SpecOp9 0 Posted June 9, 2004 @ June 01 2004,06:02)]Quote[/b] ]Just by looking at the film's color layer, question comes a bit late but what is a films color layer and its relation to being a classic? Well a good example would be comparing Saving Private Ryan to Liar Liar. Liar Liar has a more comical, colorful look to it, while Saving Private Ryan has that serious, dark color to it. Imagine seeing both films vice versa. Liar Liar has a dark, non-comical look to it, and saving Private Ryan has a bright and color full happy look to it. Wont work. As for moves being classics, I really don't care, or believe what the critics and media say, or think. I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so it's really anyones decision whether or not they believe the movie was a classic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted June 9, 2004 I've just seen the film...Quite dramatic, realistic and a good ending. ***SPOILER ALERT**** Funny though... the United States of America doesn't practically excist anymore in the end of the film. Wonder what would happen next? *** SPOILER ALERT ENDED*** **Possible Spoilers** I take comfort from the fact that according to the book and the movie, I'll be nice and safe here in Texas....might be relatively cold like Canada now, But I'm all good... Also being here in Texas, there were quite a few cheers and laughs when Americans started crossing the Rio Grande into Mexico.... And I agree. It would be quite interesting to see what happens AFTER The Day After Tomorrow You basically have unnumbered millions suddenly arrive in "third world" countries, countries that have neither the resources or infrastructure to handle a sudden increase in population, (Americans and any surviving Canadians go to Mexico and Latin America. Europeans and Euroasians into Africa and the Middle East) not to mention the existing levels of conflict. Nice of Mexico to let us bring a large military force too Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
llauma 0 Posted June 9, 2004 I've just seen the film...Quite dramatic, realistic and a good ending. Haha. It is propably the most unrealistic movie ever made. Star Wars and LoTR felt more realistic. It was overdramatic and moralizing.. Do they really have to come up with a story like this for people to realize that something has to be done against the pollution? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pathy 0 Posted June 9, 2004 Well the theory behind the film is valid, but anything put onto film like that is bound to come out cheesy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpecOp9 0 Posted June 9, 2004 Twister? Deep Impact? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skewballzz 0 Posted June 9, 2004 Sad that such an unmoving film came from the director of Stargate and the author of Communion and Transformation Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
orson 0 Posted June 9, 2004 Saw the film , good effects but at the end when most of America was under 100ft of snow and ice...they still refered to it as "America" and the people as "Americans" , when all previous claims to land etc where now ridiculus. If the 3rd world is poor because they are judged against the 1st world , what happens when the 1st world is no more ? I thought a good point was when Mexico closed its borders to the fleeing U.S citizens untill the prez cleared all south american debt to the U.S . The facts are clear and we have passed the point of no return...time to reap the whirlwind of our parents generation . Our future is limited and its our generations time to act .... But what do we do ? Any ideas ? I dont have an answer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DarkLight 0 Posted June 9, 2004 I've just seen the film...Quite dramatic, realistic and a good ending. Haha. It is propably the most unrealistic movie ever made. Star Wars and LoTR felt more realistic. It was overdramatic and moralizing.. Do they really have to come up with a story like this for people to realize that something has to be done against the pollution? It's a movie... i seriously doubt they came up with this story just to show the people that pollution IS a problem... All of us dumb bastards will only notice that when it's already too damn late... Hooray!!! I sure as hell hope that I am dead by then! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
llauma 0 Posted June 9, 2004 I've just seen the film...Quite dramatic, realistic and a good ending. Haha. It is propably the most unrealistic movie ever made. Star Wars and LoTR felt more realistic. It was overdramatic and moralizing.. Do they really have to come up with a story like this for people to realize that something has to be done against the pollution? It's a movie... i seriously doubt they came up with this story just to show the people that pollution IS a problem... All of us dumb bastards will only notice that when it's already too damn late... Hooray!!! I sure as hell hope that I am dead by then! If you have seen it then you'd know that the movie trying to say that pollution is bad.. it's almost like the Seagal movie "on deadly ground" but with special effects Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DarkLight 0 Posted June 9, 2004 I've just seen the film...Quite dramatic, realistic and a good ending. Haha. It is propably the most unrealistic movie ever made. Star Wars and LoTR felt more realistic. It was overdramatic and moralizing.. Do they really have to come up with a story like this for people to realize that something has to be done against the pollution? It's a movie... i seriously doubt they came up with this story just to show the people that pollution IS a problem... All of us dumb bastards will only notice that when it's already too damn late... Hooray!!! I sure as hell hope that I am dead by then! If you have seen it then you'd know that the movie trying to say that pollution is bad.. it's almost like the Seagal movie "on deadly ground" but with special effects Well... i haven't seen it yet... i just like bitching about everything... especially when i can be ironic (notice the hooray part) while doing it!... Oh well... pollution IS bad Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted June 9, 2004 Quote[/b] ]Do they really have to come up with a story like this for people to realize that something has to be done against the pollution? Dunno. Why don't you ask Cheney? Bush? It wasn't pollution per se either. It was global warming of which pollution is just one cause. Quote[/b] ]It is propably the most unrealistic movie ever made. How so? Global warming? Climate change? It is all quite possible, and the effects of such climate change are unknown, though violent weather is an obvious answer. If you mean the time span in which it happens, thats a no brainer. The director and producers have already publically stated that the time it takes place is impossible. But then again watching a movie that unfolds over decades or centuries isn't very exciting is it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DarkLight 0 Posted June 9, 2004 If you mean the time span in which it happens, thats a no brainer. The director and producers have already publically stated that the time it takes place is impossible. But then again watching a movie that unfolds over decades or centuries isn't very exciting is it? Differs on who you go to the movies with... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billybob2002 0 Posted June 9, 2004 Quote[/b] ]Dunno. Why don't you ask Cheney? Bush?It wasn't pollution per se either. It was global warming of which pollution is just one cause. We (humans) are fucked about this whole issue. This issue was in the air a long time before Bush came in to office. The only thing to do a is slow down the progress but that will never happened because we (including Kerry's family not him ) need are SUVs and other things.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DarkLight 0 Posted June 10, 2004 Quote[/b] ]Dunno. Why don't you ask Cheney? Bush?It wasn't pollution per se either. It was global warming of which pollution is just one cause. We (humans) are fucked about this whole issue. This issue was in the air a long time before Bush came in to office. The only thing to do a is slow down the progress but that will never happened because we (including Kerry's family not him ) need are SUVs and other things.... And in the end, who gives a fuck... I mean come on, it's not MY problem, right? You know, i really do wonder what in some years (dunno how long it will take) everyone will think of the generations that ruined our planet... They'll probably use their great advanced techniques to revive us and then execute us again or something like that... Just for the heck of it... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bordoy 0 Posted June 10, 2004 But then again watching a movie that unfolds over decades or centuries isn't very exciting is it? Yer, every minute you have a look in the UN building gives you an update then a black screen which says "two years later" That would be quite un-interesting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted June 10, 2004 High point of the movie was LA being destroyed. I enjoyed that part immensely. Other than that... meh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Duke_of_Ray 0 Posted June 10, 2004 I read in the Daily Oklahoma that this was the worst thing to happen to Tree Huggers since Chain Saws. The movie looked terrible, and the plot sounds terrible, but I have not saw it so I can nopt judge it. Would the movie be worth going to see for a good laugh or not? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted June 11, 2004 If you go into it with the same mindset you would if you saw "Earthquake", "The Poisidon Adventure", or any of the Airport movies (except the original with Burt Lancaster and Dean Martin whcih rocked) then you will have a good time. The preachiness can be annoying, but some people have to be beat over the head with something before it gets through. Quote[/b] ]I read in the Daily Oklahoma that this was the worst thing to happen to Tree Huggers since Chain Saws. Not sure what they meant by that. It's more of a pain for Anti-Global Warming pondits. Any movie that gets the TBA in such a tissy that they tell NASA to not comment on it, is alright in my book. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Duke_of_Ray 0 Posted June 11, 2004 If you go into it with the same mindset you would if you saw "Earthquake", "The Poisidon Adventure", or any of the Airport movies (except the original with Burt Lancaster and Dean Martin whcih rocked) then you will have a good time.The preachiness can be annoying, but some people have to be beat over the head with something before it gets through. Quote[/b] ]I read in the Daily Oklahoma that this was the worst thing to happen to Tree Huggers since Chain Saws. Not sure what they meant by that. It's more of a pain for Anti-Global Warming pondits. Any movie that gets the TBA in such a tissy that they tell NASA to not comment on it, is alright in my book. I read it was just totally unreal, but the previews showed me that. I don't want to hurt the enviroment, but Im not really worried about whats going on right now. They have to strict enviroment laws, which in some cases hurts the forest. The movie just seems like one of the "radical" enviromentalist things, which just makes me angry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted June 11, 2004 Found an interesting review of the book TDAT is based on ("The Coming Global Superstorm") by a meterologist that works for NOAA. Here is his conclusion but I will give the link to the whole review for your perusal. Review Quote[/b] ]Conclusion As a scientist, I can only render a sound conclusion based on the science and proof of evidence I know. One problem in substantiating the theories claimed by the authors is that it is very difficult to identify paleo evidence in such a very short time periods of years when geologic evidence exists in very thin layers of the Earth’s crust in time periods of hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Furthermore, there is less evidence to indicate the potential of rapid as a climate change that occurred with the Younger-Dryas period, when going from a completely non-glacial period like today back into an ice change (there was still some remnant ice sheets in northern Canada and Eurasia just prior to the Younger Dryas period). Three earth orbital factors influence the ability of continental glaciers to grow. The first, called “Precessionâ€, which determines the time of year when the earth is farthest (closest) to the sun, takes about 20,000 years to complete one cycle. The second, called “Obliquityâ€, relates to a slight change in the Earth’s tilt (in other words slightly changes the latitude of the Tropic of Cancer, the northernmost position in the northern hemisphere where the sun shines directly over land on the first day of summer), takes about 40,000 years to complete one cycle. The third, called “Eccentricityâ€, determines how much of the Earth’s orbit is shaped by an ellipse and takes nearly 100,000 years to go through one complete cycle. In addition, there are wild card factors such as Volcanism that occasionally plays a role in continental glaciations. Paleoclimatologists now believe that of the three orbital factors, Eccentricity has the greatest importance in initiating major ice ages. Ideal conditions for ice ages occur when the Earth is farthest from the sun during the summer with the Tropic of Cancer less than 23.0 degrees latitude (currently at 23.5 degrees and can go as low as 22.5 degrees latitude) and when the earth is in the portion of the 100,000 year cycle with the greatest elliptical orbit. This portion of the eccentricity cycle is not slated for another 40,000 years, which not coincidentally, most paleoclimatologists suggest the next opportunity for the next major ice age (prior major ice ages to the last great ice age which began about 80,000 years before present have roughly occurred over 100,000 year cycles at least back to one million years before present). Being an operational meteorologist at the National Weather Service for some time now, I have become very familiar with rating the probability of precipitation events with the following qualitative term categories and associated percentages: 1) no chance (0%), 2) slight chance (10 to 20 percent), 3) chance (30 to 50 percent), 4) likely (60 to 70 percent), and 5) categorical (80 to 100 percent). Of these five categories, I would rate the probability of a superstorm ever occurring in the future on the low end of slight chance. Why give it any chance at all you might ask? Three reasons: The first is that I consider the fact that largely intact Wooly Mammoths have been found frozen with partially digested plant content of a type currently not currently native to arctic regions, as disturbing and somewhat of a paradox that cannot be fully explained today. Also, Wooly Mammoths and many others of the giant mammals that survived through the Pleistocene epoch died off rapidly around the time the authors believed the last superstorm occurred. Many believe humans were already hunting these large mammals to extinction when they began migrating from Asia across the Russian-Alaskan land bridge that was exposed after the last glacial maximum some 18,000 years ago, but the remnants of these large mammals disappeared nearly completely about 8,000 to 10,000 years before present. The second reason is that there are many stories and myths about the existence of a great, lost civilization and flood stories passed down by the ancestors of many peoples in North America and Eurasia from antiquities. Given the varied sources of these stories, can there be some truth of some past weather/climatic cataclysmic event near the time the authors contend the last superstorm occurred, or did other wildcard factors result in these possible events? The third reason I stated earlier in the conclusion of this review, is that evidence of paleoclimatic events spanning such a small slice of geologic history will likely never be seen in the Earth’s crust, being masked by epochs and eras spanning hundreds of thousands, and millions of years. Lastly, the authors have an interesting solution to end the threat of superstorms and slipping back to an ice age. They recommend removing the land bridge that connects North America with South America. Although they do not indicate how much of Central America must be removed in order to accommodate their solution, the authors point out that the thermohaline circulation of the Atlantic would not be subject to the periodic failure that has occurred over the past five million years since the central America land bridge has been present. They believe that the lack of direct exchange of tropical waters between the Atlantic and Pacific stabilized the Atlantic Ocean portion of the thermohaline circulation, especially the warm water conveyor belt that makes up today’s Gulf Stream. There may be some truth to this, since major continental ice ages did not occur for many millions of years prior the formation of this land bridge. But good luck trying to convince the indigenous populations of Panama and Costa Rica to leave their countries so we can mine their countries below sea level to re-connect the oceans together again, never mind the technology, logistics, and expense required to undertake such a project. At least the authors did admit it would be a project that would take a very lengthy time to complete. This concludes this review. Overall pretty non-commital. But he is a scientist so that is to be expected. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
