Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

The Day After Tomorrow

The Day After Tomorrow opens in theaters today, and Al Gore can hardly wait. The reviewers can, however. You can read my thoughts on the movie here. My summary point may be enough for you: "The Day After Tomorrow is to serious climate science what Hogan’s Heroes was to serious depiction of prison camp life in World War II."

Other reviewers are finding the movie just as comical. The Washington Post this morning says of the film’s director roland Emmerich, "He’s never made a movcie you could believe and he still hasn’t." And the Wall Street Journal’s indispensible Joe Morgenstern says "the movie comes to feel like a giant TV tuned to the Weather Channel on Groundhog Day. . . Seldom has grandeur struggled so mightily, and fruitlessly, with rampant goofiness."

The final delight of this film is that it is backed by Rupert Murdoch’s Fox. Which means that Murdoch, the bogeyman of the Left, will be laughing all the way to the bank on the paranoia of the greens. I’m taunting environmentalists that there is no disinformation in the film that can’t be dispelled on Fox News in the coming weeks, and I thank them for cross-subsidizing Brit Hume.

Discussions - 5 Comments

Steven, why don’t you focus on politics and leave the film analysis to Roger Ebert.

I’ve seen TDaT and, while I admit that the movie leaves much to be desired (ok, let’s face it, it just plain sucks), Hayward is more than a little naive if he believes that TDaT is a bad movie because of its director’s politics. By the end of the holiday weekend, there will be a few million people who will agree with me that it has much more to do with a shoddy script and poor character development. Hell, 90% of filmgoers probably don’t have any idea of what Emmerich’s politics are.

Steven says that the movie is "preposterous." Newsflash, Steven - disaster movies tend to be preposterous. That’s part of what makes them fun (or most of them, anyway). Practically every disaster film ever made could be called preposterous, and some of them are quite good. Being preposterous is hardly specific to TDaT. Or haven’t you seen The Poseiden Adventure, The Towering Inferno, Deep Impact, Airport, Earthquake, Armageddon, the Core, or the dozens of others that have been churned out in the past few decades?

One of the things that amuses me about Haywards comments is that he references a quote from the Washington Post that pertains to the "believability" of TDaT. Perhaps Hayward is unaware of the fact that the large majority of Hollywood directors have a habbit of making films with unbelievable elements. Maybe he’s never seen anything directed by the likes of Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Peter Jackson or the like. Incidentally, Emmerich’s most well received film (Stargate) just so happens to be the one featuring the most outlandish plot.

By the way, while Steven claims that - thanks to the Left - Murdoch will "be laughing all the way to the bank," the reality is that TDaT may not even break even at the box office. Not only is it being critically panned, but this weekend - intended to be TDaT’s competition-free coming out party - finds the film in fierce competition with Shrek 2, which is doing considerably better than anyone could have expected. Look for TDaT (production budget in excess of $125M, plus marketing costs between $50-$75M)to earn a relatively disappointing $60-$70M this weekend, and then lose steam quickly in the face of next week’s Harry Potter film.

PS: I’m curious, Steven... Before penning your "analysis" of TDat, did you bother seeing the film for yourself, or were you content to let others do your thinking for you, like so many other Conservatives?

At the risk of incurring ’Bucky’s wrath, allow me to pen a few comments related to an Etv show on the new film. After admitting that the film had some basis in science but was mostly science fiction, the show marched out several "experts" who said the following (paraphrased):

"The science behind the movie is very good and the possiblity of this future is very near."

A Weather Channel person even said, "The climate can indeed change very rapidly," thereby endorsing the possibility of a quick freeze into an Ice Age.

Finally, I found it humorous that the Americans rushing into Mexico in a reverse immigration actually were going through the border customs, which shut down because of the heavy load. They should have sneaked through the desert with water coolers for safe illegal immigration desert crossing. Maybe if the weather was dropping rapidly, the immigrants could cross into Mexico illegally and sue the Mexican government when it did not provide space heaters and electric generators for them!

Despite some of the cool visual images of a post-Apocalyptic future of tidal waves smashing through New York City, I think I will stick with LOTR or Star Wars.

Syphilis Victim Tony, is that you? Welcome back. I was beginning to think that the last ass-whooping I doled out to you had scared you off permanently!

Actually, as Hayward could have discovered with minimal research, the core science (that is to say, the stoppage of flow of the ocean currents and its effects) is quite legitimate. What the makers of the film have done - which is no different than that which has been done by any producer of any disaster film in practically the entire history of disaster films - is use that science as the basis of their story, which - as I admitted earlier - included not only a rushed timeline, but some rather preposterous elements. "Armageddon" did the same thing, but I don’t hear you guys whining about that? Or perhaps its that TDaT doesn’t star an actor who is well-known as being hard-core Conservative?

By the way, I saw the special that Tony is referring to. What he has apparently missed (or decided to exclude) is the fact that terms like "near" and "very quickly" are relative ones. This was pointed out in the special. These folks were talking about these events in the context of several decades or even hundreds of years.

I didn’t know that I had syphilis - I’ll have to check with my wife on that one and get back to you.

I didn’t purposefully exclude anything from my reporting. In fact, I stand by my assertion that the show trumpeted out experts who gave the impression of endorsing the movie’s "science" and blurred the distinction between science fact and fiction. Effective movie-makers surely do this and can do it quite well - however, I wouldn’t expect knowledgeable people to endorse the science without even a hint of being tongue-in-cheek, or that while theoretically possible, vastly implausible. Anyway, that’s enough breath wasted on a dumb movie that I’m certainly not planning on plopping down my hard-earned money on. I know I’m a close-minded conservative, but I recognize crap when I see it (I thought previews were supposed to entice one to see movies!).

I know I’m a close-minded conservative, but I recognize crap when I see it

Apparently not. You voted for Bush, didn’t you?

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/4226