1). "2012"
A). Actually, it was a better movie; than, I had expected.
B). The biggest problems that the movie had was:
1). The director/screenwrite had pushed the envelope having the main character's group escape circumstances that should have killed them in favor of dramatic effect.
2). The film didn't offer anything more to the formula being used, so it was a dry storyline that they tried using humor to cover.
3). The ending had too much of a humorous tone to it.
4). The biggest flaw was when the scientist character, who wasn't in charge of the government, had convinced the ark's to open their doors to those whose ark had been rendered not-manueuverable.
C). The film did a better job focusing on the main character; than, other movies that have been coming out like "Knowing". It could have been done better.
The film would have been better off if they didn't try to focus on two different viewpoint characters, picked a better literary formula, and wrote the story fom there.
Additional thoughts
"Destroying the world makes an interesting story"-
There's technically three ways to view this statement:
1). Literally.
Some circumstance leads to the destruction of the world.
2). Individually/Socally
Some circumstance ends the world as a person or social structure knows it. Real life example, would be the change in the United State's isolationism prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Drama, lost of a loved one through death or dumping. There are numerous ways to handle this prospective.
3). Philosophical
The best example I can think of off top of my head is through a question, If a sediment was removed from North America, wouldn't the world as we know it have been destroyed?-My mythology teacher had once asked me a similar question.
Tiger Dancer (guest) 28 Nov 2009 19:43
