
Just saw 2012. Lives up to everything you’d expect it to be – dazzling, escapist, disaster porn. The visual effects are not just stunning to look at they are also remarkable in the attention to detail and the sheer imaginative breadth of their execution.
But there’s an odd disconnect between the level of visual achievement and the lack of imagination brought to the script. Plot, character and general dramatic tension don’t seem to be high on the list of priorities here.
But, ah, those visuals!
We don’t just see a city crumble, we see buildings collapse into each other and individuals clinging to falling girders as they plunge to their death. We don’t just see fissures run through the Los Angeles suburban landscape, we see some cars tumble into the abyss while others simply start shaking as their car alarms are triggered… some houses burst into spontaneous flame as presumably gas lines have been severed. Cities collapse, fault lines and craters devastate Los Angeles, an entire coast of a continent falls into the ocean, an enormous ocean liner is overturned by a Tsunami, the Christ statue in Rio de Janeiro loses his arms before crumbling down onto the favelas below.
It makes one wonder, though. There are some really brilliant minds at work behind the visuals in this film. I mean, the detail and the thought that obviously went into all of it is astounding. It almost takes your breath away.
Why is it then, that such imaginative visual genius is spent on a stilted script in which characters appear to be cut out of cardboard? If projects like 2012 can afford to hire an army of visual effects artists, why can’t they do the same for the dialogue? It seems odd to me. Or is it simply a matter of taste? Could it be that the target audiences have become so visually oriented that they don’t really notice the plot holes and implausible character leaps that tie together the visual flights of fancy by a frayed thread? But wouldn't it be amazing if one could put something smart and visually stunning together under the same title? Ah, we can dream, can't we...
Oh, and one odd thing. Most disaster porn takes great glee in imagining the destruction of New York City. We’ve grown to expect the Statue of Liberty and/or the Empire State Building to come crashing down upon the fleeing masses. Not so, here. In fact, 2012 travels to just about every continent on the planet to spread the “love of destruction” but oddly ignores the Big Apple.
Should we New Yorkers feel slighted?
It makes one wonder, though. There are some really brilliant minds at work behind the visuals in this film. I mean, the detail and the thought that obviously went into all of it is astounding. It almost takes your breath away.
Why is it then, that such imaginative visual genius is spent on a stilted script in which characters appear to be cut out of cardboard? If projects like 2012 can afford to hire an army of visual effects artists, why can’t they do the same for the dialogue? It seems odd to me. Or is it simply a matter of taste? Could it be that the target audiences have become so visually oriented that they don’t really notice the plot holes and implausible character leaps that tie together the visual flights of fancy by a frayed thread? But wouldn't it be amazing if one could put something smart and visually stunning together under the same title? Ah, we can dream, can't we...
Oh, and one odd thing. Most disaster porn takes great glee in imagining the destruction of New York City. We’ve grown to expect the Statue of Liberty and/or the Empire State Building to come crashing down upon the fleeing masses. Not so, here. In fact, 2012 travels to just about every continent on the planet to spread the “love of destruction” but oddly ignores the Big Apple.
Should we New Yorkers feel slighted?