Originally, I thought about writing a piece about all of the bad science in that world-renowned crap-fest of a disaster film, “2012”. It didn’t take me long to realize that to attempt to do so would be an overwhelming task, one that I could not hope to complete in my lifetime. So rather than go with my original title “Fictional Science*”, I am going to go a different route and focus on something I noticed right away when watching this movie; something so ridiculous, I felt compelled to not only email Corrye about it the next day, but create a graphic explaining what I was talking about.
(* - Although you may be seeing “Fictional Science” in the future; it just won’t be in connection with this movie.)
Before I get into the nuts and bolts of my rant, a bit on the general topic. Like everyone else, I understand that when watching a movie, there is a certain suspension of disbelief that needs to be undertaken in order to enjoy the film. After all, as many people are fond of saying, “it’s only a movie”. To a certain extent, I agree, with some caveats. One, it depends on the movie, or more specifically, what the movie is trying to be. If it is “based on a true story”, it really ought to contain minimal implausible scenes and events. On the other hand, if it is based on a comic book or graphic novel, I’m pretty much willing to let anything slide (recent example: “Red”).
Which leads me to what I like to call “The Plausibility Threshold”. When watching a movie, I am willing to give a certain amount of leeway to unrealistic scenes and events. When the number of these scenes reaches a tipping point, or an individual scene/event occurs which is so implausible as to be ridiculous, The Plausibility Threshold has been crossed, and I can no longer take the movie seriously. There isn’t, as of yet, any kind of formula for determining The Plausibility Threshold; it’s more along the lines of “I know it when I see it.”
For “2012”, I “saw it” in less time than it took to get settled into my seat. Again, I’m not going to go into all the bad science. Not only would it take too long, I don’t have detailed notes, and the absolute last thing I want to do is subject myself to watching it again, even in part, for the sake of a blog entry. If anyone notices an error in my recollection for what I am going to discuss, feel free to correct me in the comments. I’m confident that even if I miss a minor detail, the overall scope of my point will remain strong.
The scene in question takes place in Las Vegas, when some of the characters (I don’t recall who, and frankly it doesn’t matter) are trying to get out of the city on a huge transport plane. They get off the ground, and proceed to fly over/around/through a number of well-known Vegas landmarks before finally leaving the city. I’m sure the scene was filmed as it was in order to show the destruction of as many of these well-known landmarks as possible, but the geography versus a plausible flight path was not possible. Repeat: NOT POSSIBLE.
Having visited Vegas a number of times, I noticed this right away, which I know makes me a dork but hey, that’s what I do. For an explanation, I take you back to the email I sent to Corrye:
“There is one scene where they are escaping Las Vegas with buildings collapsing all around (of course). They take off from the airport, and right away fly between the crumbling Wynn and Encore buildings. Then they barely miss the crumbling Bellagio (approaching it from the front) before scraping the top of the Eiffel Tower at the Paris and getting home free. Keep in mind they are were flying straight line the whole time, attempting to climb in altitude. Here’s the problem, illustrated by their supposed flight path in orange arrows. Um, WHAT THE…!?
The map pretty much speaks for itself. I also have to agree with Corrye’s response to my email, which read (in part), “To me that’s just being lazy. What, no one associated with the movie has ever been to Vegas? They can’t look online for a map?”
I’m curious – did anyone else out there bother with this movie? If so, what did you think was the most ridiculous scene? Face it, there’s plenty to choose from.
Common sense would dictate that this film should never have been made to begin with. However, since they decided to make the movie anyway why not go the full monty and throw logic to the wind with geography and physics. Thanks again Roland Emmerich for proving once again that you can only destroy things on screen. You are second rate Michael Bay and that may be the most insulting thing I've ever said about a director.
ReplyDelete