Why 2012 is a Controversial and Often Disliked Film

Introduction:

The 2012 film, based on the 2009 book by Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin, has become a controversial and often disliked project in the annals of cinema. While some viewers find it enjoyable and entertaining, others criticize it harshly. This article aims to dissect why 2012 has garnered such mixed reception, exploring its plot, character development, special effects, scientific accuracy, and pacing.

Clichéd Plot

The film follows a familiar disaster movie formula, featuring a series of catastrophic events and a series of improbably coincidental happenings. Many viewers found the storyline predictable and lacking in originality. Critics argue that the plot is overly formulaic, emphasizing clichés that have become staples in the genre. The movie's reliance on conventional disaster tropes and formulaic events contributes to its widespread criticism (Keyword: disaster films).

Character Development

Critics noted that the characters were underdeveloped and often one-dimensional. This lack of depth made it difficult for audiences to connect with or care about their fates. Jackson Sheppard, the protagonist played by John Cusack, is portrayed as a journalist accustomed to reporting on disasters, but his motives and personal background are not explored in depth. Supporting characters like Amanda Peet and Isabelle Fuhrman’s Kates are given minimal backstory, leaving viewers feeling detached from their emotional journeys. Critics argue that more nuanced character arcs would have improved the film’s overall impact (Keyword: character development).

Over-the-Top Special Effects

While the visual effects were impressive and showcased the destruction of iconic landmarks, some viewers felt that the spectacle overshadowed the plot. The heavy reliance on CGI often resulted in unrealistic and over-the-top scenes, distracting from the narrative. For instance, Jackson Sheppard managing to drive a car through a collapsing building without any harm is a prime example of unrealistic special effects (Keyword: special effects).

Scientific Inaccuracy

The film takes considerable liberties with science, leading to criticism from experts. The portrayal of natural disasters and their consequences was often exaggerated or implausible. Emmerich and Devlin’s approach to depicting the end of the world and the resulting catastrophic events is met with skepticism. For example, the list of unlikely coincidences in the plot, such as Jackson meeting the only two people on Earth who know the truth at the right moments, further strains the narrative's credibility. Experts argue that scientific accuracy is necessary for maintaining the audience's belief in the story (Keyword: scientific accuracy).

Emotional Manipulation

Some audiences felt that the film relied too heavily on emotional manipulation, using melodrama to evoke tears rather than genuine character arcs or meaningful relationships. The emotional scenes come across as overwrought, adding to the film's overall one-dimensional narrative. The reliance on emotional cues rather than character development often results in contrived emotional moments that seem forced and unconvincing (Keyword: emotional manipulation).

Length and Pacing

At over two and a half hours, the film was criticized for being too long with pacing that dragged at times. Viewers found themselves tiring of the repetitive and predictably dramatic plot points. This length and slow pacing can make the viewing experience tedious and ultimately less enjoyable (Keyword: pacing).

Conclusion:

While 2012 was marketed as a typical summer blockbuster designed to be fun for a couple of hours, the film's numerous flaws have made it a subject of controversy. Here are the key criticisms:- **Clichéd Plot**: The storyline is predictable and lacks originality.- **Character Development**: Characters are underdeveloped, making it difficult for audiences to connect with them.- **Over-the-Top Special Effects**: The use of CGI often results in unrealistic scenes that distract from the narrative.- **Scientific Inaccuracy**: The movie's portrayal of natural disasters and end-of-the-world scenarios is implausible.- **Emotional Manipulation**: The reliance on emotional manipulation includes overly dramatic scenes that often seem forced.- **Length and Pacing**: The film is too long, and the pacing can be tedious at times.While some viewers find the movie enjoyable because of how terrible it is, others criticize it for its flaws. Ultimately, the film's merits are overshadowed by its numerous shortcomings.