Well, from the previews and fan buzz,
2012 appears yet another state-of-the-art
Roland Emmerich special effects tour de force.
Alas, for me, Emmerich seems to be sticking to his usual, successful formula of dramatic visual composition over physical realism – not to mention the, to me, irritating cliché of aircraft who’s pilots seem oblivious to the fact that they can fly higher than the walls of falling buildings or a pursuing Godzilla. At a glance, no FX shot from the previews looks realistic – all renderings of what one
imagines impacting meteorites, collapsing buildings, etc, look like, not what they actually
do look like. This is, I’m pretty sure, good filmmaking, as reality as often as not looks confusing and wrongly undramatic. Human senses simply aren’t much good at sensing things much outside of the magnitude and scale of our usual experience, so gigantic spectacles tend to be appear more muddled and confusing than spectacular.
Recent movies aren’t devoid of efforts be physically realistic, including a sense of confusion and inability to see or understand what’s happening: 2008’s
Cloverfield for example, even though its core subject – a giant, missile-proof amphibian animal - is among the most unrealistic of scifi clichés.
Is it quixotic, I wonder, to wish for an ultra-cool, state-of-the-art movie as physically accurate as current science and technology permits?
----------------
Moderator: Computers and Technology; Medical Science; Science Projects and Homework; Philosophy of Science; Physics and Mathematics; Environmental Studies
Drama vs. realism
