I saw THE CORE! [not completely OT]

[mistergone]

Hahaha you know, I've heard of people that see movies and get upset because some bit of pseudo-science didn't make sense to them. Now I know for sure they exist. I laugh. I really do. It's just a movie, guys. Entertainment. It's not there to offer up hard or even plausible science. I don't care why you think it should. Really. It's a movie. Fiction. Normal people go to movies to be entertained. Crazy geeks go to movies to nitpick and freak out over unimportant trivialities. But hey, I'm being too harsh here... if that's your thing, that's your thing.

Personally, I don't know jonrog1 or his Story Hours, but I'm very happy for him. Getting a screenplay made into a movie is HUGE. I don't know if everyone realizes how huge it is. Total props to him. I envy and admire his accomplishment.

 

[barsoomcore]

How does it compare to, say, "Armageddon"?

Never could bring myself to watch Armageddon, I have to admit. The fellow sitting next to me HAD seen it, however, and was unequivocal in declaring The Core much, much better. His statement on that was: "This is actually a good movie."

commented by Xeriar
You've got me puzzling on how to make sense of it, maybe it will hit me

You clearly have enough knowledge that this movie might be spoiled for you. They do in fact assert that the spinning of the outer core is what generates the earth's magnetic field.

I know how it is. I can't watch most swordfight movies because I can tell these people aren't trying to kill each other because if they WERE, the fight would've been over ten minutes ago! Blade II was a notable exception to that rule.

muttered by Tiefling
are the director and FX people implying that a liquid mixture of iron and nickel is transparent?

Yep, they sure are. Well, what the heck. It's less offensive to me than X-Wing swooping sound effects. And I can't help it, I LOVE X-Wing swooping sound effects.

They don't, at any rate, imply that it is transparent to the characters, but they do make it transparent to the audience. So that's something. I guess.

 

[Mercule]

How does it compare to, say, "Armageddon"?

This is one of the more relevant questions IMHO.

I thought that Armagedon was one of the worst action movies I've ever seen (could I _please_ watch the D&D movie instead?). As much as I love the idea of a blockbuster written by someone on these boards, this movie looks about as good as Armagedon.

I think my only major heartburn with the movie is the entire notion that the core of the earth _could_ stop rotating independant of the rest of the planet. This seems like the worst sort of psuedo-science (or non-science) and has received many jeers from my circle of friends. Of course, we all know that some of the weirdest notions prove true science, so I'm all ears if someone can throw something in the way of justification for the foundation of the movie.

 

[Angcuru]

Truth be told, Armageddon might be one of my favorite movies....except for the fact that BEN AFFLECK is in it. I HATE BEN AFFLECK! 8-year old toenail clippings from a siamese GOAT could do a better job of acting than he can.

But I'm probably going to see it sooner or later. Sounds a bit iffy, but potentially entertaining. BTW, do they have a feasible explanation as to why the earth broke?

 

[Xeriar]

You clearly have enough knowledge that this movie might be spoiled for you. They do in fact assert that the spinning of the outer core is what generates the earth's magnetic field.

The outer core does generate the magnetic field (I thought I hinted at that, or maybe we're in agreement), but it's not solid, not spinning so much as swirling, and it seems that every once in awhile (~100,000 years, give or take an order of magnitude, we're on 700,000 years now IIRC) the local 'eddies' within the overall swirl overcome the normal magnetic field, eliminating and eventually reversing it. Of course this is only current theory blah blah blah, but the reversals are real.

But I wouldn't know how a bomb or a thousand is going to make the kind of currents we want :-/

No extinctions have been noted along these collapses (they are rather routine...) though it has been noted that the Black Death isn't going to show up on the fossil record.

But, I do recognize that I'm being silly about it, I couldn't handle Armageddon for similar reasons (rock that size coming in on the Moon's orbital plane would make disturbinces in the Asteroid belt, and 800 feet is not enough to split something 800 miles wide apart). So, I apologize again

I know how it is. I can't watch most swordfight movies because I can tell these people aren't trying to kill each other because if they WERE, the fight would've been over ten minutes ago! Blade II was a notable exception to that rule.

Bad swordfighters are an exeption to this. I spent half an hour duelling with another guy because he couldn't get past my arm-guard and was more agile (well, he ran away a lot and I was too weak for the sword).

Think of it that way and it's a riot

Also I eventually fell into the 'toy with newbies' route when I wasn't even that good (and one wasn't even a newbie, he just fought like a computer program sans AI - I kid you not). I would imagine someone could do the same with me, and another the same with them, and so on.

Wasn't... I'm still pretty terrible.

---

On a related note, I could get down with a scare-movie about Yellowstone erupting.

 

[barsoomcore]

Continuing on my sales job (I should be getting kickback for this!)

The outer core does generate the magnetic field, but it's not solid, not spinning so much as swirling.

That all fits in with what people in the movie say. I don't know the first thing about it, so I believe you.

But I wouldn't know how a bomb or a thousand is going to make the kind of currents we want :-/

Yeah, that's one of those bits in the film where the scientists assure you they've done all their research and studies and stuff. What are you going to do, ask to see their notes?

I spent half an hour duelling with another guy because he couldn't get past my arm-guard and was more agile (well, he ran away a lot and I was too weak for the sword).

I used to think that there was sort of a "base level" of swordsmanship at which point you'd picked up the basics and from then on it's pretty much even -- no. Good swordsmen can be much, MUCH better than mediocre swordsmen. Good swordsmen can beat you before you even draw your sword.

Good swordsmen don't toy. Or if they toy, they're clearly toying. What's the point in toying if nobody knows you're toying?

On a related note, I could get down with a scare-movie about Yellowstone erupting.

Mm-hm. We could call it "Bear-maggedon".

 

[Desdichado]

What was so bad about Armeggedon, anyway? Sure, it wasn't high-brow, but that doesn't mean it wasn't entertaining.

 

[Krug]

Hollywood Reporter and Variety liked it:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ho...ws/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1847677

(I can't access Variety's review)

 

[Xeriar]

Yeah, that's one of those bits in the film where the scientists assure you they've done all their research and studies and stuff. What are you going to do, ask to see their notes?

Then I want the computer they ran those calculations on.

I used to think that there was sort of a "base level" of swordsmanship at which point you'd picked up the basics and from then on it's pretty much even -- no. Good swordsmen can be much, MUCH better than mediocre swordsmen. Good swordsmen can beat you before you even draw your sword.

Yes, I think I can pick out at least a dozen distinct levels of ability, even from where I stand, 'better than grandmaster' indeed.

Well-timed tricks aside, of course.

Good swordsmen don't toy. Or if they toy, they're clearly toying. What's the point in toying if nobody knows you're toying?

When I did it I was trying to teach them something, they usually don't get it even if they are fairly intelligent. Take 'N.' for example, was gripping his weapon improperly (too tight) so *thwack* knock it out of his hand. He picks it up, *thwack* again, and again, and again...

"Do you think he's trying to tell you something N.?"

What's really mean of me is I don't think I told him what he was doing wrong (I learned alongside him, I wasn't the one 'teaching' him or whatever).

Of course, I was, and am, pretty bad.

 

[jonrog1]

This is one of the more relevant questions IMHO.

I thought that Armagedon was one of the worst action movies I've ever seen (could I _please_ watch the D&D movie instead?). As much as I love the idea of a blockbuster written by someone on these boards, this movie looks about as good as Armagedon.

I think my only major heartburn with the movie is the entire notion that the core of the earth _could_ stop rotating independant of the rest of the planet. This seems like the worst sort of psuedo-science (or non-science) and has received many jeers from my circle of friends. Of course, we all know that some of the weirdest notions prove true science, so I'm all ears if someone can throw something in the way of justification for the foundation of the movie.

First, vis a vis xeriar's notion of "swirling" vs. "spinning" outer core, that's one of the things up for grabs in current research. We also make a point of saying it's not solid, as you know and point out in your post. It's also not transparent -- those are the imaging viewscreen views (one or two might not be, but hey, sci fi's sci fi.)

The bombs don't generate a current -- they re-establish motion in a non-linear fluid dynamic system of the outer core. It's a little fast-and-loose, but a hell of a lot closer than the "split the asteroid the size of texas with a single nuke" gig. Once again. Sci fi. You don't choke on faster-than-light travel in space movies, you won't choke on this. Of course, if you do, then you're an enemy of fun.

The outer core also, as xeriar points out, does change rotational axes every half a billion years or so. That's why our north and south poles flip. I'm a little confused over your assertion that that movement isn't primarily responsible for the geomagnetic field, but I guess research sources can vary. The JPL guys seemed okay with it.

No extinctions can be tracked to the reversal, but that's because it's always gone smoothly up to this point. As for the effects from the collapse of the electromagnetic field, google up "Dr. Marvin Herndon". He recently published a peer reviewed paper for the Academy of American Scientists which proposes a potential collapse of the geomagnetic field (from a different origin than ours, but the same end) and confirms that the ensuing disasters would not only be similar to the ones in the flick, they would be worse. Nice bit of synchronicity actually.

All that said -- it's a frikkin' journey to the center of the earth movie. If you're reading and posting on these boards, you pretend to fight orcs in your basement. I'd ask for a little suspension of disbelief. Where we could keep the science real we did, and where we couldn't we bent it rather than break it. The primary difference between our flick and Armageddon is that they assumed you're too dumb to know when they're making up science, and we assume you're smart enough that we have to at least lie to you convincingly.

And even more importantly, the actors are fantastic, and they're not the disposable redshirts of most disaster flicks. You will remember what happens to each of them, and the choices they make.

It's a big, 1960's fun sci fi movie, smack dab between Andromeda Strain and Fantastic Voyage.
Glad you liked it, Barsoomcore.