Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
San Andreas - Disaster Movies
#1
I noticed earlier that a new disaster movie, "San Andreas" was about to hit the theaters on May 29. So, while watching the official trailers, I noticed that there were going to be a few more sensational movies this summer. Movies such as Terminator Genisys, Jurassic World, The Leviathan, and others. So, this summer is shaping up to be a summer of possible blockbusters.

If this movie is well made, and it shows good promise, this is the move I want to watch. My favorite movie would be a disaster flick about how the Yellowstone Super Volcano blows its lid. Or how the sun suddenly goes quiet and we immediately begin the next glaciation. But until that occurs, this one will have to do.

But what happens if/when real-life pre-empts Hollywood? There are a lot of guys on the Internet, and Youtube, forecasting a major earthquake on May 28th, just one day before San Andreas debutes. If there is an earthquake, this movie could be a killer hit. But on the other hand,...................

Here's the official number trailer 3







___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#2
San Andreas is riding the crest of the Hollywood wave this week.

'San Andreas' Scores Seismic $53.2M Debut

It will be interesting to see which one earns the most at the box office, San Andreas, or Mad Max.

Meanwhile, whatever could have possible caused that mega tsunami? How does that get into the plot?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#3
This movie is very similar to "2012", almost a remake. I have seen the trailer at movie theater and it looks huge in term of special effects.
If you have seen "2012", you get an idea of what "San Adreas" might be. Though with some differences in the scenario, which is very secondary.

And yes, the next Terminator seems to be great too. The return of the intelligent liquid robot!

I'm less a fan of Jurassic Park, but would watch it too if I have time. I just find the idea of not being able to kill an animal with an anti tank missile completely stupid.

Oh, and all this is without counting all the X-men and Transformers... S5
Reply
#4
(06-01-2015, 07:24 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: This movie is very similar to "2012", almost a remake. I have seen the trailer at movie theater and it looks huge in term of special effects.
If you have seen "2012", you get an idea of what "San Adreas" might be. Thought with some differences in the scenario, which is very secondary.

And yes, the next Terminator seems to be great too. The return of the intelligent liquid robot!

I'm less a fan of Jurassic Park, but would watch it too if I have time. I just find the idea of not being able to kill an animal with an anti tank missile completely stupid.

Oh, and all this is without counting all the X-men and Transformers... S5

One of the main things that turned me off on the Jurassic Park movies was this Steven Spielberg obsession with turning the velociraptors(V. mongoliensis) into huge, highly intelligent, pack critters. Granted, they most likely were social animals, and a cut above in intelligence, but they were not nearly as huge as portrayed in the movie. They were little critters that relied on numbers to overpower larger prey.

[Image: Vraptor-scale.png]

But there were all kinds of raptors, some smaller and some larger. But we now know that these critters were almost all feathered, and part of the bird line that survived the K-T event. He falsely caused millions of young people to have a totally misguided idea as to what these critters really were. He should have been ashamed of himself.

Take your pick. But they were nothing like what was shown in the movies.

[Image: Velociraptor_dinoguy2.jpg]

[Image: Velociraptor_BW.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#5
Here's something else about San Andreas. It seems that seismologists really enjoy the movie. Are there problems with the science? There certainly is, but according to them, its a lot of fun to watch. I liked the closing paragraph [url=]on this science review from NPR.[/url]

Quote:I actually first saw it with a group of seismologists, and we were all sort of ready to go, "Oh, really?" Right, 'cause we could tell from the trailer that some of it wasn't accurate. We all enjoyed it. You know, don't consider this a seismology course. Consider this a summer blockbuster movie.

Dr. Lucy Jones, who is shown with the Rock, gives a pretty good critique on some of the scientific problems. One of the things I didn't know until tonight, is that it is virtually impossible for San Andreas to produce anything over 8.3 in magnitude.

[Image: lucyjonescropped.jpg?w=306&h=360]

So, I've done more research and come up with what I was pretty certain of before the movie. The only thing that could create a tsunami would be a major quake along the Cascadia Subduction Zone.

[Image: figure2.png]

The Juan De Fuca Plate, along with the Pacific Plate, which are rising out of the inner planet, just west of Cascadia, is be pushed into, and under the North American Plate, which leaves a huge and steep drop-off east of the subduction zone. These things keep building up pressure in places, and when they finally release, it produces huge earthquakes, as well as tsunamis.

[Image: CascadiaSubductionv2.png]

The last major Cascadia quake and tsunami was in January, 1700, before Europeans arrived. So, its been over 300 years and counting. And the longer it goes, the greater the release of energy.

So, in truth, the movie probably should have been entitled "Cascadia" instead. And too, San Andreas is dependent on Cascadia, not the other way around. So, that's where the most danger will come from.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#6
JL Wrote:One of the main things that turned me off on the Jurassic Park movies was this Steven Spielberg obsession with turning the velociraptors(V. mongoliensis) into huge, highly intelligent, pack critters. Granted, they most likely were social animals, and a cut above in intelligence, but they were not nearly as huge as portrayed in the movie.
Yes... but in the movie these are not original dinosaures but some recreated with mixed bits of DNAs. The scientist created animals which never existed, mixing velociraptor with earlier, featherless, more reptile looking, breeds. They never had a complete DNA of a single specimen. And also they choosed from the DNA samples the features which would fits the best with poeple expectations, commercialy.
Had they put on display these chicken with long tails, much less poeple would come visit the park.
So all this is perfectly logical.
Reply
#7
I have a science oriented question about these critters and our knowledge base.

My grandson is fascinated with dinosaurs and they have a great museum in Atlanta.

Here's what I wonder about. Triceritops.

Do we have fossils of them before decomposition? I always wondered how we could know about his unique looks. Teradactyl would be another one.
Reply
#8
All organic material has since deteriorated, with the possible exception of insects preserved in onyx. But the surrounding layers of strata also offer clues. In earlier times, fossils were all scientists were primarily interested in studying. But generally, the more our scientific knowledge base increases, the more we fine tune things.

Archaeopteryx is a classic example. When it was discovered, the surrounding limestone clearly had impressions of its feathers imprinted on the stone layers. That's how we know that smaller dinosaurs had feathers.

[Image: SIA3672.jpg]

So now paleontologists look for clues nearby. If a critter dies and is preserved in mud, as that material dries, it will have left an impression of the body, which would be later filled in by other material but would preserve the original impression of the animal's body.

When archaeologists excavate the find, that old mud will have become limestone, and it will tend to have that body shape. That's how we are now able to draw better conclusions of a prehistoric animal's shape.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#9
Palladin, it's also possible to reconstruct the body from the shape of the skeleton: How the muscles were attached and so on. If the bones of the legs are like that of a rhino, we know it was a heavyweight.
But we have no indication of color... unfortunately.

JohnL, we also know from fossilized prints that these half flying dinosaures had invented modern dance. S2
Reply
#10
(06-04-2015, 06:31 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: JohnL, we also know from fossilized prints that these half flying dinosaures had invented modern dance. S2

Oh, that's a given. S22

The only problem is that while prancing around, to the beat of T.Rex's foot steps, they have to be sure they can fly off before T.Rex get to them. S6
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#11
I finally saw San Andreas and was entertained more than I expected. From all the talk, I thought most of California was being subducted under the Pacific Plate. The only truly bad tech was that buildings that were designed to withstand earthquakes didn't. Buildings that were on pylons driven into bedrock sunk like they were in quicksand.

Otherwise, I liked the casting and the action.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)