The Core is almost here.

[Scott0]

I love how in the commercials they show a clips of lightning bolts destroying everything. Now, I know with earth's magnetic field disrupted, there might be a chance that lightning would strike all over the Earth --- but --- the Earth is big. Real big last time I checked. Now that's an awful lot of surface area for the atmosphere to discharge its electrons onto, and the chance that these bolts will strike all the historic monuments and famous landmarks of the world is insanely small. And, seeing a lightning bolt chasing a man down a street was absolutely astonishing. I can't believe this is being made. I am SO going to see it tomorrow.

Scottie

[SkullNinja]

<<>>

Heh. Maybe it's being controlled by the aliens in ID4 that blew up all the national monuments and famous landmarks in leiu of strategic targets.

Hey. In fact, that would've made the movie even better. ID4: 2DCore.
The aliens left this device here to get revenge in case they lost. Any Hollywood agents listening? It's not too late. Just splice in some Jeff Goldblum playing Jeff Goldbulm and you're set.

[Creepozoid]

Wow what pompus political schenanigans is Holloywood up to this time?

This one will suck big time, but you peolpe will get a kick out of this. Paramount is borrowing the plot of this movie from a direct-to-vid flick called DEEP CORE they made  a couple years ago. This movie is gonna make that seem brilliant.

[Creepozoid]

Chad, since you say "War is the tool of sexist death merchants" (and since we all love b-movies, we're all sexist in some sense of the word, bet u never bothered to think about that) why are you being sarcastic when you say "defense weapons are bad?"

[Creepozoid]

Once again, you prove to be a stuck-up jackass, Chad. This whole board is reeking of "suck" just cause of you.

Chadzilla wrote:
>
> They destroy San Francisco in it, how could that be a bad
> thing?
>
> Please note, I have lived my entire life in the SFBA and
> just love seeing it in movies.

 I will also not do you the honor of quoting your idiotic signature.

[Creepozoid]

Squishy wrote:
>
> Actually, I think the movie's going to start off with the
> space shuttle "crash-landing" in the L.A. basin, complete
> with side-skidding just like the usual L.A. basin car chase.
> Probably to show us the pilot (our hero, maybe?) and his
> amazing grace under pressure.
>
> (1) Damn, that's stupid.
> (2) What bad taste, given recent events.
>
> Note: I understand frustration over the Military being
> depicted as "evil" on a regular basis in movies, but an
> "earthquake machine" (snicker tee hee hee) would hardly be a
> defensive weapon.

Squish said something intelligent. THERE IS A GOD!

[Chris K.]

Damien wrote:
>
> I think The Core could of be a realy good bad movie if it was
> made in the late 60's early 70's... That was when logic was
> tossed out of the window in SF... Aka, Journey to the center
> of the earth, The land that time forgot...

Technically Damien, JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH (the original one with the great James Mason) is nothing more than fantasy sci-fi; not too serious and not too silly. And considering that the original Jules Verne story was also nothing more than fantasy sci-fi, to say JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH threw logic out the window is quite an understatement. Their was logic in them, but it wasn't serious logic nor did it really matter as it took the reader (and the viewer of the film) into the world of the unknown with little care of explinations as to what's happening (hell, Thank God these stories and films had PLOTS to offer). Another example is Lucio Fulci's THE BEYOND (1981) as it transends into fantasy horror; the things that we see happen have no specific explination or any big reasons, but the engaged viewer could really care less as it's the story structure, images, and strange sequences that matter more. With THE BEYOND, explinations are meaningless to the viewer and the film itself as it's all fantasy, nothing too serious or earth-shattering that needs to be explained to us. THE CORE, on the other hand, is attempting to be SERIOUS sci-fi, which could make it quite hard on the viewer to take with the silly explinations that will be offered to the viewer.

Fantasy sci-fi is more acceptable in the realms of "anything is possible, explinations are limited and useless"; serious sci-fi is more like "anything is possible, but their has to be some silly half-assed reason to why it is". I prefer fantasy sci-fi, but then serious sci-fi is good for a nice viewing.

And, if their is one good film about the "core"of the earth it's JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH (1959). Sorry, I just can't turn down a good actor like James Mason in a classic fantasy sci-fi flick that promises fun and entertainment, which it delivers with gusto.

[Scott0]

What kills me about this movie is that this "earthquake machine," something which causes earthquakes all over the world, was intended to attack our enemies..... yet something went wrong----- Oh man! Is our government supposed to look that stupid in this movie? Here's the extended trailer, courtesy the IMDb:

http://us.imdb.com/Trailers?0298814&screenplay&E17003&10&2

I'm trying to convince my Physics teacher to take his classes on a field trip to see this movie for extra credit. The more butchering of the laws of physics you find in the movie, the more extra points you get. Hehe. Andrew, if you have the time, please do a report on the movie for the site! What a wondeful piece this is going to be. :D

Scottie

[peter johnson]

Anyone who, like Scott0, is going to see this tomorrow, please please post an overview of the experience here -- I can't get out for awhile -- damn bracelets & stun-guns again --
Dying to hear what's really what with this --
peter johnson

[Conrad]

Not only is it a DEFENCE WEAPON, it's an AMERICAN DEFENCE WEAPON.  Not only that, it's an AMERICAN DEFENCE WEAPON BUILT BY BIG BUSINESS, presumably COVERED UP BY THE MILITARY and perverted from the original PEACEFUL DESIGN, etc., etc., etc.  Any more cliches I could add?

On the "Bad Astronomy" website that I occasionally haunt, the howls of scientific rage and anguish at "The Core" could be heard clear across the Atlantic Ocean.  And my wife said of the trailer "Oh, I don't know, I think it looks fun."  Erk!

[SkullNinja]

<<>>


I'm trying to think of peaceful applications of such a device.

I guess you could use it to flush game?
Make all the dogs in the neighborhood bark?
Impress chicks?

The whole concept is like using a chainsaw to cut a birthday cake.

[ROBBO]

film looks cheesy but no doubt will be fun with plenty of crap lines to laugh at it,s obviously not meant to be taken seriously some good special effects though

[Chadzilla]

Creepozoid wrote:
>
> Chad, since you say "War is the tool of sexist death
> merchants" (and since we all love b-movies, we're all sexist
> in some sense of the word, bet u never bothered to think
> about that) why are you being sarcastic when you say "defense
> weapons are bad?"

The war crack is actually a line from Stephen King's novel It where a pompous teacher and student put on a play wherein each of the eight characters says only a single word of dialogue throughout the entire play.  The words form the sentence "War is the tool of the sexist death merchants."  A scathing parody of the snotty pseudo-art that passes for importance many college students (which included myself at the time I first read It) create while attending University.  I use it because it's a beautiful satire of that mindset.

As far as the sarcastic line about 'defense weapons are bad', come on, this is a Hollywood movie that wants to preach while you munch the popcorn and watch things go boom.  Of course the 'defensive' weapon was meant to be an 'offensive' weapon and, because the military is 'bad' then it goes wrong and threatens the world!  Sheesh, I've seen enough b-movies with that horrid old cliched plotline to feel comfortable ribbing it without having to explain it!.

[Creepozoid]

Oh.

Chadzilla wrote:
>
> Creepozoid wrote:
> >
> > Chad, since you say "War is the tool of sexist death
> > merchants" (and since we all love b-movies, we're all sexist
> > in some sense of the word, bet u never bothered to think
> > about that) why are you being sarcastic when you say "defense
> > weapons are bad?"
>
> The war crack is actually a line from Stephen King's novel
> It where a pompous teacher and student put on a play
> wherein each of the eight characters says only a single word
> of dialogue throughout the entire play.  The words form the
> sentence "War is the tool of the sexist death merchants."  A
> scathing parody of the snotty pseudo-art that passes for
> importance many college students (which included myself at
> the time I first read It) create while attending
> University.  I use it because it's a beautiful satire
> of that mindset.
>
> As far as the sarcastic line about 'defense weapons are bad',
> come on, this is a Hollywood movie that wants to preach while
> you munch the popcorn and watch things go boom.  Of course
> the 'defensive' weapon was meant to be an 'offensive' weapon
> and, because the military is 'bad' then it goes wrong and
> threatens the world!  Sheesh, I've seen enough b-movies with
> that horrid old cliched plotline to feel comfortable ribbing
> it without having to explain it!.
>
>

[Chadzilla]

Had the inane 'core' reference ("New thriller has silly core") and, in the critic's opinion, needed to be dumber to be more entertaining.  Evidently the movie takes itself far too seriously for its escapist plot.  Where is the spirit of Irwin Allen when you need him?

Still looking forward to it.  Why?  I'm a blue blooded b-movie fan!