# Day After Tomorrow, The (2004)



## Dave (Jun 28, 2002)

*The Day After Tomorrow.*

"A climatological disruption of inconceivable proportions ravages the world, sending millions of terrified survivors surging South. Surging in the other direction, however, is Professor Adrian Hall, a brilliant paleoclimatologist whose own son Sam may still be alive in New York City, now a frozen wasteland." 

The Day After Tomorrow marks the return of Independence Day director Roland Emmerich to the studio that catapulted his career into the stratosphere, 20th Century Fox. Described as a apocalyptic sci-fi tale about the world on the brink of global climate change, The Day After Tomorrow was successfully picked up by Fox after a number of Hollywood studios were engaged in a bidding war for the property. Part of the reason why Fox won the right to make the $100 million dollar budgeted film is due to a guarantee to begin immediate pre-production and ensure the movie is ready to start filming this coming fall. Emmerich stands to make $10 million up-front for directing/co-writing duties, as well as 10% against the film's ultimate gross. 

Dennis Quaid stars as Professor Adrian Hall. 

Writing credits to Roland Emmerich and Jeffrey Nachmanoff.

Filming is scheduled to begin in November 2002.

http://uk.imdb.com/Title?0319262


----------



## Tabitha (Jul 7, 2002)

Does this have any relation to the Heinlein book?  It doesn't sound like the same story from what I can remember, but the names are definitely the same...

IMDB makes no mention of Heinlein, FYI.


----------



## Dave (Jul 7, 2002)

I've not read much Heinlein, though I mean to rectify that soon. I can't find a Heinlein book of that name, but there is a compilation called 'The Past Through Tomorrow'.

http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/rahpubs.html


----------



## Tabitha (Jul 7, 2002)

*flips through just purchased second-hand SF*  Welll, according to this skinny copy of Heinlein's "The Day After Tomorrow", it was originally published as "The Sixth Column".

Looking at the Blurb more closely, I seriously doubt there is any relation between the two - sorry for dragging the thread OT


----------



## Tabitha (Sep 14, 2002)

Just heard at Gatecon today that Jay Acovone has read for a role in this movie.  Those of you who watch Stargate SG1 will probably be familiar with the actor as the now-dead Kawalksy, and the actor has also guest starred in many other series, including The Invisible Man, The X-FIles, and JAG.

He previously worked with Emmerich with a bit-part in Independence Day (I think he was a guard at the desert complex).  No confirmation that he will definitely be turning up in the movie, but I like him, so here's hoping


----------



## Dave (Sep 14, 2002)

I like him too, hope he gets the part as it would be a big break for him. I wish they hadn't killed him off in 'Stargate SG-1'.


----------



## Tabitha (Sep 14, 2002)

One of the attendees asked him if it was a SF movie - his response was "Ummmmm, Ahhhhh, well, no.  It more of a "what if" movie".  Which I found a bit strange as I thought it had been described as SF all over the place.  But then, perhaps he didn't have much of the script to read.


----------



## Dave (Oct 14, 2002)

*Quaid Looks To Tomorrow *


> SCIFI WIRE -- Dennis Quaid, who will play a climatologist in Roland Emmerich's upcoming SF thriller movie 'The Day After Tomorrow', told SCI FI Wire that he'll make it up as he goes along when he begins filming in a month. "As far as any preparation for it and stuff like that, there's no big active preparation for that, because the movie is the star of the movie," Quaid said in an interview.
> 
> Quaid's character will have to stop a sudden global warming and a new ice age in New York, which will lead to the sorts of catastrophic special effects of Emmerich's other big hits, he said. "I loved 'Independence Day' myself, because of just that ride," Quaid said. "It's not my usual taste, but I did love that ride, and this is just going to be a big action end-of-the-world movie."
> 
> The Day After Tomorrow will also star Jake Gyllenhaal as Quaid's son and will be distributed by 20th Century Fox in summer 2003.





> Coming Attractions -- Donnie Darko star Jake Gyllenhall has been cast in the role of Dennis Quaid's son in 'The Day After Tomorrow'. Filming starts in November and the movie is now targeted for a summer 2003 release.
> 
> Emmy Rossum (Songcatcher) has landed the part of the female lead in 'The Day After Tomorrow'. The actress, who turns 16 later this week, will play a member of an academic decathlon team who gets trapped in New York City when the global disaster hits. The character will also be the love interest for Jake Gyllenhall's character.




It sounds like a scifi movie to me, unless the 'end-of-the-world' was announced, and I missed it! 

EDIT: Dark Horizons have reported that this global warming disaster flick has apparently changed its title simply to "Tomorrow". I would wait for more confimation before changinhg the thread title though.


----------



## Tabitha (Jan 22, 2004)

Have we really not talked about this since 2002??? :0

This movie has an ace trailer ( www.apple.com/trailers ) which has a few exciting images in it - especially that of an icy New York, and looks like it might just succeed where recent scifi disaster movies have failed (I'm looking at you 'The Core').

Roll on its release.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Mar 18, 2004)

*The Day After Tomorrow*

I like the look of this film...

Melting polar ice causes a sudden disruption in the North Atlantic Current, resullting in a cataclysmic storm hitting the Eastern Seaboard USA.

Great looking effects - and a powerful environmental message that may just help rouse some of North America from it's political inertia regarding Global Warming issues. Hopefully, anyway - so long as it hits the psyche of the general movie-going public. Maybe Hollywood still has some light left in it? 

Oh - the trailer:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/dayaftertomorrow/trailer/medium.html


----------



## littlemissattitude (Mar 18, 2004)

*Re: The Day After Tomorrow*



			
				I said:
			
		

> Great looking effects - and a powerful environmental message that may just help rouse some of North America from it's political inertia regarding Global Warming issues. Hopefully, anyway - so long as it hits the psyche of the general movie-going public. Maybe Hollywood still has some light left in it?


One would hope.  However, the problem with Global Warming as an issue here in the 
States is that it has been framed not as an environmental issue, but as a political one.  That has meant that the response to it is generally political, that is to say torn down political lines, and so has become a matter of "belief".  Generally the conservatives (read Bush administration and its friends) don't "believe" in the whole concept of Global Warming; it is a matter of priniciple to them that it doesn't exist.  Therefore, they will not address it except in terms that consider it a "liberal" plot to control big business.  Or anyhow, that's how I read their reaction to it.

Now, as we've discussed here before I think, I am personally of the opinion that while warming is going on, it is not completely a man-made phenomenon but is at least partly a natural fluctuation in the Earth's climate.  But that doesn't mean that I don't think it's an issue that needs to be addressed, and addressed quickly.  I mean, I live in a valley that will be one of the first places to flood when the polar caps really decide to start melting.  It was an inland sea before, and it could easily become one again.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Mar 18, 2004)

*Re: The Day After Tomorrow*



			
				littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> One would hope. However, the problem with Global Warming as an issue here in the
> States is that it has been framed not as an environmental issue, but as a political one. That has meant that the response to it is generally political, that is to say torn down political lines, and so has become a matter of "belief". Generally the conservatives (read Bush administration and its friends) don't "believe" in the whole concept of Global Warming; it is a matter of priniciple to them that it doesn't exist. Therefore, they will not address it except in terms that consider it a "liberal" plot to control big business. Or anyhow, that's how I read their reaction to it.


Exactly my point - so long as the "people" are scared into seeing it as an issue, then politicians eventually have to listen. 



			
				littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> Now, as we've discussed here before I think, I am personally of the opinion that while warming is going on, it is not completely a man-made phenomenon but is at least partly a natural fluctuation in the Earth's climate.


Heh, funnily enough, the "natural fluctuation" theory seems especially well fed to the North American public. Here in Europe it is a complete non-issue. 

Of course, that means that far-right US conservatives claim that Europe is in the pocket of green activists, whereas Europe makes it plain that the US is in the pocket of the Oil and Military Industry complex. Now which of the two arguments does anyone find most convincing? 

Even if there is a natural cycle and variation - and that's not under dispute - the fact remains that the environment of the earth has been very significantly changed by human activity since the industrialisation of Europe - and this process continues to this day. 

Heck - if depletion of the Ozone layer was blamed on US industrial activity, you can be certain that in the US would arise a "perfectly respectable" theory that the Ozone hole was the result of "natural variations". I guess we're simply lucky that the CFC industry was never as fundamentally huge or strapped for viable economic alternative as the Oil industry of America.


----------



## dwndrgn (Mar 18, 2004)

*Re: The Day After Tomorrow*

From what I see and hear from the people around me, as many people believe in Global Warming as don't.  The problem is that it is hard to demonstrate to those who need to 'see to believe'.  If people could see an example of what could happen, on a real model instead of in a fictionalized story, it would be easier to understand.  As strange as it may seem, many nonbelievers are scientists themselves, those that should know better.  I mean, if you went out to the BioDome and polluted it's air to the same extent that ours is, you'd see how the plants and such either adapted or didn't.  I'm surprised that they aren't doing this type of experiment on a large scale.  When normal fruits and vegetables are so easily contaminated by genetically engineered ones (I just read an article that did testing on 'natural' crops and their yields and found that almost all of them have some traces on them of the genetically altered crops grown on other farms), it's hard to not believe that everything is interconnected and dependent upon the other elements.  Once you understand that you can see how a significant change in the atmosphere could create significant changes on the surface.

Am I blathering on?  Sorry.  The environment is one of my pet subjects.  I say 'pet' because I've never formally studied other than the basic college courses, but I like to read about it.  And blather on apparently .  Stephen Jay Gould is one of my heros


----------



## Dave (Apr 7, 2004)

The trailer is being shown with Scooby Doo 2. I agree about the epic images, the Statue of Liberty buried under a Glacier is one of them (a homage to Planet of the Apes?) 

I'm not sure of the storyline, and I doubt it will get me to the cinema release, maybe on DVD rental.


----------



## ray gower (Apr 14, 2004)

*Is it Science Fiction?*

From the trailer it would appear to sit on a lot of boundaries, rather like Independance Day or Jurrasic Park: Action, Adventure, Disaster, Science Fiction.

But all the best Sci/Fi is like that. So I might well make an effort to go and see it.


----------



## Dave (Apr 26, 2004)

*couple of points*

*Re: Is it SciFi?*

We've spoken about this before. Works of "SciFi" get a bad press. Only Nerds, Geeks and teenage boys like SciFi, not 'normal' people. So anything of any worth is 'speculative fiction' not 'scifi'. 

To my mind 'scifi' and 'speculative fiction' and pretty much the same, at least, all good scifi takes some idea from current trends, new scientific discoveries or theories and then runs with the idea 'what if?'

*Re: Is it likely?*

This one is more difficult to answer.

I just heard on the radio that the White House is disappointed with this film and wants to try and censor it in some way. That almost makes me want to see it. It certainly changes my view on it.

Since the USA withdrew from the Kyoto Accords of the Earth Summit, Americans have been trying to rubbish these claims of Global Warming. Personally, I don't know if we have Global Warming due to increasing Greenhouse gases or not, I think that it's almost impossible to prove without a longer timescale for measurement, and that could be too late.

Since I started visiting the internet regularly I've discovered a great difference in views on this depending on where you reside. Europeans and the rest of the world are, in general, convinced, whilst Americans will argue until the cows come home that it is all rumour, claptrap and *'bad science'* by vegetarian, sandle-wearing, green, liberal anti-capitalists.

Americans use more oil than the rest of the world together. They seem to dismiss the arguement that fuel efficiency actually produces more jobs in research and makes it cheaper to do business. 

I even found a website full of quotes from magazine articles which dismissed Global Warming. It was convincing unless you looked at the source of the quotes. About 99% came from a single magazine -- 'The Capitalist' -- I rest my case your Lord!

Scientists are now finally beginning to come out and say, 'Global Warming is happening', they just can't say if it is due to Greenhouse Gases, natural volcanic outgassing, variances in the Sun, etc. I don't think that they ever will with any certainty. But this is a big change from the '70's when some scientists thought that an Ice Age was possible soon.

And what people don't realise is that natural systems are very complicated. There are many feedback loops, so that there are no simple formulae 'increase CO2 = increase temperature'. Temperature could be steady for 50 years, then suddenly flip. This is very likely in the UK because we depend on the Gulf Stream to mediate our climate. The ocean currents only need a slight change in direction.

If it were that easy to model natural systems then there would never be arguments over Fish quotas to concerve fish stocks, and those huge computers that the weather centre use would always get the weather forecasts correct.

What is more likely than heat waves, is an increase in unusual weather patterns and events. Tides, temperatures and cyclones that would happen every 100 years, might happen every 5 years. This is the sort of change that we are starting to see for real.

I've always had an interest in this subject right from the time I first saw the Mauna Loa  and  Law Dome CO2 trends in secondary school. They convinced me that even if we had no idea what the effects might be, carrying out such a huge experiment in the Earth's atmosphere should be done with some caution.

Other sites that you may want to see are:
http://www.climate.org/
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/

BTW: I'm not vegetarian and I don't wear sandles but I did study this subject.

And as for the 'bad science', a quote from Steinbeck:

_Science never proves anything, it makes guesses and goes by them as long as they work well._

If the White House can actually do anything to restrict this film I think it is much worse that them censoring the body counts from Iraq. And frankly, the 'Land of the Free' should be worried.

Dave


----------



## Dave (Apr 26, 2004)

I watched the news tonight and nothing was shown about this subject. So, in case you haven't a clue what I'm on about I've found more about this censorship issue:

*NASA Scientists Shut Up By Administration*



> "No one from NASA is to do interviews or otherwise comment on anything having to do with" the film, said the April 1 message, which was sent by Goddard's top press officer. "Any news media wanting to discuss science fiction vs. science fact about climate change will need to seek comment from individuals or organizations not associated with NASA."
> 
> Copies of the message, and the one from NASA headquarters to which it referred, were provided to The New York Times by a senior NASA scientist who said he resented attempts to muzzle climate researchers.
> 
> ...



http://tinyurl.com/2d4e4

ICE AGE OUTRAGE: FOX'S CLIMATE-CHANGE MOVIE IRKS BUSH ADMIN

http://tinyurl.com/2qqpm

But just to show I'm fair here are the counter arguments:

http://www.newstrolls.com/news/dev/heller/col1.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/englund5.html

I have never voted communist or green, though this won't preclude me from doing so in the future, and I'm not an anti-capitalist, but I have studied Paleoclimatology. I actually take offense to these claims that to believe in Global Warming I must want to bring down Capitalist governments and be supporter of totalitarian governments.


----------



## ray gower (Apr 27, 2004)

Anything that appears to twist the knife in the powers that be on Planet America always runs into rumour of censorship. It was true of The Killing Fields, Platoon, To Kill a Mockingbird even the Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald and anything else that does not show official America sunnyside up. I think it helps ratings.

It is more likely that the political spin machine will use it in their arguments as a means to prove it is all wrong- It is all Science Fantasy. At least they have a positive definition identified! 

As for Global Warming. Well it is happening, only the US Government's funders and hence the government deny that. That much of the population make take their governments line is a factor of how insulated from the world they are.

What can be done to prevent or slow it down is the bit where things fall flat on its face.

There is not an industrialised nation in the world that has the infrastructure necessary to make an appreciable dent in its populations love affair with the motor-car, or their electric gadgets. The US is no better or worse than most here.

Think of it. Could we survive without our fridges, freezers, TV's or mobile phones?

Probably not, because of the convenience. 

Yet the materials required to make these things work are major pollutants. They have to be made somewhere and we will not pay the price of trying to make these things cleanly, or clean up afterwards. So we have them made elsewhere, like India or China, where they are less than concerned about their environment, but are in desperate need of the funds. It is a little two faced to simply snipe at the US. 

Whilst it is true that the US Government are doing the least they possibly can for the environment. We have to remember that European man has been changing and destroying his environment for thousands of years. Ever since Mr Ug chopped down his first tree to make a little space for his mud hut. The US and third world economies are merely running to catch us up.


----------



## ray gower (Apr 27, 2004)

To try and bring this back on track.

I think we have concluded there is a strong warning being promised by this film. And it does follow in some weighty footsteps in the genre e.g. Day the Earth Caught Fire, Crack in the Earth, Day the Earth Stood Still (strange how they all come from the 50/60's and have Day in the title?).

But the real question is, will the film make it?

Or will it be laughed out of court by all but the most unthinking FX geek like Deep Core, Deep Impact and a range of other modern films with an alarming propensity for the word Deep.


----------



## Dave (Apr 27, 2004)

> _Originally posted by ray gower _
> *But the real question is, will the film make it?
> 
> Or will it be laughed out of court by all but the most unthinking FX geek. *



It does seem to severely overstate the case by having America reduced to a glacier within the space of five days. No one seriously believes any changes to have such an immediate effect.



> _Originally posted by ray gower _
> *Anything that appears to twist the knife in the powers that be on Planet America always runs into rumour of censorship... I think it helps ratings. *



It certainly won't do it any harm!

The reason why this film has been singled out and not 'Waterworld' or 'AI', for instance, is that it includes scenes from a ficticious NASA lab with ficticious NASA scientists.

-------------------------------------
OT Again:

The people who rubbish Carbon Emissions Restrictions miss the point anyway. We only have between 80 - 150 years worth of Oil reserves left anyway. That is dependent on how much more we can discover, but it is still a finite limit, and it is not very far away. Surely Energy Efficiency makes sence for that reason alone.

-------------------------------------


----------



## ray gower (Apr 27, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Dave _
> *OT Again:
> 
> The people who rubbish Carbon Emissions Restrictions miss the point anyway. We only have between 80 - 150 years worth of Oil reserves left anyway. That is dependent on how much more we can discover, but it is still a finite limit, and it is not very far away. Surely Energy Efficiency makes sence for that reason alone.
> ...


With one of my professional hats on, I would never deny that efficiency in all things is desirable.

More cynical hat on. I know that nobody is actually doing much about it.
Yes, the UK has reduced its carbon emissions, even beaten the target we agreed at Kyoto by 5 years. What we haven't done is actually reduced the amount of carbon emissions that are being produced. 
We have reached our target because so much of the UK and to lesser extent European (thanks to government support) manufacturing industry, has been destroyed by cheaper places e.g. India and China. It is a sad fact that for every tonne of pollution Europe has saved, India and China now produce three.

As for oil. They have been promising that oil will only last twenty years for the last 30, yet more is being found to meet our ever growing needs.


----------



## Dave (Apr 27, 2004)

Ray -- Everything you have said is true and I agree with it all, and it isn't enough to simply cut emissions, even small emissions still increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere (which is why other steps would need to be taken to reverse the trend.) 

Environmentalists press for alternative technologies and for energy efficient technologies to be given to the developing countries free of charge. 

They press for tree planting to replace the forests man has cut down in the last few thousand years.

I can't see a solution happening soon. I don't want to throw away my modern conveiniences either. Communisism failed, Capitalism works. Economics (money) makes the world go around, and until this problem hits someones pocket people will continue to do nothing. I don't know what form that might take; insurance premiums maybe, food prices, tax hikes to pay for refugees.

This is certainly a film with a MESSAGE. And it is one many people obviously don't like. Even the Green Party doesn't stand for elections promising to abolish cars and electricity generating power stations. Instead it talks about giving grants for loft insulation.

The film is designed to shock with it's striking images, if people think again that is at least a start.

There is an arguement that we are overdue for a new Ice Age by about 1000 years. That the only reason it is not already upon us is because we have been causing the Greenhouse effect for the last few thousand years, since we first began to clear forests for agriculture and make fire to cook and for warmth.


----------



## Dave (Apr 27, 2004)

*To return back to the film*

-- which is science _fiction_ after all --

The trailer is here:
http://www.thedayaftertomorrowmovie.com/

More clips here:
http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/d/dayaftertomorrow.php

In "Independence Day" Roland Emmerich brought you the near destruction of the Earth by aliens. Now, in "The Day After Tomorrow" the enemy is an even more devastating force: nature itself. Tornadoes rip Los Angeles; a massive snowstorm pounds New Delhi; hail the size of grapefruit batters Tokyo; and in New York City, the temperature swings from sweltering to freezing in one day. In this special-effects packed, highly anticipated event motion picture, an abrupt climate change has cataclysmic consequences for the entire planet.

BTW: We had hail the size of cherry tomatos in London this evening!



> _from SciFi Wire_
> 
> *Fox Previews Tomorrow *
> 
> ...


----------



## Dave (Apr 28, 2004)

NASA is now saying that the original memo was all about contracts. I find it hard to believe that such day to day commercial considerations needed to have the direct involvement of the White House.



> *Movie Support Clarification*
> 
> News reports in recent days have suggested that NASA has attempted to "muzzle" researchers from responding to the issues raised in the upcoming movie "The Day After Tomorrow." To the contrary, NASA expects that as colleagues, we will speak our minds, regardless of whether those views work to the advantage of the agency or not.
> 
> ...



The film-makers must love all this free publicity. They couldn't pay to get all this exposure for a film that otherwise would have barely made a profit.



> *Scientists stirred to ridicule ice age claims*
> 
> _ from NewScientist.com news service _
> 
> ...


 


> _Originally posted by ray gower _
> *As for oil. They have been promising that oil will only last twenty years for the last 30, yet more is being found to meet our ever growing needs. *



Well, in Star Trek Enterprise 'Carpenter Street' T'Pol quoted 80 years of fossil fuels remaining. The Vulcan Science Institute are rarely wrong on anything other than Time Travel. 

Obviously, there is the hope that we will find magical new technology for energy production in many peoples thinking. (Break out the Dilithium Crystals.) Personally, I think we have become so use to technological advance (what the Victorians called 'Progress') that we are begining to take it for granted. Maybe there is no Fusion Reactor Holy Grail to be found.



> _from SciFi Wire_
> 
> *Tomorrow Stirs Debate Today *
> 
> ...



All this publicity has worked for me, I was going to miss this, but now I think I just have to see it.


----------



## Dave (May 5, 2004)

SciFi Wire are holding a poll that I thought was amusing --

_Do you believe such a scenario is possible? 

o Yes. It's only a matter of time. 
o No. It's hysterical exaggeration. 
o I'll believe it when hell (or New York) freezes over. _

Current Results:  
Yes. It's only a matter of time.  
48%   
No. It's hysterical exaggeration.  
33%   
I'll believe it when hell (or New York) freezes over.  
18%


----------



## Highlander II (May 10, 2004)

I saw a trailer for this at _Van Helsing_ and, mostly, it just looked like another of Emmerich's films --

I didn't like ID4 - and not so big on the original SG movie - *shrug* might see this, might not - it just looks like a disaster film to me ---


----------



## Dave (May 21, 2004)

> _from SCIFI WIRE_
> 
> *Day Has A Big Message*
> 
> ...



Having a character that resembles George W Bush was probably a bad idea if he is serious about making the environmental point. He simply politicises it, and makes the camps even more divided. Anyway, having the effects happen within a week makes it totally unrealistic anyway. 

Ray is wrong when he said "everyone" believes in Global Warming now. Especially in America where the automobile and oil are sacred objects many people just don't.


----------



## Highlander II (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Dave _
> *Ray is wrong when he said "everyone" believes in Global Warming now. Especially in America where the automobile and oil are sacred objects many people just don't. *




This is kind of off-topic, but, it's not that ppl in the US don't *believe* in global warming, it's more that the companies that make cars and sell gasoline don't really *care* about global warming. Environmental issues seem to come and go in phases - one year it's global warming, the next it's a focus on the hole in the ozone layer - whether there is one or not; then it's _el nin~o_ (sorry, don't remember which code gives the tilda-N) -- it's a bunch of crazy stuff --- There is some work trying to make more fuel efficient vehicles and hybrids and such, but the biggest problem in the US about cars and gasoline, the US isn't really set up with the mass public transportation systems like Europe. Only a few of the much larger cities have mass transit, and even those that do, still have lots of traffic b/c ppl want to be 'independent' (it's part of a mindset that ppl just can't get past). They want to be able to get in their cars at 11:42am and drive to where they need to be; they don't want to have to wait for the 11:45 bus or train or whatever. 

Not that one way is better than the other - mass transit would be nice to have - but where I live - outside the city - we don't even have public buses to take - we HAVE to drive places or we just won't get there, b/c even walking is too far. 


I still don't think I'll see this movie in the theatre - mostly b/c it costs too much - but - might see it on video --


----------



## Dave (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Highlander II _
> *mass transit would be nice to have - but where I live - outside the city - we don't even have public buses to take - we HAVE to drive places or we just won't get there, b/c even walking is too far.*



I understand what you are saying. Even in the UK we have retail parks that you cannot get to without a car. In the US you have places were you cannot walk between retail outlets; you must drive even though they are only yards apart.

Getting rid of the car isn't a solution in itself either, the methane in Cows farts is a bigger greenhouse gas than CO2, and everytime a construction company mixes Portland Cement they release CO2. 

I don't see this as off-topic since this film is meant to make a political and environmental statement. They have revelled in the publicity over the NASA memo, they may have even deliberately leaked it. They have characters that are meant to be identified with the current US administration. Yet the scenario they present is not very realistic.


----------



## Dave (May 25, 2004)

> _from Scifi Wire_
> 
> 
> *Gyllenhaal Chills In Day*
> ...


----------



## Dave (May 30, 2004)

I went to see this today, and it is truly spectacular, though a typical 'Disaster Movie' and they aren't really my kind of film. 

Practically any kind of weather related thing that could happen did. Some parts were very reminicent of 'Independence Day' and there was the heavy political message at the end.

I'd give it a 6/10 though my daughter thought it was much better.

I had a couple of problems with it though:



Spoiler



1/ The wolves -- they escaped from the Zoo, they have their pick of dead bodies in the streets or looted shops to choose from anywhere in New York, yet instead they make their way to the library, manage to climb aboard the grounded Russian ship, and then go scavenging in the galley. It was too contrived for me sorry!

2/ Adrian reaches the Library but is unsure if Sam is still alive or not and has to search the building -- what about the smoke from the chimney with that huge fire? Wouldn't he see that from miles away? For that matter, since the fire was the only reason that they managed to survive, why don't all the other rooftop survivors have fires too, and those skyscraper buildings don't have chimneys, so where were their fires?



My daughter says I'm much too critical.


----------



## ray gower (Jun 1, 2004)

There are a lot of things that we could take shots at this film:- 
The flag falling still, then suddenly flying free as it freezes.
Or the way that the tidal wave sort of stopped short at the library, even though it was 8 stories tall half a street away.
Oh and where did the gas come from for the kitchen range? It is cold enough outside to freeze Av Gas, whatever you get from the gas pipes, it isn't going to be gas. 
Amongst those I think the wolves are a minor point, at least they could be following a scent. Why didn't the grizzley escape.
Not a major character is killed, not that we would have been particularly worried if they had. 
And of course there is not a cliche left untouched.

Otherwise it was one of the better rosey view disaster movies. With just enough sceintific gobble-de-gook to make it all sound plausible.

It didn't touch the biggest problem of the scenario at all though. How do you feed 65 million well fed Americans that arrive in a country that can't feed itself?

Whether Mr Bush should be worried, only at the thought that Mr Cheney might become President, or perhaps he might have to admit he was wrong.


----------



## Dave (Jun 2, 2004)

The gas could have been from gas cylinders?  

As for the flag, no one ever gets flags right on film, so a bit much to expect Mr ClichÃ© Emmerich to bring us anything else.


----------



## ray gower (Jun 2, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Dave _
> *The gas could have been from gas cylinders?
> *


Bottled gas is even worse! 

The dew point of Propane is -44F, higher if it is under pressure and it is a little colder than that outside.

Ever try to make a camping gas stove work when it is cold?


----------



## Dave (Jun 18, 2004)

I think this film must be going for some kind of record for controversiality. Now there is a charge of Plagiarism.



> _from SciFi Wire_
> 
> *Day Plagiarism Alleged*
> 
> ...


----------



## ray gower (Dec 6, 2004)

I suspect every disaster writer in the world is comparing the film with their writings. There really is not much difference between the world disaster novels and the film offered them all.

But to bring this thing to a more personal level- Has anybody considered what the plight of the astronauts on the space station is?

After the storms on Earth, most of places like Cape Kennedy will have been destroyed, and building new shuttles will be more than problematic as the factories involved are now under yards of ice!


----------

