sense of intellectual superiority that is the main consolation of being a scientist. Kids and adults will love the ride elements, because it will be a great ride. The other thing I think will make this film unusual is that we're making a character-driven visual effects movie, and I don't think those things together are an oxymoron." The Core, which stars Hilary Swank, Aaron Eckhart, Delroy Lindo and Alfre Woodard, opens nationwide on Nov. 1."


well at least they conceide that anyone with a nackground higher than kindergarden science will think the idea for the movie is stupid.


O.K. say the coprde did stop. how the heck would we start it up again. There is nuthing on earth that can stand those temperatures down there to even set a bomb down there. Plus even if you do set a bomb down there it wont survive long enougth to go throught a countdown. The temperature of the outer core is similar to the temp on the surface of the sun, and the pressures are high enougth to crush anythinh we know.

So tell me again how they will travel throught it? They say that there will be a character driven movie, B.S. all movies say that. I can tell you the characters now: The sexy woman who know everything (scientists or military tactitian), the handsom man who is the great leader who pulls everyone together, the mutinous "bad guy" who mutineys at the end of the movie nearly sending all to their death, the stupid red shirted extra who will be killed halfway throught the movie, and the eccentric scientist who just happens to of invented a untested technology that works with the exact perameters that are needed for the mission. and finally the full time military hard nosed , follow the rules guy who learns the errors of his ways by the end and throws away all of the rules to save the girl.

Now i know they are very cliche, but think back to most movies and they work (or atleast to most movies i think of).

nebularain
2002-Oct-02, 05:43 PM
On 2002-10-02 10:31, g99 wrote:
I can tell you the characters now: The sexy woman who know everything (scientists or military tactitian), the handsom man who is the great leader who pulls everyone together, the mutinous "bad guy" who mutineys at the end of the movie nearly sending all to their death, the stupid red shirted extra who will be killed halfway throught the movie, and the eccentric scientist who just happens to of invented a untested technology that works with the exact perameters that are needed for the mission. and finally the full time military hard nosed , follow the rules guy who learns the errors of his ways by the end and throws away all of the rules to save the girl.

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

informant
2002-Oct-02, 06:26 PM
"Jon Amiel, director of the upcoming SF action film The Core, told SCI FI Wire that his movie differs significantly from Journey to the Center of the Earth and other films with a similar premise. "I'd say that the only thing this movie has in common with Journey is that concept of an inner-space movie as opposed to an outer-space movie," Amiel said in an interview. "It doesn't have anything in common with anything I've seen before, which was another attraction to making it. It's related to movies like Armageddon, where a bunch of brilliant misfits go off to save the world, but there the similarities end.

The Core also has a much different, scientifically plausible tone, he said. "Even as an eight-year-old seeing Journey I didn't believe a word of it." For instance, "There's a famous scene where James Mason, who's still dressed in his impeccable Victorian tweeds and ascot, with a tiny little canvas backpack, says, reading into his notebook, 'Day 256. We now have reached...' It was a deliciously misguided piece of work. I don't think there was a single one of Jules Verne's suppositions that was close to being accurate."

Added Amiel, "I hope the film we're making is one that scientists will enjoy on [a certain] level. They'll enjoy pooh-poohing some of the factual liberties we're taking, and they'll get that sense of intellectual superiority that is the main consolation of being a scientist. Kids and adults will love the ride elements, because it will be a great ride. The other thing I think will make this film unusual is that we're making a character-driven visual effects movie, and I don't think those things together are an oxymoron." The Core, which stars Hilary Swank, Aaron Eckhart, Delroy Lindo and Alfre Woodard, opens nationwide on Nov. 1."

What a great description of all that's wrong with S.F. pictures today!

The Shade
2002-Oct-03, 12:14 AM
On 2002-10-02 10:31, g99 wrote:
So tell me again how they will travel throught it? They say that there will be a character driven movie, B.S. all movies say that. I can tell you the characters now: The sexy woman who know everything (scientists or military tactitian), the handsom man who is the great leader who pulls everyone together, the mutinous "bad guy" who mutineys at the end of the movie nearly sending all to their death, the stupid red shirted extra who will be killed halfway throught the movie, and the eccentric scientist who just happens to of invented a untested technology that works with the exact perameters that are needed for the mission. and finally the full time military hard nosed , follow the rules guy who learns the errors of his ways by the end and throws away all of the rules to save the girl.

Now i know they are very cliche, but think back to most movies and they work (or atleast to most movies i think of).



Wow! Did you attend an advance screening of this film?

Seriously though, I think you nailed it. You just perfectly described the way in which Hollywood stereotypes every character in their "not-so" sci-fi films. So, really, this film won't be that much different than most of the trashy sci-fi junk from Hollywood.

As further proof of this, just look at the release date. It's in the fall. A time for the not-so hot movies. So that means that even the studio execs don't expect much from this film, if they had, they would have released it during the blockbuster seasons (Summer and Christmas).

David Hall
2002-Oct-03, 05:17 PM
On 2002-10-02 10:31, A hollywood spinmeister wrote:

It's related to movies like Armageddon, where a bunch of brilliant misfits go off to save the world, but there the similarities end.

Uh-huh. I'll believe it when I see it. I think they got the first part of it right, but I'm not so sure about the last part. Of course, they could just be saying that because they know it's all but impossible to make anything worse than Armageddon. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif



The Core also has a much different, scientifically plausible tone, he said.

Why do Hollywood types always try to emphasise this? I believe they said the same thing about Armageddon. And actually, I think Armageddon probably has more scientific basis behind it. At least there is a real danger something like that could happen. This movie's crisis is just pure nonsense. In my experience, they always try to plug "plausability" the hardest when they know they don't have a scientific leg to stand on.


Added Amiel, "I hope the film we're making is one that scientists will enjoy on [a certain] level. They'll enjoy pooh-poohing some of the factual liberties we're taking, and they'll get that sense of intellectual superiority that is the main consolation of being a scientist. Kids and adults will love the ride elements, because it will be a great ride.

Let me interpret this. They know this they made a piece of scientific excrement, and that it'll p*** off the squares, but they don't care because they know the general public will buy it hook, line and sinker. How uncharacteristically honest of them.

(And what a terrible insult to scientists, to boot. "Consolation"?.)



The other thing I think will make this film unusual is that we're making a character-driven visual effects movie, and I don't think those things together are an oxymoron.

Another fallback onto convention. When they know a movie has a stinker of a plot, they either hype up 'character' or special effects. In this case, they are doing both.

This interview has me convinced. This is going to be one painful movie to watch.


I can tell you the characters now: The sexy woman who know everything (scientists or military tactitian), the handsom man who is the great leader who pulls everyone together, the mutinous "bad guy" who mutineys at the end of the movie nearly sending all to their death, the stupid red shirted extra who will be killed halfway throught the movie, and the eccentric scientist who just happens to of invented a untested technology that works with the exact perameters that are needed for the mission. and finally the full time military hard nosed , follow the rules guy who learns the errors of his ways by the end and throws away all of the rules to save the girl.

G99, that's a very insightful prediction. I'm looking forward to coming back here after the movie is released and seeing if you are 80% right, 90% right, or 100% right. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

g99
2002-Oct-03, 10:12 PM
The scifi.com site has added another article on the subject:

"Paramount Pictures has bumped the release of its SF-adventure film The Core from Nov. 1, 2002, to next year, according to Variety. Paramount cited the need to add additional special effects to the film, which centers on a group of astronauts and scientists (portrayed by Aaron Eckhart, Hilary Swank, Bruce Greenwood and Stanley Tucci) who must drill to the center of the Earth to jump-start the planet's inactive core.

"The Core is a huge film with exciting, innovative effects, and we always knew we were on a tight post-production schedule," Rob Friedman, chief operating officer and vice-chairman of Paramount's Motion Picture Group, told the trade paper. "In order not to compromise the quality of the effects, we have decided to give the filmmakers more time to perfect them. It's important to make the best film possible, not a release date."

The Core is now scheduled to be released in the first quarter of 2003."
(Emphasis mine)

Basically dave, you hit the perverbial nail on the head with you descriptions of why the industry is doing it. I personally feel that from what i am seeing from the preview and articles is that i will get the same excitement (and possible a better movie) if i just sat in silence and watched the graphics. Or even if i turned the sound off and made up my own dialogue mst3k style.

And thanks for the vote of confidence in my prediction everyone. I hope it comes true. If it does im going to go for the lottery and see if that will work too. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

by the wway, the site i got it from is: http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/

Luriko-Ysabeth
2002-Oct-04, 12:09 AM
The Shade wrote:

//Seriously though, I think you nailed it. You just perfectly described the way in which Hollywood stereotypes every character in their "not-so" sci-fi films. So, really, this film won't be that much different than most of the trashy sci-fi junk from Hollywood.//

Well, they do vary it now and then -- as in the movie Stargate, where the eccentric scientist *was* the hero.

(But then again, Stargate wasn't even soft SF. It was a darn good Interplanetary Adventure flick -- which reminds me that I probably ought to rent Flash Gordon one of these days, even though all indications are that it really isn't that good a movie, because the field of modern English-language Interplanetary Adventure is sadly lacking.)

_________________
Sincerely, Luriko-Ysabeth

"Everything explodes. Everything."
-- Law #11 of Anime Physics

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Luriko-Ysabeth on 2002-10-04 21:18 ]</font>

informant
2002-Oct-04, 10:26 AM
Interplanetary Adventures are dated, and furthermore scientifically inaccurate, since we now know that the world is flat and all the universe revolves around the Earth. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

David Hall
2002-Oct-04, 12:12 PM
I liked Flash Gordon, although I'm probably in a minority. It has also been many years since I've watched it though, so youth probably had something to do with my feelings. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif But it's really a great campy movie, if you don't try to analyze it and just take it for what it is.

The soundtrack by Queen is great too.

Here are a few Flash sites I found on Google:
http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/reviews/flashgordan.htm
http://www.thecelebritycafe.com/movies/full_review/15.html
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/4262/
http://welcome.to/flashgordon

informant
2002-Oct-04, 03:13 PM
Same thing here, David.

Except that I thought the Queen's soundtrack was a bit silly --- but fun, nonetheless. ("Flash! Oh-oh!..." /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif)

nebularain
2002-Oct-04, 03:51 PM
On 2002-10-03 18:12, g99 wrote:
The scifi.com site has added another article on the subject:

"Paramount Pictures has bumped the release of its SF-adventure film The Core from Nov. 1, 2002, to next year, according to Variety. Paramount cited the need to add additional special effects to the film, ....
I think they're lying. The real reason they are pushing the date back is because they realize that the December flicks are going to totally wipe this movie out. It's marketing strategy. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

g99
2002-Oct-04, 10:12 PM
On 2002-10-04 11:51, nebularain wrote:


On 2002-10-03 18:12, g99 wrote:
The scifi.com site has added another article on the subject:

"Paramount Pictures has bumped the release of its SF-adventure film The Core from Nov. 1, 2002, to next year, according to Variety. Paramount cited the need to add additional special effects to the film, ....
I think they're lying. The real reason they are pushing the date back is because they realize that the December flicks are going to totally wipe this movie out. It's marketing strategy. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif



You are probobly right, you have a star trek, bond, rings, matrix, ect. movies all coming in in one month, big winter for movies. They will kill any movie that is not a huge blockbuster. But then asgain they will kill anything for the next 2 months after december.

The reason i think they are moving it is actually for what they say. They know the graphics is all that it has going for it, so they are putting as much as possible in it. Most likely it will break even, or less. Heck i would not be surprised if the only people who see it are scientists and people on theis board making fun of it. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Get ready for armageddon 2.0, but without the big name cast and semi-plausibility. This reminds me of a "B" movie that would show on mst3k on saturdays. Hmmm...Maybe this movie will inspire them to bring it back....I miss that show.

Nightfall
2002-Oct-05, 12:30 AM
I would see the movie if the group who are trying to go to the core fail and are crushed in the mantle, long before they can jump start the core. Unfortunatly, as we all know, they will (probably) make to the core, detinate the bomb, escape, followed by them living happily ever after.

Luriko-Ysabeth
2002-Oct-05, 01:25 AM
g99 wrote:

//This reminds me of a "B" movie that would show on mst3k on saturdays. Hmmm...Maybe this movie will inspire them to bring it back....I miss that show.//

Me too. ^_^
There are very few movies so bad that they cannot be improved by Joel (or Mike) and the bots. (Although one or two of them did put me to sleep, host segments notwithstanding.)

David Hall wrote:

//I liked Flash Gordon, although I'm probably in a minority. It has also been many years since I've watched it though, so youth probably had something to do with my feelings. But it's really a great campy movie, if you don't try to analyze it and just take it for what it is.//

Well, I liked the graphic novel (although what was the deal with the princess of the yellow men not being yellow?) so I figure I should like the movie unless it's absolutely atrocious -- I liked The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across The Eighth Dimension and Mom and Dad Save The World, after all. ^_^

_________________
Sincerely, Luriko-Ysabeth

"Everything explodes. Everything."
-- Law #11 of Anime Physics

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Luriko-Ysabeth on 2002-10-04 21:26 ]</font>

nebularain
2002-Oct-05, 02:28 AM
MST3K: Yeah, that was a good series. Did you see the actual movie (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/630414069X/qid=1033784150/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/103-0740804-2123839) they made of it? That was one of the best movie-from-t.v. series ever done. ("Mike broke the Hubble! Mike broke the Hubble!" /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif )

Flash Gordon: Yeah, I like the movie, too...of course I was in 5th grade when it came out.... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

Glom
2002-Oct-05, 04:53 PM
It may top Armageddon yet. They seem oblivious to the fact that a spinning core provides us with a magnetic field which has absolutely no effect on microwave radiation. Venus has no magnetic field. Mars has a very insignificant magnetic field. But their atmospheres seem alive and well. As long as we have the atmosphere, we'll be protected from all those oceans boiling things. Of course we may get cancer but never mind. Besides, if the core did suddenly radiate away all that angular momentum, that would certainly screw us over far more than radiation could hope to do.

Avatar28
2002-Oct-07, 05:05 PM
On 2002-08-25 03:00, Geo3gh wrote:
Ow.

You know, I think the Rocky Horror Picture Show had better science.

Riff-Raff:
"This gun emits a beam of pure antimatter."

Audience:
"Does that mean it doesn't matter?"


No no no. The correct response is "Bulls***! Check your physics." /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif