Twitter:

MasterMike
@DowninFront: Listening to 2012, at the point where the caldera goes up & you all congratulate ILM, I was quietly cursing "IT'S DNEG DAMMIT!"

TeagueChrystie
@MasterMike: That's a hell of a mistake for us to make. We even have DNeg listeners. I'm sure this will go well.

MasterMike
@TeagueChrystie: My colleagues were at least happy that it was at that moment you chose to take a moment out to applaud the VFX work

TeagueChrystie
@MasterMike: Ha. Well, sorry for the mix-up.

From what I can tell, ILM didn't even work on 2012 at all. Which is weird. Maybe Emmerich thinks they're too expensive.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/nasa-nam … ilm,49699/

Right behind it, The Core and Armageddon.

All I can really say about this movie is that I salute the VFX artists who created everything, but you really couldn't pay me to watch this movie a second time. I've actually only seen half of it, and I've heard the DIF for it. (which was great, as always)

Also, I'm a Cusack fan, and I couldn't have cared less about his character in this.

So, yeah. Didn't like the movie. VFX were badass.

Wait, can they be world famous when I've never heard of them?

Just listened to this while watching the movie for the first time. Nice analysis work. At the same time, tho, it's okay to just agree to disagree sometimes, you know?

The film is a visual feast, but I found myself disliking the movie mainly for its ridiculous and repetitive action set pieces more than anything else. (I really didn't care for Independence Day or Twister, either.) I think it would have been better if the characters had been more self-aware like in ID, tho.

But, seriously, how do you make a movie like this and someone not go, "Wait, are you saying you want the small airplane to somehow nearly crash into more stuff on the ground on the first takeoff or the second? Or are you talking about the giant airplane nearly crashing into stuff on the ground when it takes off? Hey... do we have too many nearly identical and ridiculous action sequences?"

The "full cup" bullshit is also in Avatar.

There just wasn't too much common ground between "it's stupid and great" and "it's stupid and bad". When someone doesn't see the "stupid" part as being a problem, there's no where to go from there

Although even Teague fell back to going "Movie we like had X, this movie also has X, so why do you not like it now?" For me at least that's making things a bit too simplistic, as usually how a movie does something is more important to the viewer then what is being done. Unless it's the first time, in which case we often just go "Wow, they did that!" and leave quality judgements for later films.

Yeah, that's totally a valid question. Teague recognizes that Michael and Brian sometimes talk themselves into a surface analysis. But sometimes it's not so much what happens but how it happens that make it good or bad.

But Brian and Michael did recognize that here and talked about how different character reactions could have provided a perspective that made the movie more fun. I think Teague and Jake just provided that perspective for themselves. That's how I enjoyed Face/Off. ("Why were you laughing?" -- "Come, on! They sewed Nick Cage's face on John Travolta! That was hilarious!")*

Everybody made good points. But that was often true of Crossfire.**

* This statement does not constitute an endorsement of Face/Off.
** This statement does not constitute an endorsement of Pat Buchanan or Robert Novak.

A Finifter is a measure of hatred

Actually, that reminds me of something.  While reading 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea a few years ago, I had a realization;  the number actually refers to how far the characters travel (on a submarine, under the sea), while on board the Nautilus, and not to the one sequence when they lose power and sink "deeper than no man has ever gone."

So while (traveling) 20,000 Finifters (while) under the sea might seem like a long way, these days submarines are much more commonplace than in Jules Verne's day, and routinely cover that distance without ever needing to surface, so as such that measure is not as impressive as it once might have been.

Actually, that might work after all...

(Nutin' but love for ya man!)

Surely you mean 20,000 Teagues Under the Sea?