Talk:2012 (film)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1. Danny Glover as Barack Obama, the President of the United States[8]

...

1. Oliver Platt as Rahm Emmanuel, the President's Chief of Staff[8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.255.68 (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This link just redirects to the 2012 article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.27.175 (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally feel it important that the IHC should be emphasized as a fictional website, just to make sure those skeptics out there understand it is not a real website and there is no such thing as the Institute for Human Continuity. With the amount of fear that came from Y2K, I think Wikipedia needs to make sure people understand that there is no scientific proof that anything will occur in 2012 that is "life-ending" or "cataclysmic" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revan46 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The aim of the demand to google 2012 is not to find the homepage of the film, but to find the "facts" about the Mayan Calender and the apocalypse. So I delete the Guardian critic because it is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.175.233 (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally agree, but the Guardian article is the opinion of a relevant and notable media outlet, so it should be included. I've found a source to give the other side of the picture, but if someone could find a more notable source that would be awesome. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 02:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I saw a comment from someone saying that this is part of a Google/Sony cross-promotion deal. I couldn't find anything official - could someone confirm or deny? --Irrevenant [ talk ] 02:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to say it's good that you put quotes around "facts" since the whole 2012 stuff is nonsense anyway. Revan46 06:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed almost universally negative feelings toward the film, at least from people I've talked to who have seen the trailer. Bad reactions amongst the Internets as well. I think it's a combination of the uninspired premise and CG overdose, and some unidentifiable bad vibe. I think it's somewhat notable that this is gearing up to be the greatest train wreck in film history. For what it's worth... Clarkcol (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Really? It's been the exact opposite with me. Everyone except me seems overwhelmingly pumped for this movie's release. Personally, all I can think when I see all the posters and trailers is "ooh look, The Day After Tomorrow 2!!! Nemeses9 (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That's the whole point; The Day After Tomorrow was a horrible movie. This does look essentially like the same movie with a different name, hence people thinking it will be just as poor. 122.105.64.151 (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I know this isn't really relevant - well, perhaps it is of interest to note - but I just wanted to say I really like the use of the music from the trailer for Stanley Kubrick's The Shining in this trailer. Nice touch. Dingno (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It is probably not too relevant to the talk page meant for improving the article. ;) We're supposed to follow the

talk page guidelines and avoid treating the talk page as a forum for discussion. Discussion is better held on user talk pages (as long as you don't use Wikipedia for only non-editing purposes) or another website, like IMDb. —Erik (talk • contrib

) 14:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. Is it relevant, then, to make note of that fact; that is, that the music from the teaser trailer is the same as the music from the Stanley Kubrick's The Shining trailer?Dingno (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's an important detail to include. I recall trying to find information about the trailer when it first came out, but most articles just announced the trailer and the premise of the film. Trailers don't get that much coverage, and I think in this case, the "Google 2012" element of the trailer overshadowed other elements of the film that could have been covered. It may be of more interest to readers what kind of music will be in the film itself. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Eric, you have just wasted two paragraph space on the talk page by the manner you reacted to Dingno's added information. Not very wikipedian like. 202.142.190.242 (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

At least he's being honest and properly explained about what the talk page is about. "Not very wikipedian like"? I'm sorry, but who are you to judge? --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You know if you look really closly, you could see the monk ringing the bell just a second before he dies. Really, that is true. The movie guys did zoomed up on the computer showing the monk. --Movieman2099 (talk) 2:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• 2012: a cautionary tale about marketing, November 25, 2008

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this tagline a reference to the Left Behind series? Maybe a rip-off?--189.178.27.19 (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Surten

I see there is not much about the plot of the movie. In this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJjQMwEjC1I (fora.tv official channel, not a copyvio), the astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson says he has seen a preview, and that aliens come, and take over the capital. Is this worthy of addition? Remember wikipedia doesn't care about spoilers, so if relevant, that is not an issue to stop it being added. Gdfgrsegyjhcc (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I came here for known plot elements of the film. Perhaps something like "For example; in the teaser trailer, a scene is shown with a thick wall of water (not just a splashing wave) pouring over what is presumably a Himalayan Mountaintop Buddhist Monastery. This implies a thick wall of water, thousands of feet high, traveling at high speeds, hundreds of miles inland to some of the highest points on the planet". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harodotus (talk • contribs) 18:53, June 22, 2009

The longer trailer seems to show a view of earth from space with not one but two moons...is it OR to notice this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.177.23.62 (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The summary needs to be tidyied up - preferably not by a Californian. A few points to remember, or correct - Los Angeles is not the world. And how do the "ships", that the family must fly to, fit in with the shelters in the mountains? I presume these shelters would be the Tibetan Himalayas - not China! And nowhere near the sea. Incidentally if giant waves reach the Himalayas, most of the world would be drowned. Just where did all the water come from? Why does the US Government declare the end of the world? Unless they are planning to cause it - people would probably notice the end of the world anyway, without some lame duck US president announcing it, like some publicity stunt.JohnC (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

JohnC, I think we should wait until the film is released before the plot could be fixed. It's just a few days away. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Everyone might like this. TV Week’s summary (November 14-20, 2009) reads in part, "Luckily, a clever scientist (Cusack) is able to open a portal to a parallel universe so he can make contact with the other universe’s version of himself in order to prevent the cataclysm from occurring." Any corroborating evidence for this? (Mchelada (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC))

Is Wikipedia really the place for film trailers / reports of film trailers? I suggest removing it. As per

Otherwise everybody's forthcoming books will merit an article each, too! --PL (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal should have been made in the appropriate WikiProject, rather than arbitrarily removing information about the future film. I see no reason to remove sourced information about scheduled films from respectable producers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

How 'respectable' is a producer (Sony Pictures Digital Inc.) that on its website (thus labelled in the bottom RH corner of each page) deliberately promulgates as 'facts' rank disinformation about threats from unknown planets, the Mayan calendar, the identity of the premises of the fictitious 'Institute for Human Continuity' as (get this!) the HQ of the European Union in Brussels and, probably, the qualifications of its supposed 'staff'? It is perfectly clear that the film is designed simply to produce public alarm and despondency -- which, in the armed forces at least, is a punishable offence. By advertising it (because that's what it would be doing) Wikipedia would be encouraging, and joining in, the spread of such disreputable disinformation. Still, if you approve of such disgraceful activities, at least we shall know where you stand... --PL (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing "facts" with advertising copy, such as "based on a true story". Should we remove all those upcoming films, as well, until the actual release? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sony's site states as a matter of allegedly scientific fact that the world will end in 2012, and clearly hopes to convince the public to believe it and panic accordingly. That is literally a form of corporate terrorism, and the article implicates Wikipedia in it. Still, if you think that's OK, it must be OK, mustn't it? (I do hope the various security authorities are reading this!...) --PL (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Blanking this articvle is vandalism, please stop. sherpajohn (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This debate the two of you are having concerns marketing practices and the misusage of information on the 2012 issue by Sony. Saying this article would break the law in any case is utter rubbish as Sony has not been sued for their marketing practices on this upcoming film. However, the point of this article is not to debate marketing practices of any sort, nor does it involve any juridical aspects. sherpajohn is right in saying blanking this page is vandalism, even more considering an unfinished debate between two people by no means justifies removing an entire article. -- 145.97.197.172 (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. However, spreading terror (in the case of Sony's associated website, without any indication that it's tongue-in-cheek) is by definition terrorism, and Wikipedia needs to distance itself from that. So, in a spirit of co-operation, I've tried instead to achieve this linguistically, as well as correcting a few grammatical problems, and rather hope that Arthur Rubin will likewise react co-operatively, and in a considered, adult way (just as he presumably would with anybody else's work), rather than reverting all my proposed changes on principle, apparently without even looking at most of them, which would amount (dare I say it?) to vindictive vandalism. --PL (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe your latest revision to be incorrect. But, as I don't have evidence, I'm willing to let it go, even though it borders on

WP:BLP. Describing the trailer as a "spoof" certainly seems unjustified; some of the rest of the comments show bias in word choice or synthesis. I guess I'll just have to tag, rather than letting it go.... — Arthur Rubin (talk)

13:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The word 'spoof' (which everybody understands) seemed to me better to convey the idea of 'pseudo', 'hoax', 'pretend' than 'teaser', which could mean almost anything. Can you think of a better term (perhaps one of those)? As for the EU HQ in Brussels, that is definitely what the picture on their 'About' page is of (would somebody who knows Brussels independently please care to confirm?), though just how important it is to mention it I wouldn't know. Possibly it is important, since it is so glaring that it's possible Sony included it specifically in order to indicate to those in the know that the whole thing is, well... a 'spoof'? ;) --PL (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've revamped the statement about the IHC's premises and the EU's HQ in Brussels to show its relevance to the article, and have linked it to actual photos so that people can confirm for themselves. See what you think. --PL (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(Later) Yes, I thought you might pick up on a possible OR aspect (though, to be honest, there's quite a bit in the article, as in most, that could, strictly speaking, be accused of that!)! In mitigation, readers were in fact invited to do the research themselves. However, try the revised version? --PL (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The german Wikipedia claims the film is an adaptation of a novel named In the Courts of the Sun.--132.252.177.165 (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. "2012 ist die Verfilmung des Science-Fiction-Romans 2012. Das Ende aller Zeiten (Originaltitel: In the Courts of the Sun) von Brian D'Amato." or '"2012" is the film version of the science-fiction novel '2012. The End of All Times' (Original title 'In the Courts of the Sun') by Brian d'Amato. Fascinating! You can see full details here -- but it looks to be the basis only for part of the film (the Mayan part). --PL (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's be reasonable and rational for a few minutes here, boys and girls. December 21, 2012 is a date in a CALENDAR. It comes from the so-called Maya CALENDAR and specifically the Long-Count CALENDAR. Possibly ALL the CALENDARS that exist are based on astronomical cycles and usually some combination of cycles, such as solar (years) and lunar (months). Now what is the astronomical basis of the Long-Count? Seem's like no one knows. (I KNOW!) If we collectively knew this, then 2012 would have a factual basis and maybe we'd have an antidote to the hyperbolic stupidity now spreading through the collective mind of humanity. I use the term stupid because it implies RESISTANCE to understanding! Hollywood is soon to scare the $%#@ out of [people with the 2012 movie later this year. Millions will be looking for answers and Google will get like a BILLION hits for 2012. So Wiki Ads & Eds, gonna perpetuate the "stupidity" or seriously consider what will bring down the 2012 house of cards? I'm being kind and not even talking astrology here. The mysterious "galactic alignment" is meaningless until understood with the other FACTUAL astronomical cycles that underlie the Maya Calendar and 2012. Raymond Mardyks <[email protected]> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.151.35 (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is not a soapbox; discussions need to focus on improving the article of the topic at hand. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And the article is about a film that is undoubtedly upcoming, however regrettably (I didn't realise that filmspam and bookspam were even permitted in an encylopedia such as this! Should they be?). The alleged IHC website to promote the film is certainly a disgrace, and probably illegal, in that it is designed to promote terror and so is by definition a form of terrorism, but on second thoughts it's probably better that the article should mention it and find ways of showing that it's a piece of rank disinformation (not easy to do that under the rules, even though the 'doctorate' staff listed on its 'About us' page almost certainly don't exist, let alone have doctorates!), than not mention it at all. --PL (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read what Erik (talk • contrib) wrote, this is not the place to discuss theories regarding the legitimacy of a marketing website. If you believe what they have done is illegal, you have the ability if not the obligation to report it to the authorities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherpajohn (talk • contribs) 13:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Who would presumably then treat it as they treat the perennial ravings of the biblical doom-mongers! You may be right. But my object in the article is not to 'discuss theories regarding the legitimacy of a marketing website' (even though I would think the question has a bearing on the tenor of the article, which mentions it), but simply to show it as it is, given that it is being referred to at all, with any information that is relevant, including the point that it is non-factual. This is because it doesn't indicate this itself, deliberately portrays itself as factual, and consequently is liable to cause public panic (and indeed, is already doing so), rather along the lines of Orson Welles's infamous 'War of the Worlds' broadcast. Wikipedia has no business contributing to this if it can be avoided, and improving the article (as Erik rightly demands) to make it a balanced report can help to ensure this. --PL (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'm simply suggesting that Wiki make more of an effort to present some of the facts regarding 2012 at this time of popular interest. Discussing the FACTUAL astronomical basis of the Long-Count that offers the 2012 end date could be richly rewarding. It has for me. 2012 is not a mystery or an enigma. I understand what the date is based on astronomically and so UNDERSTAND what 2012 is about. A rather comforting alternative to fear, stupidity and ignorance, don't ya think? MARDYKS ``` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.151.35 (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I contend that the 2012 date is in fact the date to throw out your old stone tablet and get a new one. There's been real advancements in chiseling in the last 5,000 years so there's no reason to try and recycle your old stone. I'm not suggesting you just throw it out, but it could for example be better served as a garden decoration than a wallpiece in your familial dwelling. (This whole topic is just stupid- the less we discuss it the better) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.118.230 (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"The Scene is showed that The Los Angeles more than 10.5 earthquake and the family survived." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.59.27.71 (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Erik seems extraordinarily anxious to hush this up. I wonder why? --PL (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC) (Answers here, please, not on my User page!)

Please read Wikipedia's

assume good faith of other contributors' intent. The addition is opinionated and not from any reliable sources about the film. On Wikipedia, we cannot combine different sources to present novel conclusions. Let's be patient and wait for the film to come out, since there surely will be commentary about the apocalyptic scenario. —Erik (talk • contrib

) 15:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The scientists who don't exist. Revan46 03:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm done here. I've done my best, and I've better things to do with my life... --PL (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow original research. This means editors cannot investigate on their own to piece together previously separate bits of information to present novel conclusions in the article. In this case, there is an analysis of the viral marketing website being conducted only by the editor and not any

reliable source. It's easy for one person to be surrounded by a certain perspective (participating in a forum ragging on some crappy Hollywood remake, for example) and feeling that most people share the same stance. At this point, though, the film is not yet out, and there will be commentary about it. We will find out then if there are people as you say, believing that the film represents the true end of the world, and we'll cite the commentators remarking on them. —Erik (talk • contrib

) 11:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Although what has been added so far appears to be

orginal research, another matter comes to mind. This might be a copyright violation under freedom of panorama laws. If a reliable source can be found to comment on that, it probably deserves notice in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

13:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No spoilers here after 1 month! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.68.139 (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a movie forum. We provide all (relevant) information that is available. -- JovanCormac (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.236.124 (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia IS an encyclopedia. Erpbridge (talk

) 06:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up to whoever keeps editing the reception, there is no need to state 'As of 11th November...' as it is automatically assumed that it is the current %, particularly as it is updated several times a day. I know it seems petty but if you look at the reception for the majority of films on wikipedia, they do not start with 'As of ...' the majority of them start with 'The film currently holds...' Benatfleshofthestars (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.20.99 (talk)

The movie's budget has been wildly edited in the past two days. $150 million, $200 million, $260 million, you name it, the article has seen it.

The current figure ($200 million) cites as a reference a German article ([1]) that nowhere explicitly states that this was the movie's budget, but rather makes a very vague statement that can be interpreted as saying it was. The only explicit reference I found is [2], which states that 2012's budget was actually $260 million, so I suggest that figure be used until we find a better one. -- JovanCormac (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't actually state it cost $200m then it is not a suitable reference. There are a few reports on the cost, most of them putting the cost of the film at either $200m or $260m. The New York Times, LA Times and the UK's Telegraph have the film costing £200m: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/movies/08gray.html, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2009/11/movie-projector-2012-will-be-big-domestically-huge-overseas.html, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6519923/Ignore-the-movie-2012-will-not-be-the-end-of-world-say-Mayans.html. USA Today, Forbes and of course IMDB have the film at $260m: http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2009-11-13-2012rev13_ST_N.htm, http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/12/2012-christmas-carol-business-entertainment-movies.html. Since these are only estimates in the absence of the production company actually releasing the budget information then it is improper for Wiki editors to pick one. The budget should be stated as $200m-$260m along with the appropriate references. There is a similar dispute going on over Avatar's budget too and the constant changing is to the detriment of both articles. Betty Logan (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added the references in now. Both estimates are included so no more excuses for the reverts! Betty Logan (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The 'gross' slot in the infobox keeps being changed to unreferenced amounts. I added a reference to "the numbers" site which was the most up to date record I could find, but this reference has since been deleted and replaced with an unreferenced amount. Obviously the gross changes on a daily basis so it's ok to update but we need a reference of where you get your information. Please can other editors keep an eye on it - there is no excuse for replacing referenced information with unreferenced information! Betty Logan (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Betty I think this is vandalism,it's been happening a lot. I added the current (domestic) gross. So far no reports from "worldwide". Please keep a watch out. We may need to request temporarily protection if this keeps happening from the anons. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 17:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Cheddarjack has changed the gross in the infobox and removed the reference: [3] Please can someone restore the original amount and the reference please. Betty Logan (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like that user has had enough warnings.. this isn't the only page he's done it at. May be time to report them. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 22:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

He only changed it the once so we can consider it a careless error for the moment. If he comes back and reverts however then we know it is intentional vandalism. At least we can see who is making what changes now the article is semi-protected. Betty Logan (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Arnold make an appearance when the family was watching TV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.167.213 (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I was pretty sure it was someone else pretending to be him when I watched it.Famartin (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Give me a couple of hours i'll check and tel youSyler.mi4 (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That was the worst celebrity impersonation in a movie in recent memory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.118.230 (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was an actor playing the part. But I think the film makers made a slight error. According to the Wikipedia, Schwarzenegger's term expires in Jan 2011. This would be the end of his second term and he is prevented by the state constitution from serving a third. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.19.60.236 (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Was it clear in the movie that it was the governor talking? I don´t remember. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, the "President" is number 45. Barack Obama is number 44; his (first) term won't expire until January 2013. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.134.83 (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hey guys you should also add what the critics said about the marketing campaigns, unfortunately i dont have access to edit this page. I'll give some references in the next edit Cheers Syler.mi4 (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: this edit:

Some minor tweaks included using American English ("realize" instead of "realise") per

Anyway, hope this helped. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I was wanting to try and help with the lead summary cleanup to give a more adequate description of what the article will be about, with my previous edits having been removed. I'm taking the basis of a better lead summary from The Terminator article. See below for what I'm attempting to revise and if sufficient perhaps it can be posted:

2012 is a

Reviews of the film have been mixed, with several critics pointing out the improbability of some of the Apocalyptic scenarios depicted in the film. To date the film has made $225 million in combined foreign and domestic box office receipts.

Would this be acceptable? Please let me know, willing to help in anyway I can. Thank you!Lesliejas (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are some suggestions:

• 2012 needs to be in italics and bolded for the first sentence (2012), and in italics for the rest (2012).
• 2009 needs to be 2009
• The second paragraph of the plot needs to be trimmed and the rest wikified (
  Tibetan Himalayan Mountains
  , etc).
• A brief summary of the reception needs to be added.
• For more guidelines, see
  Wikipedia:LEAD. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs}
  19:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would drop the final sentence about Mayanism. The lede should be limited to a few facts about the film. If anybody comes to the article cold the sentence about Mayanism sticks out like a sore thumb - the sentence doesn't make any sense unless the Mayan influence is previously introduced as a possible inspiration for the film. I wouldn't bring in the Mayan aspect at all in the lede and leave it to later on in the article where the film's premise is discussed. Betty Logan (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed the things you suggested, however, the Mayanism part is not something I added, that is already in place on the pages article. I was simply incorporating it into my re-working of the lede because that has been allowed to stay in place already. Some of my revisions were in place already and removed because of Vandalism, of which I did not believe my revisions constituted such. For some reason EVERYONE thinks they know everything there is to know about this movie or want to add their opinion to it. I was honestly trying to make the article better. Again, just let me know what you think and if it's good I'll add it.Lesliejas (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks fine, I don't object to any of that. Maybe drop the sentence about the box office gross because that will need to be updated on a daily basis and the lede should ideally be a static part of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks much better. But I would trim the description of the plot and add a brief overview of the production and marketing, which is covered in the article. I would keep the one sentence about the film being inspired by the whole Mayan doomsday theory. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a dispute over which countries should be included in the "release dates" section in the Infobox (reserved for first release and countries that produced the film. I have currently restored them for the time-being until someone provides a convincing argument why Japan and Canada shouldn't be there. Sony of course is a Japanese company and the owner of Columbia Pictures, so is there any evidence that Sony are only distributing the film and didn't provide any financial backing? Is this really an independent $200m film? IMDB also lists Columbia as a production company. As for Canada this is beyond doubt. It was filmed in Canada so would have legally been a Canadian production and IMDB again lists a Canadian production company. Betty Logan (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how one interprets "release dates in the country or countries that produced the film" from

WP:FILMRELEASE

. I think this should be limited to the main production companies involved. Yes, Sony provided the financial backing ...but a distributor is not involved in the physical development and production of the film. Those roles are credited to Centropolis and The Mark Gordon Company in the film, German and American companies respectively. These, to me, would indicate the film was, by majority, a German and American effort. And this question is not meant to sound condescending, but simply to answer my curiosity: How does the fact that it was filmed in Canada make it "legally" a Canadian production?

I think we should avoid going to great lengths in including countries that had a minority role. This question is meant more as an analogy: IMDb lists

Double Negative

as the one British companies among the 14 other German and American VFX companies that worked on the film. Would this warrant Great Britain a mention as one of the countries of production in the infobox, thus warrant informing readers of the British release date?

And as a side note...always be wary of IMDb. It does list "Farewell Productions", a Canadian company, as a co-production company, but was this listed in the credits onscreen? There is also no information about such company from a Google search, except for this, and I'm not sure about the reliability of that particular site. Enough to solely verify that this film was a Canadian production? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I can live with the removal of Japan on the basis it wasn't actively involved in production and seen more as an investor, but with respect to Canada the majority of the film was shot there, and Canadian technicians would have been heavily involved in production. Most satellite productions made in other countries become 'legal productions' of that country so they can collect the tax rebate - a sign of this is that you will find a company has been set up in that country to make just one film. For instance in Britain, to qualify for tax relief 50% of the film crew must hold British citizenship and 50% of the footage must have been shot in Britain. I imagine it will be similar in Canada. It's a bit harsh to say that something isn't partly a Canadian production if the government has financially backed it with a rebate and a significant number of Canadian personnel worked on the production. If you still wish to remove all countries other than first release and the US from the box I won't revert now I've had my say, and no-one else seems to be that fussed about it. It would be good if there were objective criteria for determining this though. Betty Logan (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried finding a guideline about distributors and its relation to "country of production" but found nothing. When looking at articles for other Columbia movies, Japan is very rarely mentioned as a country of production, thus not listed in the release dates section. But, this can't be the only reason not to include it ...and since there are so many other American films distributed by Sony and various other companies based in foreign countries, I feel this discussion shouldn't be limited to just this article. I've invited the WikiProject to look at this discussion, and perhaps whether a distributor should be regarded as a "country of production" can be further discussed on the talk pages there.

That's very interesting about the "one-time" production company; I wasn't aware of that. If it can be better verified, I would definitely say that Canada deserves inclusion in the "country" and "release date(s)" fields. But, also note that "country of production" doesn't translate into "filming location" ...if there were more info in the article about the significant extent of the production in Canada, it would be more helpful in establishing a cause for the country's listings in in the infobox. As of now, all the article simply states is that it was filmed in Vancouver. So yeah, I would agree in saying leave in the world premiere and US & Canada release dates. I'm still opposed to including a Japanese release date per the movie's distribution by Columbia Pictures, but not opposed to leaving the same info in the infobox while others potentially chime in here. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not as if it enhances the information value of the article by including Japan or Canada, it's just how I interpreted the guideline. I'm happy to go with convention - the article should be consistent with other articles about Sony/Columbia films - but if the WikiProject can give more exact criteria I think that would be beneficial. Maybe the simple way around this is to limit the release box to first release and the country where the film's copyright is registered. Betty Logan (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's

WP:FILMRELEASE. It can be open to interpretation. - SoSaysChappy (talk)

00:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's one thing to see the film and post a relevant criticism, but it's quite another to simply spam criticism to 2012 and Roland Emmerich as you did here and here. If you wish to include actual film criticism in the article about 2012, then please use articles like this, this, and this to do so, paying special attention to Emmerich's comments on the matter. Viriditas (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind mentioning Buddhists or Hindus, I was just pointing out what earlier sources had already pointed out before me, that no Jewish or Muslim monuments were destroyed for some reason. Also, among the cultural diversity of Christians (i.e. Protestants and Eastern Orthodox), Catholics are targeted most of all, because there are three different monuments attacked : St Peter's basilica, the Sistine Chapel and the Christ the Redeemer statue of Rio. [4] [5]. I am fairly sure this is relevant, because the press revealed that Emmerich had been afraid of receiving a fatwa or something if Mecca had been destroyed. [6][7]ADM (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the latter information is relevant, which is the same information I provided you in my original links above. Did you read them? This concerns production and design, and should be included in the article. As for people criticizing this portrayal, let's work together to craft something that meets both our requirements for inclusion. I think we can easily compose something that you and I will both agree to add. Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen the movie, so I don't want to make any personal judgements about it, but I have read a lot of press reviews for the film, many of which mention the above criticism. The main critique regarding the destroyed religious monuments seems to be that it is a form of political correctness which makes a value judgement about what is taboo and what is not. A lot of people dislike this type of socio-political orthodoxy, and so it is not terribly surprising that you would hear this type of criticism from Western film critics and journalists. ADM (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This may interest you. "Movie theologian" Paul Jarzembowski gets it: "Why will it take Armageddon for us to finally learn how to be loving, compassionate, and merciful towards each other?"[8] That's the point, and it looks like everyone over at Christianity Today missed it, again. In 2012, it isn't about how many buildings are destroyed, or what religion they represent. It's about the one, true faith - the belief in humanity itself, the fundamental goodness of who we are, and our capacity to love our neighbor as ourself. Final score: 1-0, game goes to Emmerich. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't help when you make abstract philosophical judgements, because Wikipedia has a NPOV policy which excludes this type of qualitative assessment, one that doesn't rely on a sufficient amount of reliable sources. I also disagree with your comment about humanity being naturally good, because humanity never ceases to prove that it is capable of vileness and wickedness. Your faith in humanity is a faith in vileness and wickedness, it is totally repulsive to the greater part of the Western philosophical tradition, as influenced by Augustine, St. Paul and Calvin. ADM (talk) 04:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

ADM, I'm talking about the film, as the links I keep giving you (but you refuse to look at) show. You seem to be bringing a set of preconceived judgments and values to this discussion, rather than forming an objective opinion about the film on its own merits. This undue concern with the destruction of religious institutions and icons in a science fiction film is unabalanced. Very little concern is spent on the Christian values of faith, kindness, forgiveness, family, and love that the protagonists themselves promote. Perhaps you are more concerned with the appearance of religion, rather than its practice? I'm sure it comes as a great shock to find that the one character in the film that promotes the highest human values is a scientist, not a priest. As for your sense of "vileness and wickedness", Pascal said, "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." And, in the context of the film, we see this religious conviction replaced by a bureaucratic zeal for assassination in order to keep the secrecy of the Earth's final hours known only to a select few. The tragic flaws show up everywhere. The President cannot let go of his dead wife, and sacrifices himself without regard to his daughter. The Chief of Staff is disconnected from his relationship with his senile mother and divorced from his ex-wife, and has lost his connection with other people. His executive decisions are tinged with his pain, and as a result, lead to the unnecessary deaths of many. Tony Delgatto can't get over the fact that his son married outside his ethnicity, and waits to the last minute to reconcile, but it's too late. Etc. This all sounds eerily familiar. This is the human condition. In any case, the faith in humanity that we see by the protagonists in the film is neither vile nor wicked, but a reflection of their own personal struggle for survival, not just in the natural world, but in their own hearts. This conflict is the essence of the religious struggle that you defend, but it does not exist in the external world, in the form of buildings and structures, institutions or rank and hierarchy, but in our own actions towards each other, at every moment. Viriditas (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the human condition as universalist and unchangeable, and I disagree that it can be summed up accurately in a film like 2012. In practice, there is no such thing as the human conditition because of these numerous internal contradictions, everybody is in it for themselves, and there is absolutely no point in trying to moralize things that don't have any deliberate given meaning. 2012 is a film that glorifies absurdity, and everything that is absurd must always be excluded in order to find a proper philosophical understanding of things. ADM (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

How would you know? You haven't even seen the film. And how would you know which sources to use and which ones to discard without that knowledge? Are you saying knowledge is more important than experience here? That would seem to contradict your argument. In any case, every story has thematic elements, and the moral of a story generally ties directly into the human condition, which all of us share. Storytelling crosses all known cultural boundaries, and good stories are timeless, and can apply to any historical epoch. In the film, everybody is in it for themselves, and that is their tragic flaw. Jackson Curtis didn't spend enough time with his family, and decided to focus on his book, which prophetically predicted the situation they find themselves in. However, his wife divorced him and took the kids. His redemption comes at the end, when he discovers what is really important and regains what he had once lost. So, your perception of "unchangeable" here isn't true; The point of the human condition as explicated in story form is for the character to change, to become something else. His ex-wife actually asks him this while they are flying to China. "Have you changed?" This is the essence of the human condition. And the discovery does not result in the characters becoming more selfish and disconnected, but rather in their realization of their interrelationships with each other and the world around them. There's an interesting line near the end of the film when Yuri's two boys offer a tiny dog to Curtis' daughter. They say something to the effect of sharing responsibility for raising the animal, since its original owner had also been killed. This is very interesting, as it seems to imply that the old way of doing things would no longer work, and that a new, harmonious relationship between people and nations (the girl was American, the boys Russian) would now begin. Viriditas (talk) 07:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we provide the actors of Nima's and Tuzin's grandparents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandma Jamina (talk • contribs) 01:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I moved the reference to the credits, added 11:59, 25 November 2009,[9] to the production section.

Emmerich has confirmed that the production budget was $200m in The Wrap. Should this budget and reference replace the speculative ones we currently have in the article? Betty Logan (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. And it seems to be 4 references/sources for the $200m compared to the 2 references/sources for the $260m. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 21:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I can not edit the article because it is currently semi-protected.

So could someone replace this sentence:

The film received mixed to negative reviews from film critics. Rotten Tomatoes reports that 37% of critics gave the film a positive review based on 203 reviews.[36] Critics cited numerous scientific inaccuracies, lazy script and heavy reliance on the CG visuals, while some praised the CG effects. On its "top critics" section, it fared even lower with 25% of critics giving it a positive review based on 32 reviews.[37]

with this one?:

The film received mixed to negative reviews from film critics. Rotten Tomatoes reports that 39% of critics gave the film a positive review based on 210 reviews.[36] Critics cited numerous scientific inaccuracies, lazy script and heavy reliance on the CG visuals, while some praised the CG effects. On its "top critics" section, it fared even lower with 27% of critics giving it a positive review based on 33 reviews.[37]

Here is the link that confirms recent Rotten Tomatoes change of rating for the film, http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/2012/.

Thanks.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done and thank you. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 06:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears that there will be a followup tv series titled "2013" that deals with the survivors attempt to rebuild civilization. Shouldn't there be a page for this series?

Btw... I think it would be a mistake to call it "2013". The year 2013 isless than three years away and this series could possible last longer than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.52.87 (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC) \

It appears the producers have changed their minds about releasing this new series.173.58.64.64 (talk)

With all the recent vandalism to the article, I'd suggest to semi-protect it for awhile. Hurricanekiller1994 (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a mention of the fact that, despite this movie including the usual disclaimer about all people being fictional, etc., there was an explicit representation of Queen Elizabeth II preparing to board one of the arks with her corgis. The Queen was portrayed by her long-time impersonator Elizabeth Richard who is even listed in the movie's credits as playing "Queen Elizabeth." However my post was removed within the hour, not clear why —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.234.2.5 (talk) 08:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably because you didn't

original research. Doniago (talk

) 21:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I added 2 sources, let's hope it stays now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.234.2.5 (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Why was it removed again??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.234.2.5 (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Having watched the film on DVD this evening, it can be also noted that current California Gov. Arnold Swartzenegger is portrayed as well, presumably by another "impersonator" type actor. He is shown giving a live televised press conference regarding the tremors in Southern California, and ironically, immediately after he states that there is no real threat, all hell breaks loose. It is presumed that "the Governator" is killed in the subsequent carnage that shows most of California sliding beneath the Pacific Ocean. I will need to review the film's credits to see if that actor is credited, of if some previous televised broadcast of Governor Swartzenegger was used. Either way, another real-life character is portrayed in the film despite the disclaimer, and unlike the "sighting" of Queen Elizabeth, has a speaking role as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkargel (talk • contribs) 08:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Problem! - The Governator's final term will expire in January, 2011, nearly two years before December 21, 2012. He isn't running for re-election, and couldn't if he wanted too (term limits).173.58.64.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC).

Apparently the governor's character is based on Arnold Schwarzenegger but his name is never mentioned, only that he's an actor having impersonated tough guys - go figure.-- 14:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zac67 (talk • contribs)

Actors John Cusack and Amanda Peet have previously starred together in at least two other films; 'Identity' (2003) and 'Martian Child' (2007). Perhaps this could be included as a sort of footnote in the Cast section, just as trivia? Wkargel (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC) wkargel

This reads like it is a poor translation to English from some other language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marychelle (talk • contribs) 15:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, so does the movie. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's rather unconstructive to make criticisms while neglecting to suggest improvements. Doniago (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I recall reading or hearing pieces describing a possible anti-christian bias in this film. Dramatic footage of the Christ statue in Rio falling apart; the scene at the Vatican, showing the St. Peter's church falling down and crushing many, etc. Also, there appeared to be a humanist spin to how some of the characters reacted to unfolding events. This topic may be worthy of inclusion in the articleRockford1963 (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly interesting, but you'd need to identify the sources. You saying, "there appeared to be a humanist spin to how some of the characters reacted to unfolding events" seems to be original research. You'd have to find another source to document all this.170.145.0.100 (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

An article about such bias is found in a pro-catholic web site:

http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/11/05/no-islamic-holy-sites-destroyed-in-2012-movie-fear-of-fatwa/

Rockford1963 (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I remove references to the US in the article. As I recall from the film, Anheuser took leadership but that part made no reference to "The United States". From the context of the film, the notion "United States of America", as well as all other nations in the world, is irrelevant and probably meaningless after the events in the film.

President Wilson in fact addressed the nation as the last President of the United States. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I haven't read the article correctly, but how is this film Canadian? It has some parts film in Canada, but is there any Canadian funding put into this film? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This review is

transcluded from Talk:2012 (film)/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:  JoeGazz  ♂  19:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick-Fail Good Article Assessment

This article was assessed against the quick fail criteria. This is how the article, as of July 15, 2011, compares against the quick fail criteria:

1. No obvious non-reliable sources?: Neutral

2. Is it neutral?: Pass

3. No outstanding cleanup tags?:

4. Article is not subject of recent/current edit war?: Pass

5. Changing in article is not rapid? Pass

Reason for Closure Decision: I have passed this article against the QF criteria since there is only a minor concern that I have with referencing, which is that the "Plot" section has no references, which is a problem, please add some.

These items all need to say Pass by them in order for the reviewer to move on to the next stage of reviewing. If one said fail, there will be in indication as to why. The reviewer will indicate the final status here: ✓ Pass —  JoeGazz  ♂  21:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello there, thanks for reviewing this but I must inform you that Wikipedia has a rule that plot sections do not need references and thus per the general rule, the plot is fine.

Talk to the hand!

) 23:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of this, I am not an avid Movie article editor so I didn't know this or wasn't aware. If that is the case, then please link me to the policy or rule and I will pass that portion.  JoeGazz  ♂  00:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk to the hand!

) 00:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Main Assessment

-- Update: All I have to say is "Wow", you did a great job with responding and I certainly appreciate it.
I would like to start off by saying, this article is very well written, it has great accordance with

WP:MOS

.

• Generally, throughout the article, you use the word "while". Can you think of another word to use? Maybe "At the same time..." or something similar.
• In general, and I know this may be hard, but the article has two total images, could you add more. Be creative, add pictures of places where they shot, add logos of who the production companies are, etc.

Logos of the production companies would violate copyright and there are only limited available free images with a written rationale for the article, but I have added a Danny Glover image.

• You use the abbreviation "AF1" for what I assume to be "Airforce One". That is a big no-no, that's a MOS fix that needs to be done.
• You use an abbreviation, or what seems to be, "spec". Can you please use the full word, it could mean "specification" or "special" just because of the letters that are the same in the beginning.

It's a specific film term for a script written without major detail, instead of replacing, I've provided a link

• In the sentence "and to make it for less than the estimated budget.", please reword that, it is not proper English. Possibly "and it was produced for less than budgeted."
• "It was given a wide release in India on November 13, 2009" doesn't need to be separate, you should include India in the list of countries where it was released on November 13, 2009.
• You use the word "Therefore" in the "Box office" section, that is a qualifier and needs to be changed.

Removed altogether.

• The sentence "The film grossed $166,112,167 in total." is a short, choppy sentence, it needs to be merged or changed to be longer and not so short and choppy.
• In the section "North Korean Ban" can you please add one more ref, that is a lot of information relying on one reference.

Overall, I would pass this article if these were fixed but I will not until these are fixed. Thank you for considering these and taking the time in advance to fix them. I hereby formally put this article on hold for 5 days to allow these fixes to take place and other fixes that are listed below by other users in the comments section. If these issues are not fixed by July 23, 2011 at 16:30:00 the article will fail it's Good Article nomination.  JoeGazz  ♂  16:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've implemented all suggested changes, thanks for reviewing!

Talk to the hand!

) 17:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, this is one of the fastest change times I've ever seen, thank you so much for taking the time to fix it and let me just write my concluding comments and I will pass this article per procedure. Thank you!  JoeGazz  ♂  17:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Concluding Comments

This is amazing, I've never seen someone respond this quickly and do this kind of quality of work before on a Good Article Review. This is amazing to see. I appreciate all the contributing that has been done to this article, with no objections posed during the review period, I am going to close this review as: ✓ Pass. Thank you!  JoeGazz  ♂  17:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Comments from other Users

All other users who are not listed as the reviewer are welcome to leave their comments in this section for the reviewer to consider when making his/her final decision.

No Substance

This film has no substance at all. It is unrealistic. God decides when the world should end; it doesn't happen randomly. This is Kali-yuga: it is now 5000 years since Kali-yuga; 427,000 years more to go before the earth is destroyed (The Vedic ("Hindu") scriptures are authentic). Nothing of the sort shown in the film will happen in 2012. -59.95.27.52 (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Soundtrack cover image?

I'm wondering what purpose the soundtrack cover image serves in this article. Except for a little cropping and different text, it is virtually identical to the poster image in the infobox. As such, it doesn't appear to satisfy

NFCC #8, which says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." It satisfies neither of those, nor is there any critical analysis by reliable sources of the cover itself. If the image were removed, it could easily be described in words by stating how the placement of text differs from the poster. Also, the "Purpose of use" in the image's Non-free media use rationale box seems to have been copied from the box for the poster image's NFMUR. The description also reads "This is the cover art for 2012 (film)" which is clearly incorrect. Does anyone have a good reason, that conforms to WP policy and guidelines, why this image should not be removed? Shirtwaist ☎

11:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Visuals

Who or which company took care of the visual effects of the film?

Secret of success ^{Talk to me}

10:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Talk:ArticleName/GAn

Ark tickets as part of the franchise

It would be interesting to add that chinese netizens design, print and sell fictional "Ark" tickets for fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.25.183.210 (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

NASA Names '2012' the Most Scientifically Inaccurate Film Ever

COOL STUFF NASA Names '2012' the Most Scientifically Inaccurate Film Ever

by Ethan Anderton January 7, 2011 Source: The Guardian 2012

We just recently featured a checklist chronicling bad science in the movies, but now NASA has weighed in with a little science-in-movies feature of their own. In a day-long private meeting at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, some of the top minds in the world met to discuss the film industry's most popular sci-fi movies and their accuracy (or mostly lack thereof) in representing real science. It's no surprise that 2012 was named the most absurdly inaccurate sci-fi film ever with NASA's Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous head Donald Yeomans calling it an "exceptional and extraordinary" example of bad Hollywood science - ha!

The Guardian (via The Film Stage/Cinematical) uncovered the story which highlights NASA's problems with 2012 (other than the fact that it sucked). Yeomans says, "the filmmakers took advantage of public worries about the so-called end of the world as apparently predicted by the Mayans of Central America, whose calendar ends on December 21, 2012. The agency is getting so many questions from people terrified that the world is going to end in 2012 that we have had to put up a special website to challenge the myths. We have never had to do this before." I doubt it's just the movie creating the mass hysteria since a lot of people were aware of the potential 2012 apocalypse before the movie, but surely Emmerich's disaster fest doesn't help.

Here's the newly released list of the most inaccurate sci-fi films according to NASA followed by a list of film's most loyal to science on the big screen. Some very interesting and fun picks on both! Check them out:

WORST: 7. What the #$*! Do We Know? (2004) 6. The 6th Day (2000) 5. Chain Reaction (1996) 4. Volcano (1997) 3. Armageddon (1998) 2. The Core (2003) 1. 2012 (2009)

source http://www.firstshowing.net/2011/nasa-names-2012-the-most-scientifically-inaccurate-film-ever/

Did NASA compare this to list to all movies? On the list of the most accurate science of all time they have Jurassic Park as top! Armageddon is a little more accurate than Jurassic Park surely. Sure the asteroid being blown up by an inserted nuke and the vast temperature difference on the sides of the asteroid only a few miles wide. But Jurassic park has DNA hidden in insects preserved in amber, which don't exist. Filling in gaps of genetic code with genes from frogs, which would leave you with something thats not a dinosaur. Also the inaccurate dinosaurs themselves, a velociraptor was less than a meter tall and coverd in feathers with the intelligence of a household cat for example. Hardly the most scientifically accurate ever :P RockHazard (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comedy genre

Please can we please add "comedy" in the genres of the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.5.216 (talk) 08:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Supported. 86.142.40.198 (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Got a reliable source claiming that the film's a comedy? Doniago (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well with things like nutrino's heating up the Earths core, the rich russian guy stereotype and the fact they built the "arcs" in the Himalayas and didn't take into account the mountainous terrain they'd have to navigate through once it flooded. It's a laughable storyline and I suppose could be said it's a comedy in that respect. As for a source, any film review, rental or box office site is independent and can categorise them (often wrongly) however they want to. Would a source saying it's a comedy really prove the point? I can find one that says it's a horror. RockHazard (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

citation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_jIWEOz78g
for the last sentence in "critical response"
--87.172.237.22 (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Length?

You write that critics complained..."but criticizing its length and screenwriting," without mentioning whether they found it too long or too short, and you did not state the length. I suggest stating the run time, in minutes, in parenthesis, after the word "length".77Mike77 (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

its in the box on the right side - 158 minutes, so over 2 and a half hours. i doubt their complaint is its too short --87.172.237.22 (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"Celebrities" in the plot summary

Were Benedict XVI and the Dalai Lama really explicitly referenced in the movie? I do not remember seing the Dalai Lama at all, just some random monch in what Hollywood obviously believes a Tibetan monastery looks like... --

Imladros (talk

) 02:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No. They weren't. They were added early this month. I've removed them and would have tagged the editor for

original research if the edits were more recent. Doniago (talk

) 13:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

while you're at it, would you mind adding the reference i provided above? the sentence still says "citation needed" and i cant add it without an account, which i wont create --79.212.246.86 (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any other edits to this page by you. If you're referring to the Youtube link up above, I'm afraid I'll have to decline, as I don't have access to YT from my primary WP-editing location and am not strongly familiar with the guidelines regarding using YT as a reference. Hopefully another editor can step in. Doniago (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

guidelines regarding youtube in general would be irrelevant, as the issue at hand is that dara o briain made statements about the film, which for some reason needs a citation and the youtube link i provided is a video of him making said statements. could anyone please add this? --87.172.237.82 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

srsly wtf?

its been almost a month. i provided a citation that the article claimed it needed yet no one is adding it. are you people consciously trying to sabotage the wikipedia project or what is happening? if you protect the page yet ignore requested edits - what is the point in all of this? honestly, it takes like 10 seconds... --79.212.237.221 (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Where did you provide this citation? I checked the Talk page and I see no comments by this IP. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this gentleman is referring to the youtube link on Dara Ó Briain, which he obviously hasn't noticed has been blocked as a copyright violation a while back. The subject of the video was a quote from Ó Briain's 2010 show that can be found on WikiQuote. --

Imladros (talk

) 17:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Please delete the section Alternate ending and Deleted scenes.

Please remove them; I've seen articles here on Wikipedia about movies with alt. ending and deleted scenes and their plot sections don't have a section about them. I don't want to remove since this would be tagged section blanking.UsefulWikipedia (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I've

WP:FILMPLOT, which also clearly states that sourcing should be provided. DonIago (talk

) 13:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you're both beat. It's been put back in the article.173.216.248.174 (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge film soundtrack

This article, I need to merge from

this page to here that a film soundtrack since it was removed from here. To agree what I have to re-add it to the soundtrack section. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me}

) 03:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Protection request on 6 September 2015

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

To avoid changes by unregistered users or vandalism. — 73.47.37.131 (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the conflict of interest noticeboard.

--JustBerry (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

French assassination

Roland Picard, the Director of the Louvre, was not "killed in a car bomb by the U.S. government". He was killed in a staged car accident, by the French government.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT? DonIago (talk

) 17:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

What?

  "When the group arrive in China, the plane runs out of fuel and everyone leaves through a Bentley Continental Flying Spur. Sasha is killed as the plane falls down a mountain and explodes."

This makes no sense to someone who hasn't seen the film. The plane, presumably in flight, runs out of fuels and "everyone leaves through a Bentley Continental"? What, they climb through it to escape from the plane? They drive off the plane in the Bentley? or is the plane landed, and the passengers disembark in a Bentley (must not have been many passengers then, for such a big plane...what about the flight crew?). If it is already landed, they how the hell does the plane "fall down a mountain and explode"? Are the mountains collapsing? Why is the person still onboard? AnnaGoFast (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Made some changes; hopefully it's more clear now. DonIago (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2012 (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100209182844/http://www.sonypictures.com:80/movies/2012/international/ to http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/2012/international/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck

}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)