This is just my opinion.
Between the *, would be my argument for whichever part I am trying to talk about. It's numbered in sequence, and according to how the events were laid out.
---------------------------------
In the beginning, they talked about an eruption on the Sun which is so huge, and devastating, that had a - as I quote exactly from the movie - "Physical Reaction" on the Earth.
From that, I'm sure that the first thing that is understood in your brain is that the outer side of the Earth would be affected, and from the events that followed on in the movie, that isn't the case. It was the core of the Earth that was affected, so badly, that the waters 6,000 ft + 13,000 ft below the surface is boiling.
*
Take a moment to digest that.
If it were to cause a physical reaction, why is it that the core of the earth experiencing the heat first? Thinking logically at the same time, if it were the outer part of the Sun that is experiencing the eruption, and the heat affecting Earth, there isn't any explanation why SHOULDN'T the surface of the Earth receive the heat first, unless you're telling me the atmosphere is blocking the heat ray.
Even if the atmosphere were, why is it that the heat gets to penetrate enough to reach the core of the Earth? It simply doesn't make sense. The talk about Global Warming, and how we should reduce it; WHY?
Because it would deplete the atmosphere, and allow more ray to enter the Earth CAUSING US, to die out of heatstroke, or other heat-related sickness. It doesn't affect the core of the Earth at all yet!
*
As the movie progressed, it showed how the earthquakes became alarmingly more powerful, (up to a magnitude of whopping 10.4!) and how there were many new 'grand canyons' formed around the whole of America. That is believable.
Studying core geography (which I fully appreciate now), it makes sense - if I go along with the plot about the core of the Earth heating up first - that these series of disaster strikes, as where the core of the Earth becomes hot, the convection current movement also speeds up, and this would cause the tectonic plates to collide, diverge or slide past each other, whichever the direction is, a lot faster.
Then, it comes to the theory, the 'Myan' theory.
On the 21st of December, at 2012, all the planets of the solar system (which we reside in) would be aligned to form one straight line. That 'significance' is a sign of the world ending.
**
Yes, it is very significant, that through those hundreds, thousands of years on Earth, we are experiencing a parallel alignment with all the planets!
IT DOES NOT MEAN, HOWEVER, that just because it is SIGNIFICANT, it means that something BAD will happen.
Think logically.
What do parallel planets mean?
What does 8 people, standing in a row means?
Earth has had such an occurance called an 'eclipse' (no nothing about Twilight), and that is through the Earth being parallel to the Sun and the Moon. Is there anything devastating happening, other than the Sun being blocked for a few minutes? What happens after a few minutes? They move away and revert back to normal!
Exactly what can happen to this 'significant event'!
SO WHAT IF THEY ARE PARALLEL, IN ONE STRAIGHT LINE? Give a few minutes, or a few hours at most, and the planets will move out of the line! Just like normal, just like every revolution they had ever made around Sun.
WHY WILL THE WORLD END BECAUSE OF THAT?
It. Does. Not. Make. Sense! Unless it amuses you, and allow you to make such theories!
What is the worse that can happen? Every planet is blocked off from Sun for a few minutes/hours, and everyone starts freezing to death?
Stay inside a house, and throw loads of wood into a fireplace, or make one for that matter, just like what the chaps did in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, they survived didn't they? The Sun eventually came out didn't it?
It's the exact same thing.
I don't understand why should there be so much of a big fuss out of the parallel planets.
**
I've nothing to say, as it goes, and I'm captivated with the buildings that capsized, the huge enormous cracks, and how lucky the main actors are, and at the same time, there isn't anything else to pin point at (if I were to accept all of those above).
At the same time, the part about the 1958 theory; the rotation of the tectonic plates or something, can't really remember the exact form, where the North Pole became the South Pole, the South China Sea became filled with ice (possibly from some other ice landform) is really very interesting.
Then, (skip skip) it comes to somewhere near the last part, where the big 'ship' was about to hit Mount Everest. Jackson, the author, and the main actor for the whole movie, was struggling to find that disturbance in the machines which causes the main door to not close. When he finally did, and the 'ship' could move out from the Mount Everest, saving everyone's life, everyone heaved a sigh of relief and cheered, and whooped for that matter.
Than.
It stopped.
Not the movie, no, but the disaster.
***
WHY DID THE DISASTER STOP ALONG WITH WHEN THE SHIP WAS SAVED FROM THE MOUNTAIN?
That doesn't make the movie seem very 'believeable' now! It just seemed as though it was destined to have a happy ending - I mean, not being tactless, apart from the other few millions which had died - where is that point that brought us all together in that cinema to watch the movie?
We were there to watch how the world ends! To watch what happens right to the very end, and exactly how mankind was spared, those very lucky few, and this is what happened?
The natural disasters stopped exactly when the ship was saved from a disaster?
IS THAT WHAT YOU CALL - THE END OF THE WORLD..?
***
I came out from the movie feeling both apprehensive, and scared.
My first thinking is that-
2012 IS BETTER THAN NEW MOON AND TWILIGHT MOVIE PUT TOGETHER.
And that, is coming out from a Twilight Saga fan's mouth herself. I am making such a comparison, with something that I love dearly.
I love Twilight, but I'm afraid no matter what the commentators say, about "Move over, Harry Potter", or "is Twilight the next best franchise after Harry Potter, and will it take over?", Harry Potter is still the best, in both the books, and the movie.
source: mugglenet.com I can haz harry pottur
No comments:
Post a Comment