Some glib conjecture based on seeing a billboard and a 30-second commercial (with the sound off) for the premiering movie 2012.
The billboard claims "We were warned." The trailer features John Cusack fleeing from rampant destruction that is the end of the world, as apparently predicted by the ancient Mayans.
If the idea (which I fully concede the extent of my knowledge is an episode of Penn & Teller: Bull... I saw where they debunked the notion, and which I saw late at night and don't recall that well) is that the Mayans knew a long time ago when the world would crumble in an orgy of destruction at the hands of the universe, and the end of their calendar was alerting future civilations of that, but there was nothing that could be done about it, that doesn't strike me as a "warning"; a warning (in my mind) constitutes information that is presented to allow one to avoid danger by one's actions. If the end is, in fact, nigh, the only reasonable response seems to be making peace with it in whatever way one believes appropriate.
What I can't figure out: If the world is ending, with tremendous earthquakes and presumably all other sorts of ostensible natural disasters, to where does he think he's escaping? It's an understandable reaction to the stimulus of imminent danger, the survival instinct kicking in, but it seems like the sort of thing someone who failed to come to grips with the afterlife (or the lack thereof). It merely delaying the inevitable.
Sure, it wouldn't be much of a movie if our protagonist simply spent the entirety of the movie praying or meditating in order to reach an internal sense of serenity about the end, and then was calmly crushed under rubble, but conceivably if we were, in fact, "warned," conceivably that's what he should have been doing.
Ultimately I guess I must admit I do feel warned, but only about how I shouldn't bother with the movie. That much seems contradictory to the purpose of marketing, but hey, maybe that's how it works these days; Convince the audience the movie is so pointless that they feel compelled to see it merely to confirm that.
It certainly would be setting realistic expectations for the movie-going crowd. Which, I must admit, is a nice thing to do for people as apparently we have only a few more years left.
Oh wait. Is the movie itself the warning? Holy cow. I imagine never has something so secretly profound involved so much CGI.
And all this without me having to actually see the movie. Bravo, mediocre filmmakers. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some peace to make with something, or at least stock up on canned goods.
"...is that the Mayans new a long time ago when the world would crumble in an orgy of destruction at the hands of the universe..."
ReplyDeleteOr maybe at the hands of bad spellers? [G]
Of course, that could easily slip by a spellcheck program, just like gnu. What I can't stand is when a word that would never slip through - for example, "toos" for toss in a newspaper headline - still ends up in an article.
I give you credit for keeping it's/its straight.
You also wrote: "I imagine never has something so secretly profound involved so much CGI."
Ever see Steven Spielberg's version of "War of the Worlds?" The one where the aliens nail a whole city with electro-magnetic pulsations, killing every electrical device including Tom Cruise's wristwatch, but camcorders and compact digital cameras still work. The great CGI was supposed to keep you distracted from spotting such bonehead mistakes.
Ray
Ray,
ReplyDeleteWhen the CGI shit is hitting the fan their... they're... there is no time to quibble about homonyms!
I did endure Spielberg's WotW (only on cable) but wasn't really paying attention that closely. I mean, why would that get more from me than my actual posts, which clearly only get a portion of focus?
By the way, you're not implying that this most recent WotW was profound (secretly or otherwise), were you?
[Thanks for the catch. I've corrected it but made the added letter gray as a sign of contrition. Or at least of admitting where the error was.]