# I saw THE CORE! [not completely OT]



## barsoomcore (Mar 27, 2003)

So I got into a sneak preview of The Core, opening tomorrow all over the place.

Cool thing is that The Core is written by none other than our very own jonrog1! Take a bow, jonrog1! Of course we all know him as the author of two of the best Story Hours around, Pulp Spycraft and Dark Matter d20, but he also writes movies when he's not too busy running these games.

Anyway, I'm a sucker for big silly disaster movies, and let's face it, either you think "Let's set off a nuclear bomb in the earth's core to make it start spinning again and thus avoid a global catastrophe" is a stupid idea or you're willing to entertain it for at least two hours. If you are, you're in for a treat.

The movie was two and a half hours long, which surprised us all after we checked our watches. It feels like a 100-minute film, it goes by so fast. The pace is brisk and the dialog is snappy and things get going with a good deal of verve and energy.

The science is remarkably well-presented (given the inherent silliness of the concept) and really, the only hurdles are: they have a laser that digs holes in the ground, and they have a material that strengthens under pressure indefinitely. Oh, and it turns heat into electricity, which is handy. But if you can give them that much, the rest of the science all follows quite straightforwardly, and the sequences of diving through the depths of the earth are actually quite phenomenal.

Computers are of course a problem (The Hollywood Law of Computer Silliness states that each occurence of a computer in a movie increases its Silliness by a factor of 24), and frankly, I'm not really sure why the computer geek is in the film. He doesn't accomplish much of anything. However, he's inoffensive, and the film does feature the best use of Pong in a movie I've ever seen.

The actors all did a great job, and obviously had a lot of fun making this film. Stanley Tucci does a delicious turn as the egotistical pop-culture science guy, and both Aaron Eckhart and Hilary Swank pull some great moments that in lesser hands would have come off cheesy.

Jon Amiel does a workmanlike job. He's not a stylist like some directors, but he does a good job of pulling the elements together, keeping the cast on course and making things move quick. Just the sort of guy you want doing a film like this -- a director who stays out of the way and lets the material tell the story.

And of course the script. Those familiar with jonrog1's work on Story Hours don't need to be told that the man has a gift for snappy dialog and wild action scenes. There are some very funny moments in this movie, and the trailer moments that you've already seen in commercials get respun with new material that surprises and delights. The credit card line was a favourite (you'll know it when you hear it). At the same time, the movie also surprises with its emotional moments, which are allowed to be raw and real in a way they usually aren't in films like this. Very welcome, that.

The audience was rowdy as most preview audiences are, but after the first two sequences, both surprising and effective, they were solidly locked in for the ride, laughing at the funny bits and quiet during the tense moments. Even the pencil-necked film student scoffers behind me were engrossed. No cheering at the end, except for my quiet applause, but I'm a known applauder.

Final verdict: a definite see-it film. Should be seen on the big screen. Requires a bit of suspension of disbelief but it doesn't treat its audience like they're stupid. Good loud popcorn fun.

And you can tell people you know the writer! How cool is that?


----------



## Dark Eternal (Mar 27, 2003)

y'know, I was already going to see this... but now I'm heavily looking forward to it.

Thanks for the report!


----------



## Ron (Mar 27, 2003)

I watched the trailer a couple of days ago and decided for watching it. However, I was worried about the overall silliness of the plot and I'm glad to learn that they found a good way to present it.


----------



## Xeriar (Mar 27, 2003)

> Final verdict: a definite see-it film. Should be seen on the big screen. Requires a bit of suspension of disbelief but it doesn't treat its audience like they're stupid. Good loud popcorn fun.




A bit?

No offense to our local ENWorlder, but I couldn't even put up with the first trailer...

http://www.bbspot.com/News/2003/02/review_thecore.html

Doesn't say a tenth of it for me, I'm sorry.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 27, 2003)

Xeriar said:
			
		

> *No offense to our local ENWorlder, but I couldn't even put up with the first trailer...
> 
> http://www.bbspot.com/News/2003/02/review_thecore.html
> 
> Doesn't say a tenth of it for me, I'm sorry. *



Nice to see someone deciding what films to see on the word of someone else who hasn't even seen it. And gets details wrong. And doesn't know film history (because we all know _Independence Day_was the first film to destroy famous landmarks  )

So I guess either this guy, who hasn't seen the movie, is right when he says the science is bad, or I, who HAVE seen the movie, am right when I say the science is on-track. One or the other, right? Who do you consider the more reliable witness?

But you're probably right. You probably wouldn't enjoy this film.


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 27, 2003)

Oh, good to see that one of the ENWorld gang is making it big  I have to especially applaud his slam to the 'talk back freaks' at AICN; I should have that framed on my wall.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 27, 2003)

Whoah! Post the link, dude!


----------



## Tiefling (Mar 27, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *The science is remarkably well-presented (given the inherent silliness of the concept) and really, the only hurdles are: they have a laser that digs holes in the ground, and they have a material that strengthens under pressure indefinitely. Oh, and it turns heat into electricity, which is handy. *




Well, that answers three of the four questions that went through my mind after watching the commercial: cooling, pressure resistance and movement.

The fourth is this: are the director and FX people implying that a liquid mixture of iron and nickel is transparent?


----------



## Xeriar (Mar 27, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *Nice to see someone deciding what films to see on the word of someone else who hasn't even seen it. And gets details wrong. And doesn't know film history (because we all know Independence Daywas the first film to destroy famous landmarks  )
> 
> So I guess either this guy, who hasn't seen the movie, is right when he says the science is bad, or I, who HAVE seen the movie, am right when I say the science is on-track. One or the other, right? Who do you consider the more reliable witness?
> 
> But you're probably right. You probably wouldn't enjoy this film. *




It's a satire site, notice the term trailer review.

The trailer gives the impression that a certain military experiment causing remote earthquakes caused the core (I would admit I'm assuming the inner core) currently spinning at a rate between .015 and 3 degrees per year (it does vary, of course) with respect to the Earth, to stop.  Since the inner core is not responsible for our magnetic field (which disperses into seperate fields fairly frequently over geological time anyway, and within human evolutionary history), I'm unsure what this is supposed to mean or why performing counterexperiments wouldn't start it up again anyway.

Of course the 1,000 megaton bomb or bombs could be such a counterexperiment, but then the Earthquake weapon wouldn't be secret.

And the trailer gives the impression that they're actually going to the core, or getting the bomb there.  That is a kind of engineering feat the Ringworld novels were based on, if only on a far smaller scale.

All of this aside, what gets me is the currents within the outer core and mantle itself are more powerful than that by large orders of magnitude, in multiple directions, but if they were somehow permenantly stopped and undergoing rapid cooling it would take a collision with a large asteroid to start it up again.

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


----------



## Arnwyn (Mar 27, 2003)

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


----------



## mistergone (Mar 27, 2003)

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 (Mar 27, 2003)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> *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 (Mar 27, 2003)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> *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 (Mar 27, 2003)

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 (Mar 27, 2003)

> 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 (Mar 27, 2003)

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


			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *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 (Mar 27, 2003)

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


----------



## Krug (Mar 28, 2003)

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 (Mar 28, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 28, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> *
> 
> This is one of the more relevant questions IMHO.
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## Mark (Mar 28, 2003)

Well done, jonrog1!  I'm looking forward to your take on _foundation_ also.


----------



## orbitalfreak (Mar 28, 2003)

I hadn't realized there was an ENWorld connection to the movie!  Cool!

Provided I can get to the theatre in the next couple of weeks, I'd like to see this one.  It does look like a really cool flick.  When I saw the trailer in the theatre (during LotR:TTT), I leaned over to my family and said, "Now that's a movie we'll have to see."  

Once again, definitely looking forward to seeing it, since it seems pretty fun.


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 28, 2003)

jonrog1 said:
			
		

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




I remember something in the AICN reply about you having to fend off people (executives?) wanting weird stuff like dinosaurs in the movie. Elaborate on that? I find fascinating the behind-the-scenes wrangling that most of us never hear about.


----------



## Xeriar (Mar 28, 2003)

I was under the impression that it was the Inner Core getting started again, my apologies.



> 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.




Wouldn't heat differences form between the poles and equator, and begin the process again with more energy than a measely thousand megatons ever could?

Sorry, had to pick 

The Armageddon quip is true, and suspense of disbelief is always necessary, but understand it seems to be easier if you go to a different world where these changes in rules are par for the course.



> 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.




More like half-million   We're on an unusually long stint right now at seven hundred thousand years.  Also, though the overall field collapses, the field strength actually stays the same - it's just confined to countless local eddies that conflict with eachother.

This process is occuring now, which is where we get the 'half life of the Earth's magnetic field' from the Creationists :-/

As I said, I was under the impression it was the inner core since stopping the outer core would just be...  weird.  Way weird, I would expect volcanic more than storm activity as temperature differences built up, although I suppose, that would be over geological time, and that just kind of ruins the suspense in a movie 



> 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.




I have two problems with people claiming this, though

1: The Inuit and residents of Antartica live under similar conditions, as far as solar storms are concerned.  If they could survive, for so long, why couldn't the rest of us?

2: The reversal has happened several times within the period of human evolution, so 'everyone on the planet is dead' seems a little extreme to me.

It is true, however, that the Toba Supervolcano (if that is really what caused the 'bottleneck', of course, but I'm inclined to agree) would have eliminated any genetic trace such a weather event would leave.  Not to mention Yellowstone erupted before the last shift as well.

---

Regardless, you've given me a bit more confidence in the movie - I may get the DVD - I don't go to the theatres much   Congratulations and thank you.

As for killing Orcs in my basement, a part of that is actually tied to this - sometimes I just wanna toss all this real-world crap out the window and play God with my own rules, and see how I do.  For some reason I do better with that as a premise 

And for faster-than-light travel, at our current rate we will exceed the speed of light Circa ~2200.  Now, if we can beat time dilation and REALLY do it, that would be something.

(You can go as fast as you want, a trillion times the speed of light, or whatever, but the rest of the universe still sees you plodding along at .9999999... of c)


----------



## jonrog1 (Mar 28, 2003)

Xeriar said:
			
		

> *I was under the impression that it was the Inner Core getting started again, my apologies.
> 
> Wouldn't heat differences form between the poles and equator, and begin the process again with more energy than a measely thousand megatons ever could?*



Yes, after a while -- that's the theory of _one_ of the mechanisms which in fact keeps the reversal stable.  The idea is that the normal process has been at least temporarily disrupted.  Not long enough to terminally affect the planet -- but planetary time is a bitch compared to biologic time.  The big old timeclock planet couldn't care if the EM field hinked up for a year.  We, on the other hand, would take whooping like a red-headed stepchild.

The nukes are used ... well, you're obviously physics-savvy enough.  Tipping-point theory.  Forget the mathematical term, but the old physics degree is a bit rusty.



> *Sorry, had to pick
> The Armageddon quip is true, and suspense of disbelief is always necessary, but understand it seems to be easier if you go to a different world where these changes in rules are par for the course.*



Yeah, I wonder why that is.  Space movies never take this kind of tech heat.  Maybe once you've clean-and-jerked suspension of disbelief for the loss of bone density, etc., everything else is cake.



> *More like half-million   We're on an unusually long stint right now at seven hundred thousand years.*



Mistype.  I three-finger type (which is weird for a professional screenwriter, I know) and I flip b's and m's all the time.  All my "from"s come out "form"s, too actually, which spellcheck never catches.



> *  Also, though the overall field collapses, the field strength actually stays the same - it's just confined to countless local eddies that conflict with eachother.*



Ayuh.  But living under one of those "eddies" would be a bitch.  We use colloquialisms for the audience but that's essentially what we say -- although once again, we're going on the assumption this is not a standard-case scenario.



> *This process is occuring now, which is where we get the 'half life of the Earth's magnetic field' from the Creationists :-/*



Speaking of junk science ... 



> *As I said, I was under the impression it was the inner core since stopping the outer core would just be...  weird.  Way weird, I would expect volcanic more than storm activity as temperature differences built up, although I suppose, that would be over geological time, and that just kind of ruins the suspense in a movie *



See, why couldn't the previous criticisms of the science been this literate?  Instead I got an idiot living in his mom's basement name-calling.

Anyway, right again.  Geologic time isn't a factor here.  Who cares if tectonic instability occurs after we're all dead?



> *I have two problems with people claiming this, though
> 
> 1: The Inuit and residents of Antartica live under similar conditions, as far as solar storms are concerned.  If they could survive, for so long, why couldn't the rest of us?
> 
> 2: The reversal has happened several times within the period of human evolution, so 'everyone on the planet is dead' seems a little extreme to me.*



As to 1.) we're postulating that the exposure's going to be a lot higher than even the most extreme functional conditions.  Broken system.  That leads to 2.) the problem in the movie's not from the reversal  -- but  chaotic reversal's the first suspect, and what the extrapolated effects are based on.



> *And for faster-than-light travel, at our current rate we will exceed the speed of light Circa ~2200.  Now, if we can beat time dilation and REALLY do it, that would be something.
> 
> (You can go as fast as you want, a trillion times the speed of light, or whatever, but the rest of the universe still sees you plodding along at .9999999... of c) *



Now, you put those relativistic guns back in those holsters, son -- you think I need that explained?  I'm aware of that estimate, but personally I think we're going to have a bitch of a time coming up with the practical mass-driver idea.

And, I need to say again, all this matters not a whit to our average viewer.  It's a fun ride a lot of people are digging.  I just sleep better at night knowing I'm not treating the audience like chimps.


----------



## jonrog1 (Mar 28, 2003)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I remember something in the AICN reply about you having to fend off people (executives?) wanting weird stuff like dinosaurs in the movie. Elaborate on that? I find fascinating the behind-the-scenes wrangling that most of us never hear about. *




And, as my agent has warned me, one should probably never hear about.  Ahem.

Let's just say the last thing you want to hear in a development meeting are the words "I mean, nobody knows what's down there, right?  Anything could be down there!"

Uh-oh.


----------



## Goodsport (Mar 28, 2003)




----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 28, 2003)

Jonrog - I wasn't originally planning to see this movie, but now I might just change my mind - if only to check out you 1337 writing skilz 

Well done!


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 28, 2003)

jonrog1 said:
			
		

> *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. *




[wipes a tear from his eye]

That's....that's just beautiful, man.

Now I'll have to go see the film.  I'm willing to suspend a lot of disbelief, if you I just get entertained, and there's an attempt made to either A) keep things vague, or B) lie convincingly.  Hell, Irwin Allen couldn't even do that, and we enjoyed his flicks. 

Thanks, jr.  BTW, Jackie Chan Adventures rocks on toast.  Thanks for making a show that my kids and I can enjoy equally.  Really.


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 28, 2003)

jonrog1 said:
			
		

> *And, as my agent has warned me, one should probably never hear about.  Ahem.*




Aww. True, though. 

Yeah, that's a pretty big warning sign...


----------



## Arnwyn (Mar 28, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *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."*



Well, that's definitely promising. I had the misfortune of seeing Armageddon in the theatres, and I was *not* entertained. I thought The Core looked real Armageddon-like, but I am certainly buoyed by your comments, along with jonrog1's comments that the quality of The Core is quite a step up.


----------



## FraserRonald (Mar 28, 2003)

In case anyone is interested, Sci Fi Dimensions has a relatively positive review at:

http://www.scifidimensions.com/Mar03/thecore.htm

I've been looking forward to this movie just based on the premise. I know little enough about science to be bothered by it. I hate turning off my critical faculties when I watch a movie--if it can't entertain me without treating me like an infant, I'm not interested, TV does that well enough--but jonrog1 has calmed my fears in that regard.

Besides, it's got Hilary Swank. *Hilary Swank* people! 



_edit for spelling_


----------



## Nail (Mar 28, 2003)

jonrog1 said:
			
		

> *.... 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.   *



lol.

....see, its lines like this that come out of this guy.  Go ahead: Tell me you don't want to hear more stuff like this.  Try to tell me this sort of script wouldn't be worth seeing, instead shot-down by supposed science slip ups.......

BTW, and not that it's worth all that much, but this advanced-degreed geologist says that the science seems _mostly_ plausable.  And really, how much more RL science do you want from a movie?


----------



## HalWhitewyrm (Mar 28, 2003)

You know, in all honesty, I wasn't even gonna give this flick even the benefit of the doubt. I'm not one for disaster movies, and while the shot of the Colosseum being detonated to kingdom come is cool, I've seen it a gagillion times already in all the trailers. Add to this that my wife simply hates blockbuster-type films, and the result is no Core for me, thank you.

HOWEVER...
The notion that one of "us" co-wrote the script is very, very cool. I haven't read the story hours in question, but I'll take a look. But simply the fact that it was a member of this commuity, both the ENWorld and the gaming in general, is reason enough for me to give it a chance now. Now in the theatres, though; at $9.00 a pop, my wife and I choose extremely carefully what we go see (and yes, we are the kind that does prefer to go see The Hours over Bringing Down the House or your Big Movie of the week). But once it comes out on DVD, I'll saunter over to my buddy's house with the big TV, the nice sound system, and while his wife and mine go do something wife-y, we'll sit down and cheer every time a natural disaster destroys a world landmark.

All kidding aside, my most sincere congrats to jonrog1.


----------



## Xeriar (Mar 28, 2003)

jonrog1 said:
			
		

> Yes, after a while -- that's the theory of _one_ of the mechanisms which in fact keeps the reversal stable.  The idea is that the normal process has been at least temporarily disrupted.  Not long enough to terminally affect the planet -- but planetary time is a bitch compared to biologic time.  The big old timeclock planet couldn't care if the EM field hinked up for a year.  We, on the other hand, would take whooping like a red-headed stepchild.




Well, I was giving a thought off the top of my head, my knowledge of geology isn't that thorough.



> The nukes are used ... well, you're obviously physics-savvy enough.  Tipping-point theory.  Forget the mathematical term, but the old physics degree is a bit rusty.




I know what you mean, it still seems a rather small amount of explosive, in my opinion (considering the attempt).



> Yeah, I wonder why that is.  Space movies never take this kind of tech heat.  Maybe once you've clean-and-jerked suspension of disbelief for the loss of bone density, etc., everything else is cake.




Well, I ragged on Firefly a bit for having purple lightning in space, arcing, even, though I still love the show  (and hope it will come back *whimper*).

Armageddon was so terrible I don't even prefer to bother.



> Mistype.  I three-finger type (which is weird for a professional screenwriter, I know) and I flip b's and m's all the time.  All my "from"s come out "form"s, too actually, which spellcheck never catches.




I suspected so, sorry for the quip.  You are remarkably well informed on your writing, especially considering what can be said for a certain movie we've named above.



> Ayuh.  But living under one of those "eddies" would be a bitch.  We use colloquialisms for the audience but that's essentially what we say -- although once again, we're going on the assumption this is not a standard-case scenario.




It's what makes a movie, it seems.



> Speaking of junk science ...




There was a creationist getting his masters degree at SDSM&T (my school for awhile).  I'm constantly amazed at how such intelligent people can get... clouded.



> See, why couldn't the previous criticisms of the science been this literate?  Instead I got an idiot living in his mom's basement name-calling.




It's neat in that it seems that weapon would have harnessed entropy itself on a large scale, somehow.  That's like Heisenberg compensators and Warp Drive 

I might be more skepticle if I didn't live through the past ten years.



> Anyway, right again.  Geologic time isn't a factor here.  Who cares if tectonic instability occurs after we're all dead?
> 
> 
> > You don't know some of the geologists I do, it seems.
> ...


----------



## Fast Learner (Mar 28, 2003)

jonrog, did you catch Hilary Swank on The Daily Show last night? She was extremely positive about the film (well, yeah, she's promoting it), especially pointing out how cool she thought it was that the film was "putting the science back in science fiction."

Of course then she went on to explain how the electromagnetic field around the core of the Earth had stopped spinning. I guess she's not responsible for putting the science back in. 

I saw the film at a test screening here in AZ back in January. I really enjoyed it and definitely thought it was well written, especially the dialog. The actors were all excellent, as well, and the special effects were great.

The only suspension of disbelief issues I had were (a) the non-rigid "space" suit scenes (pretty sure that's instant crushy), and (b) the radio signals somehow reaching the surface (and vice versa). I felt everything else was nicely explained, even for a geek like me.

Well done!


----------



## Sixchan (Mar 28, 2003)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *Jonrog - I wasn't originally planning to see this movie, but now I might just change my mind - if only to check out you 1337 writing skilz
> 
> Well done! *




I was planning on encouraging people not to see the movie.  A _talking_ ad for the Core was crashing my browser on a site on _every page_.  But now I think I'll go see it.  But I swear, I'll kill the first person who says "Electrical Superstorms" to my face.  It'll be gone by tommorow though.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/


----------



## dexterace (Mar 29, 2003)

Xeriar said:
			
		

> (You can go as fast as you want, a trillion times the speed of light, or whatever, but the rest of the universe still sees you plodding along at .9999999... of c) [/B]




I just wanted to comment on this statement.  You CANNOT go faster than the speed of light.  What you are referring to of course is that the person travelling very fast is noticing length contraction in the direction of movement as compared to a map that was made by someone at rest (from the Earth).  Of course that person on the earth will just see your time slow down, etc.  Therefore, it's possible to travel around the Milky Way Galaxy in your lifetime, just that when you come back to Earth (if it's still there) it could be millions of years later.  So it appears that you are travelling faster than the speed of light when you really are not.  It is incorrect to say that you can go faster than the speed of light, because of one reason.  If I were travelling in a fast spaceship and tried to go as fast as I could, I could still turn on a flashlight (or headlights, etc) and measure the beam's speed to be always the speed of light and that beam WILL be travelling faster than the spaceship (in vacuum).  Everyone will agree, no matter what speed they are moving, that a beam of light will travel at the same constant speed (and that speed will always be faster than anything with mass).


----------



## Dinkeldog (Mar 29, 2003)

Thanks, Dexterace, for reminding me why three quarters of physics was enough to send me happily skittering to my electrical circuits courses.


----------



## Schmackboy (Mar 29, 2003)

*CORE SCIENCE*

Staggering to me that jonrog1, just trying to do a good job, could take so much guff from our RPG compadres.  Sheesh, the guy worked his d20 off to entertain you with the most accurate science the studio system would allow him.  Cut the man and the movie some slack.  No one gets worked up over the science in that movie about the giant monkey discovered on an uncharted island or the other one where they shrink a submarine down and inject it into the President's bloodstream.  Holy mackeral.

Now, for the know-it-alls, here's a little bit of vindication for Mr. Rogers:

From http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/

  A big brained Geologist type examines the science and the story of THE CORE! 

Hey Harry, long-time site visitor, first time poster. Call me Ted. Never felt I had a valid reason to share my opinions with you and your readership, but after seeing The Core, felt compelled to say something about this movie. I'm a talk radio co-host for a science news show, my academic background is in geology/oceanography (UC Berkeley). Love disaster movies, and am a nut for geophysics; needless to say I was long anticipating this movie. How often do you get to see geology itself as an antagonist? 

However, I wasn't expecting to see an even remotely accurate depiction of earth science in this film. It's a movie, and I'm more than willing to suspend disbelief in such matters. Armageddon, Independence Day, you name it -- if you're into that kind of thing, you can enjoy them for storytelling value even if you like to nitpick scientific points of wild inaccuracy (Volcano notwithstanding that movie is a geologic and cinematic travesty). 

From a science standpoint, The Core is pleasantly surprising. Regarding presentation of the facts, it's actually not too bad. This is not to say it doesn't take huge liberties for the sake of cinematic license - it does, naturally. But it does do a pretty good job, with some nice surprises in the way of geology. It may be the film's producers actually consulted some experts in the field, if that can be believed. 

I'll try to keep this spoiler free. Not that there's much to spoil - I mean, anyone who's seen any disaster movie will know the general formula going in, and this movie doesnít screw with that time-honored tradition by throwing in 'twists' or having our heroes, god forbid, not save the earth in the end. The biggest surprise is the hefty running time of 145 minutes. I was expecting around 90 minutes, but no. Pretty much, this movie can be broken down into 1) figure out there's a problem with the core, 2) travel to the core, and 3) fix the core. No surprises there. 30 minutes for each segment would be standard treatment, but the movie didn't suffer for the length and I found myself enjoying it enough that I didn't get up to pee, even though the theater was so empty I wouldn't have had to crawl over 20 sets of toes to do so. 

So, the core has stopped spinning due to a lightly-touched-on and little-explained secret weapon project designed to produce earthquakes in enemy countries. 'Somehow' this has stopped the core, and since stopping the core is the only purpose of this plot device, it is left at that, which is fine. Geniuses are called in to address the problem, a rogue scientist who just happens to have been designing a ship to travel into the earth is recruited, and bang, we're off to the core. Once there, nuclear weapons will be set off to get the core spinning again, and all will be right with the world. As per usual these days, we know this all from the trailers. 

I came for the disaster, but I stayed for the science. As I said earlier, it's surprisingly not that bad. Depicting the interior of the earth, for long periods of screen time, is a daunting challenge I imagine if one wants to keep it fairly accurate while not boring the audience to tears. Rocks, even molten rocks, are not the most exciting of villains, and that's all we get in the way of bad guys. There's no-evil-people-trying-to- sabotage-our-heroes-only-to-get-thwarted-in-the-end in this film (which I did expect to see - they even set one of the characters up for it, but he turns out to be a hero too, which was another pleasantly surprising aspect). Rocks, and just rocks, are what we have to contend with here. And there are a lot of exterior (interior?) shots of the ship moving through various layers of the earth. They give you just enough Geology 101 to explain the different layers the ship is moving through, and make it good eye-candy while still sticking to what we know about geomorphology at these depths (which, as the characters often point out, 'we just don't know for sure what it's like down there' which is true, to a point). 

The biggest complaint I overheard grumbled by fellow theater-goers on my way out, as well as voiced by my wife (who I at least got the opportunity to geek out with and explain things to afterward) was that the ship they used was just totally impossible. Not true. In fact, if we really wanted to, we could probably have built a ship similar to the one shown in the film about twenty years ago. Temperatures and pressures much higher than those encountered in the earth's core are regularly contained, and have been for some time, in experimental fusion reactors (like the ones at Lawrence Livermore Labs) for some decades now. It could be done, there's just no good reason to go to all the expense to do so in reality. And while such a ship could, and I stress could (it would be prohibitively expensive and would require not-insubstantial materials research and development), it was amusing that they just came out and said that the ship was made from a material called 'unobtanium.' Yes, unobtanium. The old sci-fi put-down, they just came out and said it. I chuckled. 

Sure, using nuclear weapons to jump-start the core was a cop-out, but I can't think of a better one as far as telling a story goes. The 1,000 megatons they used in this movie would in reality be just another drop in the bucket in the naturally-occurring whitenoise of magma displacement in the earth's interior. 1,000 megatons is nothing on a planetary scale. (Read up on the Yellowstone supervolcano if you're interested in not going to sleep tonight. This puppy is set to blow real soon and take out most of North America with it - yes, really.) 

--------------------------------------------------------------

But then again, what does a Berkeley geologist know?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 29, 2003)

Okay, I am a physicist by trade, and I'm willing to put up with a lot.  However, I'm a little put off by something alluded to in a review I've read...

"Unobtanium"?


----------



## jonrog1 (Mar 29, 2003)

Umbran[/i]
[b]Unobtanium?[/b][/quote]

It's a joke.  Based on something the JPL guys toss around (we even used it back when I was thrashing around for my degree).  Whenever they need a theoretical but currently unobtainable by standard technology material for some hypothesis to work said:
			
		

> *The only suspension of disbelief issues I had were (a) the non-rigid "space" suit scenes (pretty sure that's instant crushy), and (b) the radio signals somehow reaching the surface (and vice versa). I felt everything else was nicely explained, even for a geek like me.
> 
> Well done! *




The suits weren't supposed to be pressure suits.  The only reason they can go  outside in the geode was that the gas pressure within was much, MUCH lower than the standard pressure at that depth.  That pressure differential was not only why Zimsky was amazed that the geode had survived, but why the geode collapsed.  One of those little dialogue edits they do in the editing room that I think they may have shaved too thin.

And they weren't using radio waves -- it goes by pretty quick, but Josh does say "Electron Spin Burst transmitter" when he activates it.  It's pretty hard sci-fi, but we used the phenomena of separated aspects of an electron keeping the same spin as the basis for the communications suite.

Glad most who saw it liked it.  Going to be a tough weekend, but I think we'll do all right in the long run.


----------



## Silver Moon (Mar 29, 2003)

jonrog1 said:
			
		

> *Let's just say the last thing you want to hear in a development meeting are the words "I mean, nobody knows what's down there, right?  Anything could be down there!"
> Uh-oh. *



I got a big kick out of reading that.  I used to work with a woman whose son wrote "In the Line of Fire".   She spoke of the development meeting where the movie execs were willing to greenlight the screenplay but wanted it "reworked as a film for Tom Cruise".  The writer explained how the fact that the Secret Service agent had been present during the Kennedy Assassination was too critical to the plot to be re-written.  It took him another year of pushing the script before Clint Eastwood took an interest in the project.

BTW, I wasn't planning to see this film (or to at least wait until it came out on video), but this thread has changed my mind.   I'll also check out those Story Hour threads.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 29, 2003)

jonrog1 said:
			
		

> *Getting that joke's kind of the bellweather of the audience actually.  They get that, and they dig the  movie.  It's kind of amusing how many humorless small-town reviewers cite that as yet more evidence of why they hate the big dumb sci-fi movie.*




*shrug*  And we now reach the point where I, not having seen the movie, can't really comment.  Don't have the context.


----------



## Xeriar (Mar 30, 2003)

jonrog1 said:
			
		

> It's a joke.  Based on something the JPL guys toss around (we even used it back when I was thrashing around for my degree).  Whenever they need a theoretical but currently unobtainable by standard technology material for some hypothesis to work, they nickname the material "unobtanium" as a placeholder.




It's used all over the place.  Given an impossible task, regardless of engineering feild, when asked by their managers why they aren't making progress 'we're waiting for the next shipment of unobtainium'.



> And they weren't using radio waves -- it goes by pretty quick, but Josh does say "Electron Spin Burst transmitter" when he activates it.  It's pretty hard sci-fi, but we used the phenomena of separated aspects of an electron keeping the same spin as the basis for the communications suite.




They have the same initial spin, I hadn't heard they could manage to seperate the electrons and have them actually be worth communicating with...


----------



## Umbran (Mar 30, 2003)

Xeriar said:
			
		

> *It's used all over the place. *




Not as widely spread as you might think. As I said, I'm in physics myself, and have never heard the joke.

Jokes based on specific jargon will tend to fall flat, for this very reason - not enough people will get it.  Perhaps it becomes time to unbrand those "humorless" reviewers?


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 30, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Not as widely spread as you might think. As I said, I'm in physics myself, and have never heard the joke.
> 
> Jokes based on specific jargon will tend to fall flat, for this very reason - not enough people will get it.  Perhaps it becomes time to unbrand those "humorless" reviewers? *




Or it might be more wide-spread than _you_ think.    I'm not even in a science field, and I've heard it used a couple of times before from my friends who are biochemists or engineers.


----------



## Paul_Klein (Mar 30, 2003)

I hate to sidetrack this thread a bit, but Mark said something that has me wondering.

Jonrog1, are you working on the screenplay for the Foundation trilogy of books, or is he talking about a different Foundation?


----------



## CmdrSam (Mar 30, 2003)

No offense, my man, but a bunch of us students at Caltech saw the trailer and we just couldn't stop laughing. Maybe the movie just isn't aimed at us, because I'm pretty sure there's no way we could take it seriously.

Anyways, if you're writing a screenplay for Asimov's _Foundation_, that's certainly something I'd like to see! Good luck on your future projects.

--Sam L-L


----------



## Mark (Mar 30, 2003)

That's what I believe I had read elsewhere and, if I am not mistaken, read a response that mentioned there would be a fair amount of supplemental material added since much of what Asimov does is start a scene with talking heads explaining what happen in the previous scene that wasn't included where there was action.  I may be off base here but I'm sure we'll get it from the horses mouth soon enough.

RE: Unobtainium - In an early eighties improv that a buddy of mine and I used to work on, we used that element as being the one that had been used to fashion an object being sought by two hapless adventurers; an object that they, from the audience's perspective, never had a chance in hell of finding.  We never had a single person not roar with laughter when they heard the two dreamers describe the object as being made from that substance.  I don't think it requires much in the way of scientific knowledge to get that joke.


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 30, 2003)

Paul_Klein said:
			
		

> *I hate to sidetrack this thread a bit, but Mark said something that has me wondering.
> 
> Jonrog1, are you working on the screenplay for the Foundation trilogy of books, or is he talking about a different Foundation? *




That is exactly what he's referring to.  Of course, I particularly liked the quote by Asimov about how he went back to read the first Foundation book to refresh himself on the material before writing another book in the series...and determined that not much actually HAPPENED in the book.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Mar 30, 2003)

CmdrSam said:
			
		

> *No offense, my man, but a bunch of us students at Caltech saw the trailer and we just couldn't stop laughing. Maybe the movie just isn't aimed at us, because I'm pretty sure there's no way we could take it seriously.
> --Sam L-L *




Just saw the movie yesterday myself, and let me say, those previews were a crime against the film.  I've seen previews where I learned nothing about the movie, previews where I learned TOO MUCH about the movie, but never one that made it look 3 stars worse than it actually is.  I was worried that it would be too much pseudo-science being rattled off by actors playing actual scientists, but it's not like that at all.  My advice:  The lower your expectations going in, the more fun you'll have.  It was like 100 times better than Armageddon.

Jonrog1, I found your writing excellent.  I get the feeling you watched a lot of BAD scifi before you wrote this.  You managed to avoid a lot of the cliches those films use.  My biggest problems with the movie had more to do with the direction and editing, but I guess that's not your doing.


for example
*
*
*
*
spoiler space
*
*
*
*
*
The idea for that giant geode thingie was so cool, but I thought the visuals should have been so much stronger.  It was neat, but it didn't do it justice.
[/spoiler]

Go enjoy it, check your disbelief at the door, and you'll be just fine.


----------



## Fast Learner (Mar 31, 2003)

jonrog1 said:
			
		

> *The suits weren't supposed to be pressure suits.  The only reason they can go  outside in the geode was that the gas pressure within was much, MUCH lower than the standard pressure at that depth.  That pressure differential was not only why Zimsky was amazed that the geode had survived, but why the geode collapsed.  One of those little dialogue edits they do in the editing room that I think they may have shaved too thin.
> 
> And they weren't using radio waves -- it goes by pretty quick, but Josh does say "Electron Spin Burst transmitter" when he activates it.  It's pretty hard sci-fi, but we used the phenomena of separated aspects of an electron keeping the same spin as the basis for the communications suite.*




D'oh! Well, I did miss both things. Very cool!

Thanks again for a very enjoyable film.

And, btw, unobtanium has become a similar "joke" in more general sci-fi circles, so I enjoyed it as an in-joke as well.

And yeah, the trailer doesn't do it justice _at all_.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 31, 2003)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> *And, btw, unobtanium has become a similar "joke" in more general sci-fi circles, so I enjoyed it as an in-joke as well.*




/me looks at his shelves and shelves of sci-fi books.

I guess that means that despite what I read, I'm no longer in "general sci-fi circles".   Musta lost my membership for not knowing the joke.  Yeah.  Right.  Whatever.

We're usually pretty careful not to make claims about what the "general gaming community" thinks, feels, and knows, because that community is so large.  I wonder at how it then becomes okay to make claims about the general sci-fi community, which is larger...  *shrug*


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 31, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *I guess that means that despite what I read, I'm no longer in "general sci-fi circles".   Musta lost my membership for not knowing the joke.  Yeah.  Right.  Whatever.
> 
> We're usually pretty careful not to make claims about what the "general gaming community" thinks, feels, and knows, because that community is so large.  I wonder at how it then becomes okay to make claims about the general sci-fi community, which is larger...  *shrug* *




I think you're reading too much into that statement.  I assumed he was trying to point out that people besides physicists used and understood the in-joke.  That's not the same thing as saying '_real_' sci-fi fans would get it.  Especially since he didn't refer to the overall sci-fi community (if such an animal exists) as you did.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Mar 31, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *I guess that means that despite what I read, I'm no longer in "general sci-fi circles".   Musta lost my membership for not knowing the joke.  Yeah.  Right.  Whatever.*




Geez, lighten up.

Maybe you just missed it.  I had to ask someone to explain to me not that long ago what "Cracker" meant.  It happens.


----------



## Dreeble (Mar 31, 2003)

*Cliches*

Heya:

 Speaking of cliches (and the avoidance thereof)...

.
.
.
spoiler space
.
.
.

 Maybe it's simplistic to refer to him this way, but I really expected "the bad guy" (Zimsky, probably got the spelling wrong there) to try to sabotage the mission once the rest disagreed with him on immediately turning back.  He even came up with the cool plan.

 On the other hand, there were several other cliches, eh, let's call 'em staples of the genre: the love interests are the only survivors, the bad guy's noble sacrifice, the black guy must die, etc. 

Take care,
Dreeble


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 31, 2003)

*Cliches*

Too bad there's not a dog. We'd know the dog would live 

[Flashback]
When I was a kid, I went to see _The Hindenburg_ in the theaters. Good movie, ensemble cast, you don't know who is going to die and who isn't. 

One of the characters is a boy. Who has a dog. 

At the end, they do the 'oh the humanity' newsreel thing, and then start to show the cast, and whether they lived or died in the film. 

The whole place is silent, people just watching the litany of the dead and living. Then... dog's picture. Undeneath: 'Lived'. 

Everyone in the theater goes 'YAAAAYY!' and claps thunderously.

[/Flashback]


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 31, 2003)

Saw this story on MSNBC and said mmmmm...

http://www.msnbc.com/news/891313.asp?0dm=C21AT


----------



## Fast Learner (Apr 1, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *I guess that means that despite what I read, I'm no longer in "general sci-fi circles".   Musta lost my membership for not knowing the joke.  Yeah.  Right.  Whatever.
> 
> We're usually pretty careful not to make claims about what the "general gaming community" thinks, feels, and knows, because that community is so large.  I wonder at how it then becomes okay to make claims about the general sci-fi community, which is larger...  *shrug* *



Um... yeah. Pretty much what everyone else said. In fact, I was only explaining why I had heard of it, since I'm not a physicist and I don't work at JPL.

I think it's pretty safe to indicate that a group enjoys an in-joke without implying that everyone in the group enjoys it or that those who don't know the joke are somehow no longer members of the group. I think you may be putting too much importance on your association with a group, or more likely trying too hard to make the joke a bad idea. Relax, it's not a big deal.


----------



## Khur (Apr 1, 2003)

I just saw the movie and I have to say that it's enjoyable. Regardless of any of the science (of which I know enough about to get into trouble), the acting is great and the action is great. Despite all the cliches (so many the movie has to be making fun of them), the character interaction is strong and the movie has real emotional impact at moments.

Worth my time, at least.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 1, 2003)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> *I think it's pretty safe to indicate that a group enjoys an in-joke without implying that everyone in the group enjoys it or that those who don't know the joke are somehow no longer members of the group. I think you may be putting too much importance on your association with a group, or more likely trying too hard to make the joke a bad idea. Relax, it's not a big deal. *




*shrug*.  The joke is no longer the issue.  I said some time ago that since I hadn't seen the movie, I didn't know the full context, and thus I knew that I couldn't question it too much.  

I was more just giving you a rough time over what seemed to be a fairly unsupported statement about "more general sci-fi circles".  In retrospect, it was a poor tactic on my part.  But I was still waking up.  Pardon me for a poor choice.  Let me be more plain...

The thing that bugs me is this - you make a claim of knowing something about "more general sci-fi circles".   That's a pretty big statement, and I'd like to know what support you've got for it.

If you wish, think of me as being a stickler for being intellectually sound and precise.  As I mentioned, we try around here not to over-generalize or make sweeping statements about the gaming community as a whole, 'cause it's a couple million people, and mostly none of us have contact with a large enough sample of the whole to say much meaningful beyond the anecdotal "IME".  Given that "general sci-fi circles" is an even larger group, it would take even more to say much meaningful about them.

You're welcome to think I'm being over-picky.  I just think I'm asking you to think for a second about what you say, and make sure you've got it right.  If you're in a position to really know something about sci-fi readers as a whole, I'll shut up.  Heck, if you can point to a major sci-fi work written before The Core that uses the joke, I'll shut up.

[edit - correcting a spelling error that bugged me]


----------



## Mark (Apr 1, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *Given that "general sci-fi circles" is an even larger group.. *




It's not *an* even larger group.  It's many small groups (circles).  The ones he travels in apparently are familiar with the joke: The ones in which you travel apparently are not.  You keep saying "We" and he keeps saying "I" but you also keep taking his "I" for "We", I think...or can I now say "We" think?


----------



## jonrog1 (Apr 1, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You're welcome to think I'm being over-picky.  I just think I'm asking you to think for a second about what you say, and make sure you've got it right.  If you're in a position to really know something about sci-fi readers as a whole, I'll shut up.  Heck, if you can point to a major sci-fi work written before The Core that uses the joke, I'll shut up.
> 
> [edit - correcting a spelling error that bugged me] *




I think he was making the point that wider general circles _other_ than just sci-fi would get the joke.  He may have mispoke when he said "general sci-fi circles" but as that's a subset of "general circles", I don't think his statement's off.  We got a physicist, some biotech guys, and a frikkin' improv guy.  Improv.  The bastard child of sketch comedy. [" A spatula, a gynecologist, and a bathroom." (speaking of inside jokes...)]  That kind  of supports his opinion.  

My proposition was that you don't have to know _anything_ about science to get the joke.  The _source_ of it is science geekdom.  Extra laugh for those who get it.  Solid laugh for those who don't know the source, but figure out the nature of the word in context, and hence the joke.

Been writing comedy 12 damn years.   Nothing a decade of telling jokes in bars'll teach you better than to write a jargon joke.  The joke actually FAILS if it's only a joke sci-fi guys would get.

Nobody was saying you lost your membership to anything, and nobody made an exclusionary comment.  You went from zero to snarky in 6 flat there, mate.  And, may I remind you, you were the one implying that as you hadn't heard the term, it was excessively "jargon"-ish and so an invalid joke.  You made assumptions about the general based on the specific.

And stop *shrug*-ging.  It's passive aggressive.


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 1, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *  In retrospect, it was a poor tactic on my part.  But I was still waking up. *




On the wrong side of the bed, apparently.  What jonrog1 said.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 1, 2003)

Okay, it looks to me like the best approach to this is to take things a bit out of order.



			
				jonrog1 said:
			
		

> *.  You went from zero to snarky in 6 flat there, mate.
> [...snip...]
> And stop *shrug*-ging.  It's passive aggressive. *




Well, to start with, where I come from "*shrug*" is not passive aggressive.  It's a variant of "IMHO".  Since when is that passive aggressive?

Yes, I went froom zero to snarky in 6 flat.  And I already publicly announced that I realize that wasn't a good thing to do, and asked for pardon.  Continuing to bring it up doesn't really count as pardon. What more do you want?  



> *I think he was making the point that wider general circles other than just sci-fi would get the joke.  He may have mispoke when he said "general sci-fi circles" but as that's a subset of "general circles", I don't think his statement's off.*




If he misspoke, I'm perfectly happy to drop the whole thing.  

However, I just don't agree with either your assessment, or Mark's.  But, I don't see as our chewing it over relentlessly is gonna get us anywhere.



> *My proposition was that you don't have to know anything about science to get the joke. *




And, as you'll note, I already ceeded some time ago that this may be the case.  I noted that it really depends upon context, how it was presented, and that I didn't have that information.  

When I brought up the question of jargon-dependance, I saw a lot more of folks defending it on the basis of knowing the jargon, rather than on it being funny without.  Small sample, of course.



> *
> Been writing comedy 12 damn years.   Nothing a decade of telling jokes in bars'll teach you better than to write a jargon joke.  The joke actually FAILS if it's only a joke sci-fi guys would get.*




I would have figured that there's one thing a decade of telling jokes in bars will teach you better - that they aren't all gems. 

The reviewers failed to get it, and were dubbed "humorless".  Folks are sometimes a bit antagonistic towards less-than-complementary critics or reviews, and the comment sounded rather... dismissive ("No, it can't be my joke, it must be that they're humorless").  My original intent was to see if it was the antagonism talking or not.


----------



## Gizzard (Apr 1, 2003)

> She spoke of the development meeting where the movie execs were willing to greenlight the screenplay but wanted it "reworked as a film for Tom Cruise". The writer explained how the fact that the Secret Service agent had been present during the Kennedy Assassination was too critical to the plot to be re-written.




The screenwriters from the most recent version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" gave a talk at a con about their experiences with the Hollywood development guys.  One of the recurring things that happened to them is that they'd go into meetings and the execs would talk about how they "loved the property" and expected great things from it.  Then they'd talk about the screenplay for a bit and then suggest that it could be "pumped up" if there was a final, climactic battle with the Alien Queen.  The screenwriters would then explain that the Body Snatchers were a metaphor for conformity and that inserting an Alien Queen changes the whole meaning of the film.  "Ok, ok, we get it," say the executives.  Until the next meeting, where the Alien Queen discussion is back on the table.

Overall, they said they had 7 salient points that they wanted to transfer from the book to the movie and that, in the end, they got 3.  And if you didnt like the film they made, you should just imagine it with an Alien Pod Queen.  ;-)


----------



## pennywiz (Apr 1, 2003)

jonrog1 - I am looking forward to your treatment of the Thieves World novels.  Will they be done as short vinnettes (as per Twilight Zone) or interspersed as several plots woven into one full made-for-tv-movie?  Although it seems like writing for television after having written for the big screen is sort of a step backwards.  Was the money just too good to pass up?


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 1, 2003)

And now, so to stop any tendency towards bickering - 

Hey look! An evil panda bear!


----------



## Victim (Apr 2, 2003)

I've seen unobtainium on super hero gaming boards too.

What's the book version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers?  Heinlein's (spelling?) Puppet Masters?


----------



## MThibault (Apr 2, 2003)

Take a look at this handsome guy:

http://entertainment.sympatico.ca/news/stories/cp/e040122A.html

Cheers


----------



## Fast Learner (Apr 2, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *The thing that bugs me is this - you make a claim of knowing something about "more general sci-fi circles".   That's a pretty big statement, and I'd like to know what support you've got for it.*



So... I'm sure this has been carried quite a bit too far already, but since you're asking a specific question, I'll reply.

First, no one can claim to know precisely what other people do or don't know. Rather, one can only make generalizations about what a group of people is likely to have been exposed to.

I based my generalization on the fact that I've met and conversed with a wide variety of science fiction folk from all over the world for the last 25 years. I've run several 1,000+ attendance science fiction conventions, I edited a 10,000+ distribution quarterly science fiction magazine for 4 years, I've attended dozens of regional conventions all over the country and several Worldcons (most of which I also worked at), I've met and had long conversations with literally dozens of science fiction authors, I've been involved in the online science fiction community since the early days of GEnie, I read genre-specific magazines (such as Locus and Science Fiction Chronicle) regularly, and I've read thousands of science fiction books. From all of this exposure and much more, I actually do believe I have a pretty good handle on what the general science fiction community has been exposed to.

Does that mean I know what specific people have and have not been exposed to? No. But it certainly means I feel very comfortable making generalizations that I'm confident have a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Certainly as much or more than most folks.

But again, that wasn't my point.


----------



## Paladin (Apr 2, 2003)

*jonrog1...Your Kung Fu is Strong!*

My wife & I loved this movie. We actually saw it twice already. The sound system's power supply blew up 20 minutes before the end, and couldn't be repaired. The cineplex gave us the choice of taking free passes and coming back later or sitting through the movie again from the beginning in another theater. We chose the latter, because we just had to see the end. Great job.

You also made a great point of suspending disbelief. All those who are griping about whatever scientific inaccuracies or stretches should definitely remember that we all play a game that is so far beyond anything in real life that it's called *fantasy*. 

Please, oh please, oh please write any future D&D movies. I just thought I'd throw that out there...


----------



## Gizzard (Apr 2, 2003)

> What's the book version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Heinlein's (spelling?) Puppet Masters?




Ooops, my bad.  I was thinking Puppet Masters and wrote Body Snatchers for some reason.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Apr 3, 2003)

I have seen the film, here in the UK!

First of all, congratulations to jonrog1 for his excellent script! Or co-written script, I think...I really enjoyed the dialogue.

Plus, what no-one has mentioned, is the quality of the one liners! Example, early on:

Scientist good guy: "Why are you guys here?"
Large, scary FBI guy: "We don't know. Your security clearance is higher than ours."
Scientist: "I have a security clearance?"
FBI: "We're here to take you to your jet."
Scientist: "I have a JET?"

Plus the aforementioned "Hacking is my kung-fu, and it is strong."

That hacker is so much like what many of us would like to be in that movie...

Congratulations to you, and all involved in the film! And GO SEE IT, everyone!


----------



## Victim (Apr 4, 2003)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Ooops, my bad.  I was thinking Puppet Masters and wrote Body Snatchers for some reason. *




Okay that makes much more sense.


----------



## Fast Learner (Apr 4, 2003)

*Xena vs. Star Trek*

When I saw the early screening, the hacker says he needs an unlimited supply of Xena videos (and Mt. Dew, IIRC), but in the trailer he says he needs Star Trek videos

Jonrog, do you know which one made it into the film, and why was it changed? (Either way it's a great line, but I prefer the Xena version.)


----------



## Schmackboy (Apr 4, 2003)

*Re: Xena vs. Star Trek*



			
				Fast Learner said:
			
		

> *When I saw the early screening, the hacker says he needs an unlimited supply of Xena videos (and Mt. Dew, IIRC), but in the trailer he says he needs Star Trek videos
> 
> Jonrog, do you know which one made it into the film, and why was it changed? (Either way it's a great line, but I prefer the Xena version.) *




No doubt you can thank the film's studio, PARAMOUNT.  I'd hazard a guess that they didn't want to give any free commercial air time to XENA when they make STAR TREK.

RE: PUPPET MASTERS, browse this:

http://www.wordplayer.com/columns/wp15.Building.the.Bomb.html

Hey Umbran, check this out:

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/mc/20030328/104890686000.html

Give it a read and I think you'll see that you're arming yourself to slay a dragon, and all jonrog1 is a windmill.  

Hey, that was a helluva inelegant metaphor.  He gets paid to write, I do not.  

Anyway, loosen up and relax Umbran.  You'll live longer.


----------



## Schmackboy (Apr 4, 2003)

CmdrSam said:
			
		

> *No offense, my man, but a bunch of us students at Caltech saw the trailer and we just couldn't stop laughing.  *




And WHO DOES THAT??!!

"Hey, you're in the White Stripes.  No offense, man, but every time I hear your song on the radio I laugh at it."

Sheesh.  Do you have no manners?

Mom says, "If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all."  So I suggest you go upstairs and tell your mom you're sorry.

Just cracks me up that the COLLEGE STUDENT is full enough of himself to mock a seasoned professional to his face.  

Ego, much?


----------



## Quartermoon (Apr 4, 2003)

"Unobtanium" is just funny.  I don't care who you are!

Just say it out loud.

Come on, you know you want to.

Calcium...Selenium...Unobtanium...


----------



## Gizzard (Apr 4, 2003)

> RE: PUPPET MASTERS, browse this:




Oh my.  I wish I could remember which set of writers showed up at the con for their talk; I assume it was the same guys since they mention the 3-of-7 critical points thing and were rather sarcastic about how everyone "loved the property" but apparently no one at the studio had ever read it.  

OTOH, it might have been different guys because they seemed much more connected with the parking-garage finale.  They complained that in their draft it had been a church but the studio nixed that out of a vague fear of offending religious groups.  One of them lamented though, "Can you find a setting thats any more bland than a parking garage?"


----------



## Silver Moon (Apr 5, 2003)

I have a question for you Jonrog1.  Is it true that you are one of the screenplay writers for next summer's "Catwoman" film?  If so, what can you tell us about it?


----------



## Hand of Evil (Apr 6, 2003)

Saw The Core yesterday (04/06) and was very impressed with it.  Saw a number of things done right with this movie that other movie makers should take note of.  

1 - No love story!  Oh, it had an interest in the background but the movie remembered that it was a action flick and did not get tied up in and waste time with boy meets girl.  

2 - Strong cast.  The stars were no "big names" but people you have seen about for years.  Together they built a very believable team and group that you could watch and relate to.

3 - Human.  Story was simple, man vs nature and man vs himself.  While trying to save the earth, the crew learned something about themselves and those they work with.  This was done very well within the story.  You learn and feel the story from them.

A very good movie, well paced, great story.    out of 5


----------



## jonrog1 (Apr 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Umbran _*the reviewers failed to get it, and were dubbed "humorless".  Folks are sometimes a bit antagonistic towards less-than-complementary critics or reviews, and the comment sounded rather... dismissive ("No, it can't be my joke, it must be that they're humorless").  My original intent was to see if it was the antagonism talking or not. *




Well that's embarassing.  I was off the boards for a while, came back and found MY snarky comment was based on the fact I got caught in one of the EN board loops where some of your nicer posts didn't show up.

My apologies.

And sorry about the *shrug* bit.  Never seen it except for one incredibly arrogant, dismissive, pseudointellectual poster over in House Rules who DOES use it as passive-aggressive annoyance.  If it's your shorthand for IMHO, then I'll plead the whole "impossible to read tone in a post".

As to the above, let me clarify (and it's not the antagonism -- I've had my share of miserable reviews, thanks you, they cease to matter as soon as you see how widely they vary on a single project.)  What "not getting" unobtanium was shorthand for was not whether the reviewer found it funny, but whether the _recognized_ it as a joke -- one of many in the  movie -- and so understood that it was all to be taken with a wink and a nod.  I was simply responding to the number of reviewers who plead intellectual superiority at the same time they plainly missed the whole tone of the movie.  There are a ton of little asides and references in the flick, it's just that that single joke seemed to be the swing point of whether a reviewer understood we were doing a 1960's sci fi flick and not a serious "hard science" fiction flick.

Then again, we're discussing a movie you've not seen and probably will never see, so we can probably let this one go, eh?

Hold on, I can't read the other posts, give me a sec to poke around ...


----------



## jonrog1 (Apr 6, 2003)

Schmackboy said:
			
		

> *
> 
> And WHO DOES THAT??!!
> 
> ...




Schmack, your Baptist upbringing is showing -- 

Let 'em laugh.  Last time I looked, the check cleared.

Okay, responses:

Everyone who liked it -- thanks a lot.  Glad you got 2 hours of non-war fantasy sci-fi time.

Everyone who didn't like it -- sorry.

Everyone who decided they hated the movie based on the trailer -- good for you, and see the previous comment _vis a vis_ the check clearing.

Hand of Evil -- Especially glad you liked the absence of a love story.  Had to fight a bit to get that one.

Gizzard -- re _Puppet Masters_.  3 out of 7 ain't bad at all.  An odd little movie, but you so do have to dig Donald Sutherland, eh?

Pennywiz -- not doing _Thieves World_ actually.  Pity, would be a cool show, but I ain't got it.  And TV has a lot of things over movies.  The writer's very much more in creative control, you're in production constantly ...

Ach, back in a bit


----------



## jonrog1 (Apr 7, 2003)

continued:

P-kitty: AAAAUGH! EVIL PANDA! RUN!

Silver Moon; I was indeed one of the ten-years-worth of writers on _Catwoman_.  I haven't read the latest draft, so lord knows what's been done with it.  I'm sure it's shootable.

Latest projects, as somebody asked -- adapting Asimov's _Foundation_ trilogy, Matt Reilly's _Ice Station_ (big shout-out to the Aussies), Rucka's _Queen & Country_, Lee Childs' _Killing Floor_, an original heist script allegedly getting shot this summer at Paramount, an original fantasy script at Dreamworks.  A gaming website's going to pop up in there somewhere.

Back to work now.  Move along, everyone, move along, we have polyhedrons to roll.


----------



## Zappo (Apr 28, 2003)

I've watched the movie yesterday (what with dubbing and all, we always get movies later here). It's _good_, definitely better than Armageddon, for all the reasons people mentioned. The one-liners were great ("I have a security clearance?"  - "Repeat with me: I. Don't. Know."   - "With credit card he'll get a free flight!"... there are so many, soooo many!).

Re: unobtainium, I got it but the guys at translation probably didn't, because they left it as unobtainium which doesn't say anything to an Italian audience. Pity.







			
				Paladin said:
			
		

> *Please, oh please, oh please write any future D&D movies. I just thought I'd throw that out there...*



Seconded.

Edit:
A curiosity. The TV commentary that is heard on the destruction of Rome, was it in Italian in the original version too?


----------



## jonrog1 (Apr 28, 2003)

Ah, the international dollars roll in.  Yes, the broadcast was in Italian, I believe.  

And although we got buried beneath the _Bringin' Down the House_ landslide her ein the States, we were number one in most Asian countries for a few weeks.   I'm desperatley hoping a manga mini-series is to follow.

Thanks again for stopping by to comment.


----------



## Mark (Apr 28, 2003)

jonrog1 said:
			
		

> *...and a frikkin' improv guy.  Improv.  The bastard child of sketch comedy.*


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 28, 2003)

jonrog1 said:
			
		

> *A gaming website's going to pop up in there somewhere.*



I seem to recall this getting promised some time ago.

He said, trying desperately to sound like he's NOT nagging when he so patently is.


----------



## barsoomcore (May 5, 2003)

Just to add one more comment -- Mrs. Barsoom saw the flick yesterday and pronounced it "super-cool" and said it was to sci-fi films what _Josie and the Pussycats_ was to rock-n-rool flicks -- so funny, so clever and so deadpan that most people missed the joke.

We love _Josie and the Pussycats_, by the way, so that's high praise indeed. Unless you hated it, I guess.


----------



## GreyShadow (Jun 15, 2003)

Finally.  It's out in Australia.

Jonrog, thanks heaps for a great night out!  We both enjoyed The Core immensely.

Cheers


----------



## Welverin (Jun 15, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *Just to add one more comment -- Mrs. Barsoom saw the flick yesterday and pronounced it "super-cool" and said it was to sci-fi films what Josie and the Pussycats was to rock-n-rool flicks -- so funny, so clever and so deadpan that most people missed the joke.
> 
> We love Josie and the Pussycats, by the way, so that's high praise indeed. Unless you hated it, I guess. *




Damn you! Now I feel even worse for having missed it. Where did she see it by chance? Maybe I'll get lvuky and it will pop up somewhere nearby, but I'm not counting on it.

p.s. go here  and mention JatP I could use the support.


----------



## jonrog1 (Jun 18, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> * Improv, the bastard child of sketch comedy ...
> 
> *




Ah, inside joke about the friendly (and sometimes not-so) rivalry between stand-ups and improv troupes.

I'm pleasantly stunned that people are still posting here.  Glad to know some folks are enjoying it.

And that gaming website is coming up.  Just got to clear out my summer's worth of drafts once and for all.  The Drunk Southern Girls thread has a quick summary of what I've been working on for it.


----------



## jonrog1 (Jun 18, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> * Improv, the bastard child of sketch comedy ...
> 
> *




Ah, inside joke about the friendly (and sometimes not-so) rivalry between stand-ups and improv troupes.

I'm pleasantly stunned that people are still posting here.  Glad to know some folks are enjoying it.

And that gaming website is coming up.  Just got to clear out my summer's worth of drafts once and for all.


----------

