"Supernova": Why do they keep doing drek like this?

[David Howery]

so, do you think New York or LA will get destroyed this time? Most disaster movies have one or the other getting it... sometimes both....

 

[Felon]

Hmm. A movie about the sun going supernova. Wow, that's almost as bad as the endless array of moronic Sci-Fi Channel made-for-TV movies about giant snakes, giant spiders, giant tigers, giant alligators, giant octopi, and vampires with attitude. Oh wait, that's actually not even remotely as bad. Sorry, I'm afraid I will have to choose "Supernova" over "Python vs. Boa" or "Bloodsuckers", ten times out of ten.

And yet, the SF channel keeps burning their SG and BSG money making them, so there must be some demand. C'mon, 'fess up, who's got the nielson box?

 

[Umbran]

I suspect it's neither of those reasons. A solar flare just doesn't sound exciting enough.

I don't buy it. Anyone worth paying to write a script doesn't even have to mention the root cause of the problem to make it sound exciting. In fact, leaving out the cause will tend to create curisosity and dramatic tesion.

When you've got images of solar plasma, humans frying in hard radiation in the streets, and perhaps even boiling oceans and hemisphere-spanning storms to play with, you don't need a particular word to raise interest.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Unless they actually don´t come up with a lame method to stop the supernova process, the movie might have a chance, I think. It comes down to the rest of the story and the acting of it. It would help if just the title and the promo speaks of supernova, and the real story will be about a solar flare or something like that...

Or it isn´t the Earth sun that explodes, but a nearby one - the last time I heard on the subject, if a star would go nova/supernova "nearby", it could affect us (with considerably increased radiation levels)

 

[Felon]

When you've got images of solar plasma, humans frying in hard radiation in the streets, and perhaps even boiling oceans and hemisphere-spanning storms to play with, you don't need a particular word to raise interest.

Sure you do. Sun exploding versus sun getting a little upset. The solar system being annihlated versus another disaster movie with earthquakes and storms and people running for cover until it's over.

I recall an Outer Limits on this subject. For most of the episode, the scientist protagonist theorized the sun had exploded and that it was only a matter of hours before the fiery destruction reached the night-side of the planet he was on. Turned out to be just a big solar flare and life went on.

 

[Warrior Poet]

Why? That one's easy. Because people keep watching them.

If the audience refused to tune in, they'd stop making it.

Quoted for Truth.

 

[Umbran]

Sure you do. Sun exploding versus sun getting a little upset. The solar system being annihlated versus another disaster movie with earthquakes and storms and people running for cover until it's over.

This is Hollywood, and the American viewing public we're talking about, right?

So, the Solar System is irrelevant. If it doesn't have people on it, it is useless real estate. Blowing up Venus won't impress people so much as blowing up Los Angeles, where you can show people frying to ash. And Hollywood knows that. So, the movie will center on Earthquakes, storms, people running for cover, and all that jazz, no matter which premise they use.

In addition, this is a Hollywood film. The likelyhood of them really ending life on Earth is pretty darned low. That means that most of the rest of the Solar system will also suvive this catastrophe. End result - as far as the plot and the relevant imagry is concerned, the supernova and the flare are interchangeable.

And that's the problem. If it really mattered which they used, if some really interesting plot point hung on it being a real supernova, I wouldn't mind. But, given the descriptions I've seen, they could have made pretty much the same movie with either premise. The only difference is that the flare version would show a bit more pride in one's work, a desire to do it right or not do it at all, where the supernova shows that nobody gives a darn about the quality that can be found in the details.

 

[Orius]

I dunno. A disaster movie makes a lot of money, and Hollywood execs end up thinking that people liked it because they want to see movies about disasters. IOW, more Hollywood exec cluelessness. These morons should stick with the only thing they know how to do: seducing naive young women from the Midwest.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Heck, I'm looking forward to it!