Let’s get one thing straight: no one really expected Roland Emmerich’s “2012″ to be an example of quality filmmaking, did they? I mean, come on, we’re talking about the guy behind “ID4″, “The Day After Tomorrow”, and “Godzilla” here. Dubious science, even by the low standards of movie technobabble, and outrageous stunts featuring people running away from massive fireballs are Roland Emmerich’s stock in trade. Why, without them, we wouldn’t have crazily entertaining movies like “ID4″ and “10,000 BC”! So someone has read the script for Emmerich’s “2012″, and it’s crap. Well duh. Isn’t all of Emmerich’s scripts kinda crappy? It’s what he does with it on the big screen that matters. I.e. explosions. Lots and lots of explosions.
Here is the basic gist of Latino Review’s review of Emmerich’s “2012″ script:
The story blends the idea of the Mayan calendar, which predicts the world ending in 2012, with natural disasters such as volcanic eruptions, typhoons and glaciers plaguing the planet and a large cast of characters dealing with the mayhem.
Aside from the idea of the Arks there is really no aspect of this film that we haven’t already seen in dozens of other action, sci-fi, and disaster blockbusters. It is so steeped in predictability, ridiculousness, and cliché that it borders on self-parody. In the tradition of previous Emmerich blockbusters such as ID4 and The Day After Tomorrow, the obligatory action and destruction scenes are particularly bad offenders in this regard, featuring characters impossibly running away from massive explosions, dust clouds, and bizarrely personified cracks in the earth.
The script barely even hints at the details or origins of any of the real theories about 2012, suggesting that the association is mainly here just to cash in on a trend. Instead, Emmerich and co-writers Harold Kloser and Matt Charman shoehorn in several brief but glaringly awkward attempts at political commentary and even what could be construed by some as a few baffling jabs at religion. And of course everything leads to an unbearably neat and happy ending, despite the fact that the film is about the vast majority of the world’s population being wiped out.
Heh, I have to admit, that last part was kind of funny. A happy ending for a disaster movie where most of the world’s population is killed. Only Roland Emmerich could come up with that one, kids. And he’s got $200 million to work with. Yowsers.
I like long walks on the beach, puppies, and Kevin Costner post-apocalyptic movies. You can reach me at nix (at) scificool.com. Also, check out my other ridiculously ill-informed opinions and reviews over at 
Well, I’ve like most of Emmerich’s work, including about seven minutes of “Godzilla.” And I really enjoyed “10,000 B.C.” So, it can’t be that bad, right? Right? Oh, crap…
10,000 BC was total crap and if you enjoyed that you do not know what good cinema is
Well Im beginnig to think that it would have been better if an up and coming director such as Christopher Nolan took the Directors Chair and had Roland as a proucer or exec producer. Nolan for the charactors that we’ll relate to and to bring something different to the Diaster movie genre and script (Thats not written on the back of a matchbox) and Roland for the visuals and stunning effects. No doubt it will be an enjoyable film for the eye (An lets face it Rolands fills are all about the effects) but at the same time we dont want another predictable disaster movie with a predictable happy ending. At least with Nolan he brings somethingg fresh to his films. Yet on the other hand if there was a bidding war for the script then maybe it cant be too bad, we’ll see hey!
we’re going to be hearing a lot about the end of the world the closer we get to 2012, but one of the more interesting books is Escape 2 Earth
“dust clouds, and bizarrely personified cracks in the earth.”
Do you realise what you've written actually makes no sense? “Bizarrely personified” would be a person.
Hey, I'm sure english isnt your first or even second language
OMG, you should REALLY think things out before you criticize someone else’s comment. “Personification” (the noun form of the word) refers to the act of projecting human-like characteristics onto something non-human (e.g. a rock, a cat, a crack in the Earth, etc.). In calling the cracks in the Earth “personified,” Latino was commenting on how they seem to have human-like characteristics—i.e. the ability to chase down people, swerving left and right as their target eludes them, as if they have a brain and can follow in pursuit. His use of English (note the capital “E”) is entirely appropriate. Yours, unfortunately, isn’t. (Note the apostrophe.)
And you do realize that when you write “you've written” you're talking about a QUOTE from another site, and not something I actually wrote? But hey, I'm sure your comprehension of how the Internet works/is formatted is probably not your strong suit. I'm just saying — maybe you're not nearly as smart as you think you are. Think about it.
I'm just interested because of Adam Lambert's song!!!! Can't wait to hear it.
It's going to be a great disaster flick. Just remove your brain prior to entering the theatre.
Shouldn’t human mutate? This doomsday doesn’t seem to affect the earth, but gives us an minor earthquake view.