|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Roland Emmerich
|
This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. |
Really[edit]
We're criticizing him for making mammoths build pyramids, really? Mammoths building pyramids in a murderous climate is awesome, come on! Who needs accuracy in Hollywood movies anyway? They're just for entertainment. Nullahnung (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- I, for one, welcome those who would expose impressionable minds to the willing suspension of disbelief.
- Though the parallels are skimpy, I can't help but wonder if Emmerich had read Heinlein's Tunnel in the Sky
before writing Stargate. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Emmerich can't be asked to read high school freshmen level research material on history, science, or cosmology. I'd really be surprised if this were true. *Asterisk* (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- "We" are not criticizing Emmerich, User:*Asterisk* is doing so in "our" name. I've tried to clean-up the article to the best of my ability, because it was too RW 1.0, but I'm still not convinced that it should exist. IMO, the only movies that should be covered by RW are The Day After Tomorrow and 2012, the rest is only worth mentioning in passing somewhere else, or not at all.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Your cleanup was very good, but it just further demonstrates the point. Just about every Roland Emmerich movie gives credence to fringe conspiracy theories, but not in the Whedonesque way of doing it tongue-in-cheek, but in a totally humorless way suggesting he actually believes at least some of the nonsense he supports. Emmerich can talk Amadeus all he wants, but he actually released a Youtube video demonstrating 10 reasons why Shakespeare was a fraud. Sony even further supported this nonsense by distributing "instructional guide" Shakespeare conspiracy material into US public schools.
- It's fine to suspend your disbelief, but Emmerich movies go too far to even allow that. They humorlessly present fringe conspiracy material and scientifically dubious content as a stone cold reality under the guise of fiction like the Daily Currant hides under the cloak of satire. Roland Emmerich has committed an unpardonable offense with his movies; he makes people dumber for watching them. *Asterisk* (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- It might be funny in a Seth Rogen movie; but in a straight drama from a guy who gives credence to instantaneous global cooling; UFO conspiracies; and Shakespeare trutherism in the same straight fashion; it's downright offensive to the intelligence. Not all films have to be Primer, but Roland Emmerich takes it to the level of Robert Orci, who also deserves an article on this site. *Asterisk* (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see why there needs to be an article about a guy who just makes (admittedly, crappy) blockbuster films for the sake of entertainment. I honestly don't think that even 2012 and Day After Tomorrow are worth covering, unless it's to mention that some people took them seriously (and you can't honestly blame a fictional film for that). If the creators spread their "facts" outside of the fictional context on websites, during interviews etc., or claim that their movie is based on actual scientific research while providing us with nonsensical sources, then that might be worth mentioning. Woodgod (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- In the case of 2012, the problem was not the movie itself, but the crappy promotional campaign, especially the "Google 2012" bit. It exposed people to crap to which they had no prior immunity. I don't know to what degree Emmerich was responsible for that. To me it looked like the brainchild of a standard 21st century marketing hack with a hard-on for "viral".
- Anonymous seems to fit more closely what you describe, in that it looks like Emmerich may actually believes in its thesis. Like it or not, a lot of people learn their history (and science) from popular culture, so when it's something that's not already known as an established trope (aliens, Area 51) and they have no prior knowledge about the subject, people may absorb it as truth. "Historical" movies often fall into that category.
- That's, of course, no excuse to go into full rant mode about Emmerich, though.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see why there needs to be an article about a guy who just makes (admittedly, crappy) blockbuster films for the sake of entertainment. I honestly don't think that even 2012 and Day After Tomorrow are worth covering, unless it's to mention that some people took them seriously (and you can't honestly blame a fictional film for that). If the creators spread their "facts" outside of the fictional context on websites, during interviews etc., or claim that their movie is based on actual scientific research while providing us with nonsensical sources, then that might be worth mentioning. Woodgod (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Stonewall[edit]
Apparently this film has a lot of problems in characterization. Has anyone seen it/can Netflix it and get back to us with some details on what was wrong? Zero (talk - contributions) 19:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Independence Day[edit]
Criticisms aside, it still has the most epic presidential speech in film history. The sequel on the other hand fucking sucks ass and the speech in the second film was anti-climatic. --Insensitive Asshole (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
i've never seen an emmerich film...[edit]
...and thought this could happen. has anyone? why do we have this page? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)