2012

There’s a new trailer for 2012, and it’s pretty impressive.

Yes, I know. The whole 2012 myth is nonsense. Of course it is. And there’s no King Kong, either. And no vampires. Doesn’t mean you can’t make a good movie about them.

So, anyway. I used to hate Roland Emmerich when he was doing nonsense like Independence Day. Ironically, now that it’s fashionable to bash everything he does, he’s started making good films. The Day After Tomorrow had some really great scenes (especially those with Ian Holm); 10.000 BC, which I expected to be silly, was actually really good and touching. And it looks like 2012 will also use the silly myth in order to tell a good story about humanity. Since that is the true purpose of art, and most films these days fail to do it, I’m looking forward to this one, no matter how flawed it may turn out.

Next Post
Leave a comment

6 Comments

  1. JM

     /  June 27, 2009

    You’re wrong. The LHC will bring our end in 2012.

  2. Nah, they’ll probably delay the LHC until 2023.

    Honestly, the end of the world doesn’t concern me that much. Not for my sake, anyway. But if I had to give a prediction (knowing full well that I’m very likely wrong), I give it about fifty years before God starts wrapping up the story and brings everything full circle.

    Look, children, to the eastern sky…

  3. I don’t think God has anything to do with it. If we go down, it’ll be pure human stupidity… and if not, it’ll be sheer human genius.
    It’s in our hands, either way.

  4. I’m not saying humans won’t play a big part in it. Like I said, I give it fifty years and things do seem to be going that way.

    Miracles like you’ve never seen from a man who was raised up in the sea.

  5. TJF588

     /  October 14, 2009

    I know you’ve said it in other places (and have I commented on it to you before?), but why does art HAVE to be about humanity? Can’t it just have worth to the viewer to be art? Sure, the reason it’d have worth is because it connects with a person on some level(s), and thus complements that given person’s humanity, but that seems more subconscious than recognized.

    Sure, art can, discernibly, comment on or express the human condition on the whole, but there’s gotta be something more basic for the plain ol’ term “art”. “High art”, or some other combination of words, could exclusively be shining examples of their form or message, but there’s too many tastes for “art” to be broadly defined as a portrayal of humanity.

    However, I do like how David Wong phrases it:
    “Art isn’t about liking what you see, it’s about experiencing the world through the artist’s eyes, even if that artist has had hatred eat a massive hole through his brain. Even completely retarded webcomics can teach us something about the world, and the crazy people in it.”
    [http://www.cracked.com/article_17607_p5.html]

    If that’s what you mean by art’s purpose, then yeah, I could agree. However, I’ve interpreted your phrasings to be that art is consciously made for that purpose, rather than just having that purpose as a matter of course.

    … or something like that.

  6. That’s actually pretty close to what I believe about art. I don’t think it has to be consciously made for that purpose (at all), but if it fails at it, it fails as art. Usually that failure comes not from failing to (intentionally) concentrate on the theme of humanity, but from the artist’s lack of perspective.