"How Much Science Do You Anticipate In Geostorm Movie?" Topic

IF any whatsoever, that is?

And do you think it will become a new favorite among true believers* of weather "modification" or will it be reviled?

Dan
* Like the college students who were seriously willing to sign a (mock) petition to push for legislation to actually make the Sun cooler. :)
YouTube link
YouTube link

For anyone skeptical of climate change, take a high school physics course on it. Since you're not allowed to write for Hollywood if you passed high school, I'm sure no science is involved. Directly mucking with the climate is a bad, bad idea.

Never heard of it, so I Googled it.
It seems to be a cautionary parable against putting "experts" in charge.
I'm ok widdat.

"Science" in a movie? How sexy. I get my Science from the HBO fantasy epic Game of Thrones. Neil deGrasse Tyson has vouched for the dragon Science in it, and all True Believers swear by him.

Dan,

You dropped the can and the worms are getting away.

Dave

Did I do dat???

Lol. I think my favorite weather manipulation movie in recent years is still The Colony (2013).

The world may have frozen over but Charlotte Sullivan still somehow manages to look very steamy hot! :). (and if that's not a science mystery, then I don't know what is)

Dan

Science? In a movie?

None.

Ever.

IF any whatsoever, that is?

And do you think it will become a new favorite among true believers* of weather "modification" or will it be reviled?

Science??? In this Bruckheimer piece of garbage??? Get real…. (About as much science as in a Mark Steyn commentary…)

It's more like "How many years will Geostorm set back science education simply by existing?"

Well, who knows?

Wasn't "The Day After Tomorrow" (2004) a really big favorite among celebrities and important people all these years? I think that, to them, it was science! :)

Dan

Science? Probably tons.

Operations Analysis or Engineering? Probably zip.

While movies do make scientific errors (not to be confused with suspension of disbelief conceits), OA and engineering are generally where they fall down. There is a difference between knowing a demonstrated scientific fact and understanding or applying it in context.

Wasn't "The Day After Tomorrow" (2004) a really big favorite among celebrities and important people all these years? I think that, to them, it was science! :)

On another thread:

TMP link

Someone wrote, "Still building castles in speculation?" Very apt.

Bowman

Nice try. You must have missed (or simply chose to ignore) all the actual people in the media who kept using that 2004 film as an example of where we are headed, as if it was science. Interview after interview.

Dan

It's just this generations Towering Inferno or Poseidon Adventure. More special effects, more spectacular carnage will ensure an enjoyable movie outing for all!

Then again, Towering Inferno or Poseidon Adventure didn't have at their core a message that seems to be constantly being pushed on the public. If there was one in those two films, I think it wasn't successful in getting across to the viewers. They were mostly just escapism.

Dan

Nice try. You must have missed……..(snipped for brevity)[

Ya, I did miss the celebrities and important people (morphed into "the press" in your next entry) who thought the Roland Emmerich movie displayed actual science.

I do remember that opposite, actually. Along these lines:

link

Plus, it was a stupid movie, apart from the gist of your thread.

The combined sciences of optics and acoustics, as in the projectors and the sound system functioning.

Yep, and I've sat in movies where they even got that wrong.

Dan, you see an agenda being pushed down people's throats, but I'm sure most people seeing the movie are there for escapist entertainment.

No Hollywood these days are trying to push their Agendas down our throats, which is why I have not and will not watch a lot of these movies.

From Wiki:

Geostorm synopsis:

"In the near future, when climate-controlling satellites malfunction and release disaster-creating small pods all over the world, Jake Lawson and his other fellow astronauts head into space to prevent the satellites from programming the small pods into creating a storm of epic proportions."

The Colony synopsis:

"By 2045, humans have built weather machines to control the warming climate due to climate change and global warming. The machines break down when one day it begins to snow and doesn't stop. Whatever humans remain live in underground bunkers to escape the extreme cold."

The Day After Tomorrow synopsis:

"Jack Hall, an American paleoclimatologist, and his colleagues Frank and Jason, drill for ice-core samples in the Larsen Ice Shelf for the NOAA, when the shelf breaks apart. Jack warns of global warming to a UN conference in New Delhi, but US Vice President Raymond Becker dismisses his concerns. Professor Terry Rapson of the Hedland Centre in Scotland shares Jack's views of an inevitable climate shift and they become friends. Several buoys in the Atlantic Ocean show a severe ocean temperature drop, Rapson concluding Jack's theories are correct. Jack and Rapson's teams, along with NASA meteorologist Janet Tokada, build a forecast model based on Jack's research.

Eventually, a storm system develops in the northern hemisphere, splitting into three superstorms above Canada, Scotland, and Siberia. The subzero temperatures of the superstorms' eyes cause flash freezing."

The first two movies deal with non-existent futuristic technology going awry and the latter movie deals with nothing that makes any sense. Feel free to expound on the "Agenda" being pushed. I have bought enough stock in tin foil and will make a killing.

Otherwise, Cyrus is totally correct. It's stupid escapism, plain and simple. The only agenda Hollywood has is making a profit for their stock holders.

It is appropriate that this is cross posted to the Humour Board

Lets not forget "2012" where the scientists learn that the Earth crust is going to crunch in on it self.

So they decide to build big arks and save most of the world leaders and billionaires along with the great works of art.

Yup I would expect that the sequel "2013" would have these individuals dying off since very few actually know how to do anything.

Not looking forward to it at all. Disaster movies are not my thing..

But whatever agenda is being pushed, based on what I've seen from the trailers, it's likely not the Agenda those that are looking for one. Probably much more simple, like "don't mess with Mother nature stupid scientists!!!"

Damon.

Lets not forget "2012" ………

Or San Andreas. Again, what exactly is the "agenda" Hollywood is foisting on us? All the movies are different (aside from their stupidity). Haven't seen Geostorm, but from the previews, it seems to be following closely in their footsteps

……it's likely not the Agenda those that are looking for one.

If they look hard enough, there is always some conspiracy afoot.

What is stupid about escapism?

Geostorm fits the bill nicely. Hardly a moment free of something not being inundated, blasted by lightning, roasted by instantaneous and excessive heat, or the reverse, instantaneous freezing, or exploding. CGI is in its element. Was there a non CGI moment? A few, but I can't think of any (only a slight exaggeration).

As for the "science": nope, none whatsoever. It is pure scifi from the getgo. Mankind's genius's saving the planet from Nature running amok, then the devices of salvation (an encompassing network of weather altering satellites) taken control of by evil designing men who turn them into a weapon of literally global proportions.

"The formula" was adhered to without missing a step, including the musical score. Once you are used to "the formula" for apocalyptic disaster plots, you can spot what is going to happen or even be said. This one holds zero surprises.

I liked it.

What is stupid about escapism?

Nothing.

But there are stupid and not stupid movies which both provide escapism. Contrast Geostorm and Blade Runner 2049 for good examples of this.

On another tack, both movies seem to be failures at the box office due to not recouping the production costs. (In the case of Geostorm add the reshoots, script changes, director changes, character changes, etc.)

I liked Blade Runner, but it is a stupid movie. 2049 doesn't attract me, but I might end up seeing it anyway. Geostorm would have gone the way of all movies without my ever having seen it, had my son not picked it as his birthday outing choice.

I have plans to see the new Murder On The Orient Express next week, again because of a child's choice as a birthday outing. Otherwise that one would also escape my viewing.

The point isn't to argue about which movies are stupid. The escapism, if it works, is the point. And the ONLY way I could use Geostorm as escapism was to enjoy the spectacle and noise. The first scrap of logic employed would have destroyed the escapism.

The point isn't to argue about which movies are stupid. The escapism, if it works, is the point.

You asked, "What is stupid about escapism?" and I answered that.