The BOOMS that started it all...

I'm pretty sure it was "Independence Day". Yeah I'm about 100% certain it was now. I actually really enjoy thinking back to how I got so consumed with movies and all that goes into making them. Plenty of people see comedies, nowadays it's twenty-something dramadies with with folk music and young stars that get them into it all. That's great for them and usually it sets their watermark for cinematic criticism pretty high. However I wasn't that kid. I was kid whose family watched 'Star Trek' on television. I got to watch things like 'The Outer Limits' and 'Tremors' growing up and theatrically the experience of Spielberg's "Jurassic Park" was a mile stone. However it was "2012" director Roland Emmerich's 1996 blockbuster that I feel did it in for me.

All the hook of science fiction was there after that. Aliens, space adventure, destruction on a massive scale... everything I as a kid could look for in a movie was there. Of course I've gotten older and thus my film watching needs have shifted and grown and lessen over time, but there's some things you don't lose. I'm a product of genre films and spectacle film making. I say this more to explain my feelings towards certain movies and certain types of viewers. I feel more now than ever that there's a level of alienation in the film loving world for those who other feel 'aren't on the same level' as them. I should know because sometimes I feel that. I don't necessarily refer to it in that way, but there are titles given to those folks. It's wrong and I've tried hard to stop doing it so much. I think everyone should simply go to see stuff, but try to know what they're getting into and thus if it's up their alley.

In any case this blog is in preparation for Emmerich's new doomsday flick "2012", out this Friday (possible review up Sunday give or take). I was really pondering the whole notion of big movies and small movies and how a lot of people (mainly pesky hipster types) who like to claim that A: that's not art and B: anyone can do CGI. I really put thought into those statements. The whole concept of art is generally a vague thing. I could sling shit on a canvas and get it in a small gallery showing if I called it 'art'. I'm not wrong, but it's not like there is soul or a propose for it. It's simply shit... slung unto a canvas that I'm justifying with a term. Personally I consider all (even shitty films) to be art in one form or another. Many are made for entertainment purposes and some are made for much more than that. Nothing is wrong with either as long as they get their purpose done properly and successfully.

The notion that anyone can do CGI on a computer I find to be wrong. If it were easy then just anyone could make an epic sized disaster picture or "The Lord of the Rings" style film and it'd be just like all the others. If it were so easy then how come "The Day the Earth Stood Still" was such a rancid piece of crap? Because in truth... it ain't easy. If you took the time to watch a DVD extra or two you'd realize that effects are by and large hard to do, whether practical or digital. Traditionally I enjoy the mix of the two and the better Emmerich pictures do that. In fact to be honest most quite enjoyable adventure picture mix the two instead of going all one over the other. Beyond that it's just generally hard to shoot all these things and then edit it right and hope it plays well.

So tonight I'm going to bask in the destructive glory of epic, over sized, disaster pictures. Sure they might be light on character study, they may abide by a set of rules and conventions, but they're fun. They're fun, escapist films that are hard to make, easy to market (even the bad ones) and don't always take themselves seriously (perhaps why Emmerich is quite good at them. A little satire mixed with chaos isn't a bad thing).