The Day After Tomorrow

Like I said, I'm going to see it for the special effects. Based on that alone, I think I'll end up enjoying the hell out of it.

This movie was pretty cool visually. The acting was pretty bad, and I've seen alot of the ideas in this movie too many times in other movies. I.E. tidal wave on new york (deep impact), that guy cutting his rope to save the other members of his group(I don't know name of movie, but its about them climbing k2). I am also confused about that wolly mamoth that was in the museum that they said froze instantly.

What's confusing about it? It's a preview as to what will happen.

Also, I'm getting tired of people saying the movie was bad because it was or was not realistic. Did anyone see Shrek? Reality check: It's not fucking realistic! That doesn't make it a bad movie. These types of movies have something that makes them immune to the requirement of realistic developments. It's called FICTION.

Also, wtf was bad about the acting? I didn't find any major flaws in the portrayal of any character. If you didn't like how the story was written, then say that. Don't say that the actors did a bad job unless you have a good reason to.

I didn't think the acting was so bad. I just think that they exposed the use of awesome visual effects to make the movie better than it actually was. If the movie was rated on acting, I probably wouldn't recommend it, but the visual effects make the movie.

Bob, the big difference between Shrek and The Day After Tomorrow is that one roots itself in pure fantasy, while the other tries to root itself in fact. Tomorrow tries to send a conscientious message to the viewer that this is a possible consequence to our actions, which is what is supposed to the give the movie emotional value. You're supposed to truly fear what you're seeing because it could actually happen.

Only...it can't actually happen.

Granted it is a movie, and it is fiction. But the fiction in the movie tries to root itself in scientific fact, and it doesn't (apparently) do a very convincing job of it. That kind of strips away a lot of the weight that this movie wished to attain.

I'm basing everything I've said solely off of trailers and opinions I've heard from other peeople. I haven't made any comments about the acting, or the cohesiveness of the story. I'm just pointing out that the entire fear element of the overall plot is blunted by the mechanics of the situation. Hopefully, the directors were intelligent enough to realize this, and instead chose to focus to fear-building elements off of individual character dilemmas rather than the entire apocalyptic picture.

Truthfully, I was pretty scared when I saw this movie.

I don't think it's fair that a movie can be put down based on being non-factual if people deem that it is possible. If it's non-factual, then it's obviously not possible. I never saw anywhere that the director or writer of the movie had any intent of warning people to stop global warming. I believe it was just a good setup for the movie. There had to be a reason big ass storms.

The theories in the movie are discredited because there's no such thing as a "7 day climate change". Sudden climate changes, at the very quickest, take place over the course of decades, not days. That's why the movie is non-factual.

Either way, it's not important. I'm going to see it, and I expect to enjoy it.

Well what if the sun some how has some flares and heated the earth really quick, besides everything burning and stuff could a 7 day climate change happen then?

That's not really much of a "climate change". That's "flash-boiling the entire planet." A climate change entails the Earth naturally responding to unnatural interference in the ecosystem. The scenario you just described entails the Earth being set ablaze by the sun. That's two vastly different situations.

Well I was wondering if the sun stopped burning, the climate would still stay changed?

Clarify that question. I'm not sure what you're asking me. You're saying one of two things:

1) If the sun suddenly flared up so much that it began to burn the planet, and then the heat died down, would the climate on Earth remain changed by that sudden burst of heat? Answer: uh...yeah. That's kind of a given. The planet would be dead.

2) If the sun suddenly burnt out completely, would that have a permanent effect on the Earth's climate. Answer: uh...yeah. The planet would freeze.

I mean, lets say the sun quickly melted the ice, then the sun went back to normal... would the ice just go back to normal or would it just start leading to a major climate change?

Well, in order for the sun to quickly melt the polar ice caps, it would have to burn so hot that it would most likely kill everything on the planet. The oceans would boil.

But, I understand what you're asking anyway. You're asking that if suddenly the polar ice caps began to dissolve into the ocean, would that have a lasting effect on the world's entire climate? Most certainly. I have no idea exactly what that would do (besides causing massive oceanic rises and worldwide flooding), but it would absolutely cause permanent changes to the entire planet's climate.

But do you understand the point I've been making? There's absolutely, positively no way for something like that to happen without causing death to the entire planet. The ice caps can't just melt in a matter of days, because the heat required to do so would kill everything on the planet. Climate changes don't happen in a matter of days. If one did, we wouldn't survive it. It wouldn't be a "climate change", it would be "the end of the world."

Yeah I understood you, I was just asking something else.

That's exactly what I was saying... It's not a factual movie. It's fiction. Why, then, would anyone put it down because it had things that were not realistic? It down-right just doesn't make any sense. ET, Contact, Aliens, The Terminator, The Blob, and Godzilla are all fictional movies. They don't have to be realistic; nobody expects them to be realistic. Why, then, would anyone expect TDAT to be realistic and throw a fucking fit when it's not?

This movie was made for entertainment. Go watch it, then ....yeah...

I agree, an alien could come to earth, but dosent mean it will be just like ET... but then again this movie is about something that is a "topic" in the world today. I agree with both ways, I just like the movie because it was good

That's exactly what I was saying... It's not a factual movie. It's fiction. Why, then, would anyone put it down because it had things that were not realistic? It down-right just doesn't make any sense. ET, Contact, Aliens, The Terminator, The Blob, and Godzilla are all fictional movies. They don't have to be realistic; nobody expects them to be realistic. Why, then, would anyone expect TDAT to be realistic and throw a fucking fit when it's not?

Dude, Bob, calm down. I didn't insult your mother or attack you personally. I'm just pointing out a logical flaw in the movie. There's a huge difference between Aliens, The Terminator and TDAT. Aliens could very well happen at some point. So could the Terminator. There's no way to guarantee that those things can't happen because there is no scientific theorem that says time-traveling cyborgs is impossible. TDAT is different because the things they suggest in the movie are directly contradicted by scientific research. There are no studies that show that a future war between cyborgs and humans is impossible. There are numerous studies that illustrate how the events that take place in TDAT are nigh impossible.

If there is a possibility of time travelling cyborgs, then there is a possibility of a much-faster-than-expected climate shift. Stewie could make a weather controlling device and amplify its signal through the satellite dish on the top of his house... It sounds more possible to me...