Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

The Screenwriter Of THE CORE Responds!!

Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.

So, yesterday Harry ran a review by Darth Siskel, a guy I’ve known ever since I met him in line on the opening day of THE PHANTOM MENACE outside the Mann’s Chinese. We weren’t the lunatics who were out there for a month. We were just the lunatics who were out there for 18 hours or so. Darth Siskel didn’t seem terribly fond of THE CORE, and Harry made some cracks about it in his intro.

Cracks that evidently chapped the ass of John Rogers, the screenwriter of the film.

In the interest of fairness, I decided to run John’s response intact. I met him this past year at the San Diego ComiCon, and he seemed like a good guy in the little bit of time we had to talk. He makes his points well, too, so check this out...

"... that all the science on this film about spinning molten core, plan for getting core spinning again... that's all absolutely scientificly sound... I SHIT YOU NOT! The Screenwriter is actually a physcist type... So while we may think it is silly stuff, apparently he claims it is accurate. Meanwhile, did you see my Ebay auction for that Bridge in Brooklyn?"

Why did I bother?

I don't "claim" it's true. It's not like I'm a nutjob in a shack with tinfoil on my head "claiming" that I've come up with some theory on how the earth works. I "stated" it was true. Because it is true. Thanks for the cheap fucking shot after I tried to be reasonable and constructive.

And the mocking may have been more effective if you'd spelled "physicist" correctly.

A five minute trip to any online encyclopedia source (either MSN Encarta or the Britannica service) would let you know that the model of the Earth's Core I used for the movie is correct. The Core does indeed spin, slightly faster than the Earth itself. The EM Field is produced by the Core, and when the direction of the flow reverses the poles shift. The Earth is built for that sort of process, that's why when the Core flow stops (I used "altered" in the script, but it was too vague for the suits) the Earth doesn't tear apart immediately and/or the EM Field doesn't just collapse, as DarthSiskel assumed would happen in his review. All the facts, temperatures, and pressures for the layers of the Earth are to the best known value.

The "gem bubble" the ship gets caught in is based on an actual geological formation. The largest one across is one mile, but that's all we've found close to the surface. A larger size is a fair extrapolation.

The systems of the ship are all based on real-world techs, from the ultrasonic/laser digging beam based on the medical technology used to break up kidney stones, to the MRI/video guidance screens. Even the shell of the ship is based on a real, experimental molecule. The Zimsky device is based on research the Nazis did in the '40's.

Okay, you got me on the Coliseum blowing up. It should have been just collapsing from the repeated lightning strikes, but it blows up. Sorry for the FX guys having a little fun there.

The nose cone of the Virgil returns to the surface by riding the magma flows within the crust, which are travelling at an accelerated rate because of the Core restart. They don't need a drill because they're travelling WITH the current through pre-existing channels. It takes them longer than ten minutes to return - that time passage is covered in a subtitle. I'd run through how everything Darth mentions is actually fully explained in the script, but I'm already verging on petty, so I'll move on.

The nice folks at WIRED magazine have decided our science is pretty sound. You can check out their brief article about the movie's tech in their online "PLAY" section, or in November's issue.

Of course, you couldn't be bothered to take that five minute trip through some actual reading before deciding, somehow, despite that you pretty obviously have no bloody idea how the Earth works, that the science in the movie was bullshit. Pointing out that Hollywood made another lazy science movie suited your opinion, so you accused the writers of being lazy.

Thanks. Three goddamn years of working, FIGHTING, to get rid of the fucking dinosaurs, magma-walks in "space-suits", bullshit-sci-crap sources for the Earth's crisis, a fucking WINDSHIELD at one point (think about it), all the while thinking "I love sci-fi. Sci fi has suffered too many bad-science movies. It's my responsibility to my fellow sci-fi fans to make sure the science is as close as I can get it." All so some guys who enjoy the power trip of snark can toss it out the window without ever thinking "Hey, you know maybe, just POSSIBLY, as I know jackshit about this, this could all be right."

No problem with warp drive, alien species who can't open a kitchen door, or a living liquid planet-god. But an improbable equation for semi-solid fluid dynamics, you're the logic cops.

There are a scrum of guys out here in LaLa Land who love genre films, some writers, some directors, hell even some suits. We're fighting every day to try to make half-way decent stuff. Sure, sometimes we don't get there. But we work our asses off behind the scenes, trying like hell, always remembering the fellow fanboys out there, and unlike some people actually trying to make stuff.

Darth's implied criticism of the film itself - he didn't connect with the characters, he felt some aspects were rushed - okay. I don't agree with him, but perfectly that's valid. You don't like the characters, the plot points, the ideas, didn't think exposition was clear, hell the names, anything about the writing - fine. That's your opinion, that's what the forum's for.

But the ridicule is all based on the assumption that the science is crap. That assumption is unfounded.

I know this is futile. I honestly don't expect you to print this unedited. I don't really care about a bunch of guys sitting in their underwear in their basements taking time off from their on-line stroke photos of Jessica Alba to bash something because they're ignorant. I hate to even dignify this with a reply. But some small part of me hates to see all that time and work get dismissed without even a tiny bit of shame on your part for being arrogant, condescending, and above all, dead wrong.

I just had to get this off my chest. I don't mind sarcasm. Traded that card myself often enough. But ignorant, lazy sarcasm ... if good science in a science fiction movie isn't rewarded with even nominal, polite respect before you go on to trash the movie, why the FUCK ARE WE EVEN BOTHERING?!

I just hope Moriarty really, really does his homework on POSTHUMAN, so he's spared this sort of thing.

Homework? Someone assigned homework?! Ummmm... yeah. While you guys read this, I have to, ummmmmm... check something... and I’ll be... right back...

"Moriarty" out.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Jan. 24, 2003, 6:31 a.m. CST


    by earthworm

    time that I've seen a writer be given the time and space to reply cogently to criticisms to his movie on AICN. Lets have more

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 6:32 a.m. CST

    How utterly pathetic...a screenwriter who has nothing better to

    by CoolDan989

    With a screenwriter like that you just know The Core is going to suck, accurate or not.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 6:32 a.m. CST


    by AlwaysRight

    says it all

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 6:35 a.m. CST

    "Sorry for the FX guys having a little fun there." should've bee

    by Mulengro


  • wow. what a loser...

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 6:37 a.m. CST


    by DannyOcean01

    I love an angry reposte, especially when it's valid. I really like the reference to Signs in the response, possibly the most error ridden film I have ever seen. Aliens vulnerable to water coming to a planet composed of a great deal of water- pure genius, from an acknowledge genius of course (I see sarcasm and dead people). Nice to see this site is still read by more than just the people pausing from the aforementioned stroke pictures, though I can't imagine why you'd want to pause from Alba-maybe Garner, but only for a second. Well said Mr Screenwriter, no sarcasm. I'd like to think I have a chance in screenwriting and hope I can respond with as much style.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 6:44 a.m. CST


    by DavidPuddy

    this guy's a loser? Geez...God forbid you stand up for yourself. Fuckin' geeks.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 6:44 a.m. CST


    by radio1_mike

    One of the best things I've read here- ever!

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 6:51 a.m. CST

    This is good stuff!

    by dastickboy

    Cool, I love it when the actual film-makers makes comments that are posted on the site, negative or no. The guy has a point, I can't imagine anything more deflating than slogging your guts out on something for 3 years and then having it torn up. On the other hand, at the end of the review Darth Siskel did say the film was fun, and didn't most of the talkbacks say "hey, this sounds fun, I'm gonna check it out?" So even if we're not going to watch it for the educational value, we're still handing over our cash to be entertained - and isn't that the entire point? I say - take a pill, guy - you've got our money, mission accomplished.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 6:57 a.m. CST

    criticism was mostly on story development too, not just science

    by cybertank

    Darth's criticism was also of the apparent generic 'armageddon' story line, not just the science. This guy really thinks he wrote some genre defining stuff here?! Also, any movie with lightning causing an ancient building to explode is just wrong in my book. :-)

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 6:58 a.m. CST

    Quit being assholes...

    by mrmooseman

    I was introduced John Rogers and his wife a few years back at WonderCon in Oakland by mutual friends. He's a really decent guy, and a hell of a writer. Check out his adaptation of Mage: the Hero Discovered as proof. He's justified in smacking down some smartass internet troll. What the fuck has Darth Siskel, or any of the rest of you fucking pricks, done that qualifies him to criticize anything?

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 7:03 a.m. CST

    And that, ladies...

    by FreeJack called being "put in your place." Nicely done, John.

  • ...that's based on research too, is it?

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 7:10 a.m. CST

    Accurate Science

    by earthworm

    does not necesarily a good movie make. He mentions we accept warp drive and time travel and aliens and the like, yes we do if they're intelligently written, nicely plotted with perhaps some decent character work to boot. That is, if its entertaining or thought provoking. This just sounds like a CGI crapfest a la Armageddon. Nothing wrong with that per se, I think thats a very entertaining film, its just it doesn't pretend to be anything its not. Can't comment on this, haven't seen it, but it doesn't look like a Contact or Gattaca.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 7:11 a.m. CST

    Gritty realism in sci-fi

    by jazzuk

    We have had decades of cars blowing up at the slightest provocation, in defiance of the real-world tech that is designed to make damned sure no such thing can happen. We have had even longer to get used to the idea that people die instantaneously from a single bullet in the gut/leg/arm/foot/head - which makes a mockery of combat vets claims to have had to watch as their comrades died slow agonising deaths or had themselves to live for years with the effects of such a wound. So used are we to "Hollywood science" that we now ridicule credible science as fantastical. Qudos to the screen-writer for stepping up to the plate and batting this one way into the out-field. As for the Coliseum - who knows how centuries old concrete and masonry would react to hitherto unknown levels of energy repeatedly striking it. Maybe the FX guys did let their imagination run a little wild, but until the event actually happens we can't know whether their imagination was too wild or "our" imaginations are merely inadequate (heaven knows what reaction we will see if Peter Jackson actually realises faithfully, on-screen, the devastation and tumult that Tolkiens describes as the result of simply chucking a band of gold into a lava pit!). At the end of the day - IT'S A FRIGGIN MOVIE. IT AINT REAL. For myself, I can't wait to see Stanley Tucci on screen again.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 7:11 a.m. CST

    Talking Back

    by TheDarkKnight

    I agree with Earthworm, we need more of this shit! Filmakers and fans going head-to-head.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 7:11 a.m. CST

    Perpetuating stereotypes

    by Praetor

    I rather object to the insinuation that anyone reading on this site is a masturbating fanboy living in his parents basement. Presumably this generalisation does not extend to narked screenwriters. I had not even read the original article but on the basis of this fellows bad grace I say FUCK THIS MOVIE.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 7:12 a.m. CST

    More like that please.

    by Buscemi 01

    Judging from the first couple of fanboys responding on the talkback it seemed the talkbackers were indeed a bunch of idiots waiting to rip everything apart. In my opinion it's great aicn posted a screenwriters respond and I'd like to see that more often here.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 7:16 a.m. CST

    And yet, this movie smells like molten poo-doo

    by Human Tornado

    I mean, COME ON! Who gives a damn? Star Wars has lightsabers, Trek's got warp drives and humanoid aliens in every corner of the galaxy, Blade Runner features good acting by Sean Young... pretty unbelievable shit that works on every level! You know why? Because we CONNECT! It's called EMPATHY! Who gives a flying fuck if a movie is "totally plausible from a scientific standpoint"? If situations are poorly resolved, characters badly sketched, pressure not properly applied and tension not skillfully relieved, it stinks and YOU KNOW IT!

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 7:19 a.m. CST

    All the hardcore, accurate science in the world can't cover up a

    by Cutter's Way

    I despise the "we worked very hard on this project, so you should cut us some slack" argument. You can work on a piece of crap till your ass falls off and it still may be a piece of crap. If "The Core" is a good film, it will endure even if it may not be initially successful. If "The Core" is bad, then it may make money anyway and then be forgotten, or just be forgotten outright. Audience reaction to the trailer has been derision and mockery, because it just seems goofy and about five years too late to hitch a ride on the disaster film bandwagon of the late 90's. I predict that this scriptwriter gentleman is going to quickly become exhausted trying to defend "The Core" in these coming weeks.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 7:20 a.m. CST

    I've seen THE CORE and the movie is a big bag of baloney, with n

    by -Dr.Strangelove-

    Sure it's based on real world physics... Real word physics of the Jerry Bruckheimer universe... As soon as someone starts using "research the Nazis did in the '40's" as their argumentation... it turns into a sad, sad discussion... Nevertheless THE CORE is fun and good entertainment in a silly Jerry Bruckheimer over the top way....

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 7:26 a.m. CST

    Big props..

    by nomadic

    to the guy for answering back! He obviously thinks he's put time, thought and a lot of feeling into this script. Who knows what it was like before changes made to the script by the studio to make it the next Armegeddon. Poor bastard. Nice one for posting his full reply, I think he deserved it.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 7:30 a.m. CST

    fuckin A!!

    by goatboy500

    Goddammit, that scathing response to a smallminded review is the shit!! And who the fuck is jessica alba?

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 7:39 a.m. CST

    Exploding Coliseum

    by snappy

    It's possible. Trees explode when struck by lightning because the water inside gets flashed to steam and expands rapidly. What's to say there's not water laying in the cracks between the stones of the coliseum? As for the riposte from the screen writer, I loved it but... A film SHOULD be judged on its ability to engage and connect with an audience and plausibility is a factor in that. Whether the science is accurate or not, the writer has to make us BELIEVE it is possible, whether it be the result of empirical data or the rabid ravings of a be-suited studio exec.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 7:51 a.m. CST

    constructive criticism?

    by Qramohn

    What's wrong with some constructive criticism? The review was just pure smear of the movie. You'll not become a cooler guy just for bashing on a movie. "-Darth Siskel ending transmission- " Hope it's permanently!

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 7:53 a.m. CST

    Eat this!

    by weird v3.0

    Do not mess with screenwriters, we're not sane beasts.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 7:56 a.m. CST

    Handbags at dawn ladies........

    by evil_sausage

    But seriously, kudos Mr. Screenwriter! You're damn right to be able to defend your work to a lazy reviewer!

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 7:57 a.m. CST


    by ManGyna

    You wear underwear? Huh, until that comment, I thought he had a window into my own world. Seriously, The Core just jumped up to possible rental status (barring nothing descent is in)if the sci-fi isn't BS like he says. However, they have got to do something with their marketing if they want people to shell out money to see it in theatres. Right now it looks like a cheap "Gotta save the world from a blowin' up again" movie. Not even a good knock off of Armageddon.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 8:05 a.m. CST

    Hooray for screenwriter vengeance!

    by Some Dude

    Way to go, dude! Well-written, angry, justified AND funny. Now if only John Logan would come and defend "Star Trek: Nemesis."

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 8:26 a.m. CST

    Sounds like the writer is a fan first. He makes some good points

    by KingKarll

    It's easy to slag a flick for being goofy or unrealistic, but-first off did you enjoy the movie, were you having fun while you were watching it? Heck I enjoyed Independence Day AND Armageddon, and we all know that the 'science logic' used in both are right on the same level as the Professor on Gilligan's Isle teaming up with MacGuyver to develope Cold Fusion via toothpicks, bryllcream and Mary-Anne's shorts. It don't work. We shouldn't care................If the 'science' angle of the Core is at least passable, that is all well and good. Is the rest-plot, acting, etc-worth it too? Time will tell.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 8:54 a.m. CST

    This guy can defend the movie all he wants, but the fact remains

    by Elgyn6655321

    Automatic FLOP.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 9:11 a.m. CST

    Good for him

    by bradzp

    Good for him. Good to finally see one of the poor filmmakers who constantly get ridiculed on this site stand up for himself. Apart from Moriarty (the only decent guy on this website -fuck the facer) has ayone here (Harry, Talkbackers) ever done anything positive for the movie business? NO! They just sit here trashing everybdy elses hard work and time and dedication. If u guys actually took the time to ake a movie ureself, then u could see what it's like to have it torn to pieces. At leaset John Rogers is doing what he enjoys and he is having a good time doing it. More than anyone else here is doing. Harry, when u make a fucking movies of ure own, then u can be critical. Everyone has differet opinions. Someone out there may love The Core, or potentially love the core, but ure site will put them off seeing a film thatmay actually affect them in a different way! people should be allowed to think for themselves. Good for Rogers, Good for Moriarty. Fuck the Rest of U! P.S.Fuck the HULK!

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 9:18 a.m. CST

    I commend the screenwriter

    by KrytenSings

    Okay, here's the basics... I think he's doing more than other writer's because he's seeing what other people are saying. So the movie may be a flop; he's got more movies made than I have, and I've been trying for years. I'm willing to bet he's got more movies made than anyone else here, as well. Yeah, maybe he went a little 'postal', but he did have a few good points. It doesn't change the fact that if the movie sucks, it sucks, but he did his homework, used existing (and accurate) ideas and facts, and went with them. Maybe it'd be better if he DID make up a few other things, but he was trying to present an actual possible occurence and come up with an idea of how we would handle it with what we have now (or are close to having). But I repeat, if the movie sucks, then it will always suck. Don't try to rip the guy a new one for trying to protect his image. Just my two cents.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 9:20 a.m. CST

    Memo to Mr. Rogers:

    by JohnnyTremaine

    If you had written a screenplay with a compelling, ambitious, plot,interesting characters the audience can empathize with, and thematic structure, no one would have noticed the science aspect. Examples: The Matrix, Bladerunner, Star Wars, Planet of the Apes, War of the Worlds, The Time Machine (George Pal version). Hey, chin up, Mr. Rogers. Just strive to do better next time.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 9:25 a.m. CST

    My God, that was awesome!

    by Tsunami3G

    I'm still not going to see his piece of crap movie and I will still make sure anyone I come in contact with knows it's a steaming pile of dung BUT you have to love the guys moxy(sp?) to post a reply. Good for you! I can forgive mistakes. I saw Signs twice for god's sake but I will not forgive terrible directing, acting, concept, etc... Try again Mr Screenwriter... now back to Mrs. Alba. :-)

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 9:28 a.m. CST

    I liked this movie the first time when it was...

    by PornOfTheRings

    called Armageddon... The Core... A Jerry Bruckhemer like Joint! When I die I'm going to donate my body to Science Fiction!

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 10 a.m. CST

    Wow, that was great.

    by minderbinder

    Wish more movie folk would have the balls to respond to things on here. Hilarious.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 10 a.m. CST

    Wow, who knew science was so boring and crappy!

    by Horseflesh

    Based on this yahoos tangent I'm never going to watch The Core but instead I'm going to go watch Jurrasic Park 2. No, no, fuck that I'm going to BUY it. Just out of spite.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 10:05 a.m. CST

    A pathetic bunch of Talkbackers...

    by GornWithTheWind

    ...taking time off from bashing Harry for being a bloated sellout and making fun of McWeeny's name so they can draw the wagons in a circle. And all because someone with a brain who's done some real work took a few minutes to drop by and nail some asses up on the wall where they belong. This, quite honestly, is the most delicious thing I've seen on this site in months. Thanks, guys. Return to your porn now. And btw "The Core" really, really is a horrid film.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 10:13 a.m. CST

    VERGING on petty? Not that I can blame you, but don't sell yours

    by Trav McGee

    Your reply was FULL ON petty in many many places, as petty as any monkey in Talkback. From a cheap shot at HK's spelling to, and this one I couldn't believe, an oh-so-original jerking-off-to-Alba crack at the Talkbackers (or was that just Siskel?)... Hey, heat of the moment, you flew one off there, and you were probably highly justified in your reaction. But man, write it up, and don't hit Send right away. Let it cool off for 24 hours (or more) and give it a sober rewrite. That said, I hope the monkeys DON'T jump all over your ass here (OR all over HK's and DS's just because they read a jerking-off joke and giggled, despite joining in the exact same snarkiness in the Review TB), but I hope you're prepared to write a nasty letter to every single reviewer who gives you a thumbs down. .....One other thing--I sure hope Moriarty is hyphenating "POST-HUMAN" because as one word it always takes a second not to read it as POS THU MAN. Not a killer, but kinda klumsy.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 10:15 a.m. CST

    Wow, way to go, Mr. Rogers!

    by epitone

    You successfully disputed the claims of some illiterate fanboy who got his review posted on AICN. I think your next stop should be the local bus station, where you can challenge the resident wino to a game of Trivial Pursuit (the original version, not the dumbed-down one they're selling now).

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 10:16 a.m. CST

    Dunno, this is a pretty mixed up bag.

    by Shad0wfax

    Forming an opinion on this isn't an easy thing to do. First of all, I'm not sure that the screenwriter should be hopping on the defensive to every two-bit fuckwad out there who disses his movie, by the sounds of it, there will be plenty of those. Also, another thing, since when did the internet have to do with settling scores? Big boys with big grudges using big words to mean what? Absolutely dick. Nothing. It's pointless. The screenwriter should take pleasure from box office sales and little else, people are always going to complain about something in a movie - justified or not - and that is something seasoned screenwriters live with every day, and don't go posting little tantrums online. What next? Harry posting Darth's rebuttal. Please. However, I think a certain moderation of reviews is required, when the review degrades from asinine to downright vitriolic, a little editing wouldn't go astray. Just my two cents.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 10:54 a.m. CST

    Sequel greenlit, set in Cockney London: "Core: Blimey"...

    by Gimme $6

    I'm writing something for Hilary Swank over at Universal as we speak - a limerick, actually, but I can't think of anything to rhyme with her surname. Can any of you guys prise yourselves away from your Ed Begley Jr stroke pics and help me out on this one? I saw the Core and thought it, like, totally kicked the puppy, dude. Another thing: you don't see Kaufman, Zaillian, Koepp, Goldman and co getting wound up by what a bunch of fanboys have to say, do you? As Confucius once wrote: "Poor is the writer who has the time or inclination to quarrel with the nerd."

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 11:19 a.m. CST

    Now, THAT'S how to bitch

    by WeedyMcSmokey

    Now where did I put that Jessica Alba bookmark?

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 11:27 a.m. CST

    what the hell is going on?!

    by boohallsmalls

    i cant believe that the "science" people are complaining about in this movie has to do with the spinning core and exploding historical landmarks, when the most ridiculous fucking thing about this armageddon rehash is that anyone in their right fucking mind could believe that you could save the earth by blowing up a large amount of nuclear weapons inside it.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 11:30 a.m. CST

    Real Science is much weirder than Movie Science

    by zinc_chameleon

    Thank you John, for the plug for real science. The problem is that applying real science to fiction writing requires background on the reader's part; even when the reader is sure they know all about the subject matter. Case in point: no one in evolutionary psychology is absolutely sure why human female genitalia are hidden they way they are; it is NOT a natural consequence of evolution; just one reproductive strategy among many (see Baboon and Chimp approaches!). Result: hairless, breasted females with big butts (not seen in the rest of primates). Point? A tiny change in anatomy makes a huge change later, both in anatomy and culture. So, try re-engineering human females for even greater reproductive success, and see if anyone understands it. Okay, that ought to make the geeks clean the scrum off their glasses. Zinc out...

  • Obviously I have not seen the film, and I was curious if the movie was inspired or perhaps even based on Earth by David Brin. My wife liked the novel, and I just started reading it, and the basic concept is the same: something messes up the Earths core, except in the book it was actually an experiment trying to create, control and get power from a small black hole, whereas in the movie Core it is some weather control military machine.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 11:45 a.m. CST

    Ooooooooh!!!! What a baby!

    by Larry_Talbot

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 12:21 p.m. CST

    in spite of mr. rogers spirited reply

    by neckbone

    you can't gold-plate a turd. unless of course, it's core stops spinning and cools...

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 12:22 p.m. CST

    in spite of mr. rogers spirited reply

    by neckbone

    you can't gold-plate a turd. unless of course, it's core stops cools and stops spinning...

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 12:36 p.m. CST

    by Khan

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 12:39 p.m. CST

    Sometimes the comedy on this site writes itself!

    by TheFoywonder

    So this bradzp or whatever the hell his moniker is supposed to be rips everyone here for being critical despite having never made a movie themselves and then ends his post by exclaiming "Fuck The HULK" thereby trashing a movie that technically hasn't even been completed yet. So has bradzp made a $100 million summer blockbuster thus making it okay for him to criticize somebody else's work or is he just a hypocrite of epic proportions. I can appreciate the screenwriter's moxy in wanting to defend the scientific validity of the script but the fact remains that THE CORE did not get made because of its scientific plausibility anymore so than ARMAGEDDON or VOLCANO did.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 12:51 p.m. CST

    This guy's so full of crap

    by rev_skarekroe

    He wants you to believe he's some kind of great scientist, but all he's spewing is bullshit. Like I'm supposed to believe they can use "ultra-sound" to break up kidney stones. Whatever. "Nazis" doing "research" in the "'40s"? Please. Come to think of it, the whole premise of the movie is ridiculous! Earth's core indeed! How can something that's flat have a core! sk

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 12:57 p.m. CST

    Ain't it cool news - Home of the digital bitchslap...


    I loved this article. Whether or not the film tanks, whether it sucks or not, the man stands up for himself, and I like that. And he's totally right - Siskel, like many on this site, quickly leaps all over a topic he has no implicit knowledge of. Criticize the acting, the direction, etc., fine. But if you know nothing of science, then leave that shit alone. Personally, I know donkeydick about science, which is why I'm a)easily amused by Sci-fi movies, and b)used to keeping my fat mouth fucking shut when it comes to criticism of this. I'll be honest, I still don't expect much out of The Core, but this increased the chances of me seeing it.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 1:01 p.m. CST

    This is the coolest thing Ive read on this site in a long time!

    by JackLint

    That was GREAT!!

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 1:12 p.m. CST

    Yeah brotha!!!! Testify!!

    by pmorano

    And to the jackass who said something like "Ohh a screenwriter come here to defend his work.." Yeah he came here, because we're the movie fans. And also, if I made something and a bunch of comic book reading adults were ripping it apart, damn right I'd defend my stuff. By the way, what have YOU written that was such a great movie? Yeah thought so. (sorry if this comes up more than once, computer acting up.)

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 1:21 p.m. CST

    he earned my respect and maybe I'll go see it...

    by sundown

    maybe...that being said I get his point. What alot of geeks don't get is in the end its a job like anything else... He was given the implausible Volcanoesgue idea and actually did a little work on it. The story may be crap, the characters and acting may be crap, the fx may be crap but at least it sounds like the guy who had this mess land in his lap did his best to weed out the dinosaurs and aliens and other bullshit. Fact is I don't know anything about all the factors I mentioned above, they could be good or bad. But when you go after someones work on accuracy at least make sure you do the homework..after all who the hell is qualified to judge shit like that on this site? My 20 year old NYC textbooks still had plate techtonics listed as unproven theory when I was in HS not that I gave a shit since I was too busy reading up on Spiderman and Venom... In any event I'm gonna pay attention to this film and give it it's due...the guys earned it...way to rant and don't let the geeks get you down for defending yourself...they go off on people for "ignoring" them and their genius reviews and then get angry and bitchy when called on it...asking if he has nothing better to do is just petty and a cop out because he got you guys cold. And why shouldn't someone defend themselves in a public forum where their work is slammed? And how pathetic is it that you gusy have the time to sit around and talk shit? Who's worse again?

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 2 p.m. CST

    Exact Science? Science FICTION

    by rider_of_waves

    Come on anything is believable!

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 2:58 p.m. CST


    by TheKellySisters

    This guy has balls. He takes a group of guys who are really his target audience (like it or not, assholes) and bawls them out. Nice. I love it. You guys might think it was great, too, if you actually tried to do something productive and creative for a change. I suppose you just can't deal with the fact that you all just got your asses handed to you on a silver fucking platter. Eat it, dickheads.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 3:09 p.m. CST

    He got a 3 year paycheck for science?

    by KONG33

    And he's already complaining about the work he did? I know someone who has worked since age 14 and he's 70-something now and still at work, (these are all day shifts) so think about that before bitching about your screenwriting job, you insecure prick! His is a COMPLETELY thankless job, and for much less money than you're getting and you could stand to be more thankful. I can understand trying to boost attention, but the film sounds completely boring. People like spacesuits in magma and dinosaurs, they don't like real science. It was YOUR FAILURE to connect with your audience, if the big selling point was the science of this event (as it sounded in the review), I doubt anyone was close to recommending the film. So deal with it. You're unappreciated, you have no right to a good opinion of your work, people will tell you the truth on here.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 3:27 p.m. CST

    Damn people go back to school

    by Snowlock

    Amazing. "a physicist type" huh... Maybe instead you should talk to someone with a physics degree. From all I've seen of your movie, it is a joke. Whatever cocktail party science you have picked up in order to pitch this movie has not served you well. Go back to college (or high school) and get yourself some real knowledge because you have scientific holes you could drive a mac truck through. Here, I'll start you off... Earth is a closed system. If it stops revolving and in your "wonderful world" you've created the energy of motion has been converted to the great destruction that you special effects guys had so much fun with, you really can't start it up again from inside the closed system. (think about conservation of energy and motion genius) Second ... complex fluid dynamics of which some but not many people bother learneing about. Magma is a complex fluid. For those who don't know what a complex fluid is, generally it means it is not a homogenous mix of material. There is no.. I repeat NO, mathmatical model which defines motion of complex fluids and if as I see you movie uses the tried and pathetic Hollywood model of "fix it with a nuclear bomb" consider what would happen. First nothing we make now would do shit to anything bigger than about 10 miles across. Yup. Our nuclear arsenal is limited to a blast radius of 5-10 miles. (pretty impressive on a citywide scale but not on a planet wide one) So.. we blow up a bomb, and BOOM. Displace 5-10 cubic miles of magma. Not much but a drop in the hat of a planet with a volume of 1.097 x 10^21 m. You can do the conversion yourself but all this means is that you may as well have sneezed at the earth trying to push it. You can argue shockwaves etc, but a shockwave, even on a grand scale, will not travel far through liquid or solid when considering the scale. Dampening effects. Also you must rememebr you are trying to make a liquid core SPIN by blowing something up. liquid... spin... explosion (?) who can do basic math on this one? Read people.. damn.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 3:58 p.m. CST

    A script has to convince the audience of truth

    by KONG33

    even if it is truth... that was a good point. Plus this guy has to understand that, among males, we like to hit each other too hard sometimes, doesn't mean we mean it, it's all in fun. I didn't partake in the original tb, but Siskel seemed to want to recreate the Foywonder trashing magic. Also, if you worked so hard to make the science realistic, what about the giant ship that drills through the earth's rock and crust to fire off nukes in order to restart the core? Is that possible, too? If not, the core science is moot. And the lack of character sinks the film, even if it had AOTC visuals. What's funny is how earth is doomed within a year, and they spend 3 months on this ship, then they only have 7 MONTHS LEFT!! Da dun dun! "We have to work fast now, people!" So ultimately, Siskel had an opinion on the movie, and it wasn't wrong. If it took 36 hours to get to the core, could you make a complete circle around it in 10 minutes? How did the ship fly back up the hole? I'm still unconvinced that the Roman Coliseum could explode.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 4:29 p.m. CST

    He forgot to mention something.

    by Vinzent

    I'd like to hear more about the realities of the "Earthquake Weapon". And isn't it sheer arrgoance to think that humans have the power to stop the core in the first place? Do you have any idea how much force that would require? But my biggest problem with the screenplay (as a fellow screenwriter) is a contradiction in themes. Theme: We used a super weapon that has destroyed the environment, threatening all life on Earth. (This is the part where you're supposed to feel guilty about our own arrogance. But wait! We can save the Earth by using another superweapon that causes massive ecological damage, nuclear-freakin'-weapons! Huzzah! This isn't ironic. It's hollywood trying to capitalize on another successful movie, Armageddon. BTW, the purpose of sci-fi writing isn't to get the science correct (thus negating the "fiction"), it is to examine human nature through it's own scientific achievements.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 4:33 p.m. CST

    "Okay, you got me on the Coliseum blowing up."-LOL

    by Tarl_Cabot

    Now that's the most entertaining article I think I ever read here at AICN. The review was not just false science bashing. There were some valid points Darth made like the ship being built in 3 months(reminds of Contact and how they made a 3 trillion dollar machine in a year and tried to keep it in real time). Anyway, I respect the writer's reply but maybe the movie just sucked and he waisted 3 years of his life...That's gotta hurt.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 6:17 p.m. CST


    by pmorano

    You just know that we're all too fat and lazy to go look up the facts you were spewing out. That and with our shortened attention spans, many of us give up reading posts longer than 25 lines. Hey blame TV. But the point of this ISN'T the "science" involved. It's the fact that this guy stood up and told adults-who-read-comic-books how it is. And were it not a violation of God's law, I'd make him my wife!!

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 7:04 p.m. CST

    The readers of this site should be ashamed...

    by sakinnuso

    The guy wasn't even defending the plot of the movie. He was defending the science and saying that it was sound. Darth Siskel jumped on the science, and for that he was wrong. Yet, 80 % of the posts STILL attack the screenwriter! For the love of god people, PROVE YOUR VALUE AND WRITE SOMETHING YOURSELVES instead of ragging on other people's work. Good or bad, at least they tried. What have YOU done. Christ.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 7:57 p.m. CST


    by El_Duderino

    Science, schmience. All I can remember was seeing a trailer at the local theater for this "scientifcally accurate" movie and hearing an entire theatre erupt with laughter. It didn't take too long for me to realize that the loudest and most distinct laughter was my own. It just looks like shit. Not the screenwriter's fault, mind you, but a bunch of suits with visions of "Armageddon" dancing in their heads. At the end of the painfully lengthy trailer, I just had to blurt out the infamous phrase "it's the size of Texas, sir" just for effect. Personally, I can't wait to get liquored-up and catch this one. After Kangaroo Jack (thank you Bruckheimer), I think I need a few laughs. Out.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 8:02 p.m. CST


    by Doctor Gonzo

    I do all my viewing of stroke pics in my office - not in the basement :)

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 8:18 p.m. CST

    Slapping together a bunch of extrapalations of factoids from Pop

    by darth_testine

    Sorry. I'd write more but the smell of his desperation is overwhelming. Reminds me of that Rollerball invitation.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 8:20 p.m. CST

    It takes guts to write a screenplay and make yourself open to cr

    by Tarl_Cabot

    But his screenplay seems really cheesy. Better luck next time dude.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 8:28 p.m. CST

    The bad science fiction of "Die another day" ruined that movie f

    by Tarl_Cabot

    God damn that movie sucked balls. And I'm a huge fan of 007...such a ridiculous piece of nonsense. Maybe the Broccoli's should hire Mr. Rogers to write Bond 21?

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 8:28 p.m. CST

    The bad science fiction of "Die another day" ruined that movie f

    by Tarl_Cabot

    God damn that movie sucked balls. And I'm a huge fan of 007...such a ridiculous piece of nonsense. Maybe the Broccoli's should hire Mr. Rogers to write Bond 21?

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 9:50 p.m. CST

    Professional Note: If you have a beef with a reviewer, DON'T RES

    by darth_testine

    Had to add that bit. I might have enjoyed going to see an intelligent science-based sci-fi flick. Now I'll wait until its on USA or TNN, and mention to my friends how big of a jerk the writer was.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 9:52 p.m. CST

    best. response. ever.

    by DeadElvis

    Oh man! That was fan-flippin'-tastic! Whether this movie is any good or not, I wanna buy that man a beer.

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 10:30 p.m. CST

    Who's full of crap?

    by LearethAK

    Rev_skarekroe since you are so well aquainted with medical devices perhaps you would be so kind to explain what is preposterous about "ultra-sound" being used to shatter kidneys? (Besides the common use of ultra-sound to detect them.) Perhaps some education is in order?

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 11:24 p.m. CST

    Let's look at some of John Rogers' statements, shall we?

    by TheLastSkeptic

    John Rogers writes: "A five minute trip to any online encyclopedia source (either MSN Encarta or the Britannica service) would let you know that the model of the Earth

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 11:26 p.m. CST

    I gotta hand it to the guy...

    by ShooterMctanktop

    I is nice to see a screenwriter defend his work as it is a bunch of guys who really know jackshit about screenwriting or acting or directing sitting at home bashing it. I thought the sitting in your underwear looking at porn thing was a little uncalled for though, it struck me as that 13 year old tough guy talkbalk bullshit that you always hear in chat rooms. Plus it hurt my feelings, as I do live in my parents basement, I am in my underwear, and I did just finish jerking off. P.S.-this movie does look kind of like a cheap Armageddon rip off i must admit. P.S.S.-I actually liked armageddon i think it's big loud movie fun at it's best. Who cares if the science is bullshit if it's entertaining?

  • Jan. 24, 2003, 11:57 p.m. CST

    Father Death scratches his skull

    by FD Resurrected

    This page of John Rogers' rant is one of the strangest AICN events since Harry's 360 degree turn on the new Superman debacle after a nice chat with J.J. Abrams on the phone and the removal of Harry's negative review of Godzilla 1998. A semi-prominent screenwriter of American Outlaws and creator of Jackie Chan Adventures actually had the time to write the "flame" essay laying the smackdown on Darth Siskel's assessment of The Core. The Core is just that - a MOVIE. It's not unusual that superior screenplays are butchered in the process of production, turning the script with promising premise and sharp dialogue into generic mediocrity. I loathed Armageddon with the fibre of my hateful, cynical and misanthropic being, but The Core looks to be a nice companion piece to glorious 70's Irwin Allen movies, Earthquake, Twister, Deep Impact and, of course, Michael Bay's shoot-explode-disaster movies. I know Robert Rodriguez and Kevin Smith are big fans of AICN (any more celebrities accessing this site constantly?) but they don't ramble in e-mails to be published on the web nor shill their products with the exception of shady click-thru movie promotions supplied by the studio marketing departments so Harry and co. can scrape the bottom of the piss barrel for pennies and dimes. All i can say is that John Rogers took Darth Siskel's gleeful bashinbg of The Core way too seriously and he actually had the time and effort to write a long e-mail that ended up being published here. Prominent movie directors, producers and screenwriters writing to Internet movie sites defending their movies is too embarrassing to debate, with the exception of interviews, promotion publicity and well-known movie magazines like Premiere of which they can vent, praise, rant, plug and ramble. Darth Siskel's opinion is just an opinion as an individual, cluelessly overcriticizing or not. Not even James Cameron or Steven Spielberg would dare to write defensive e-mails or posts on the Internet only to make fools out of themselves unless they wrote under pseudonyms that don't give away true identities. The fact that John took the time to write an e-mail defending the film the majority of critics and moviegoers haven't seen and will have to wait until the last week of March violate the rule that Hollywood and Internet movie web sites and message boards must maintain healthy distance from each other with the exception of promotion (including shilling) so there won't be a flame war or an otherwise embarrassing incident that would make the studio executives and movie producers blush and red with anger, concerned that the media might generate bad buzz based on the person who's actually involved in the production of a big-budget Hollywood movie raging against the humans and machines on the web that would in turn affect the movie's chance of success at the box office. At least the Wachowski brothers don't bother posting anything less noteworthy on the web because they'd rather argue and defend their films with the actual critics, audience members and others in face-to-face conversations where the media would not swoop to report a showdown against the dissenters and detractors of particular movies. AICN is published and developed by movie geeks for movie geeks, and it's a haven for exciting scoops, bullshit rumors, unrestrainedly violent Lord of the Rings vs Star Wars talkback flame wars and homicidal movie fanboys disagreeing with fellow fanboys over which and what movie is better or worse. John's argument given his involvement in a Hollywood production is more than just a mere disagreement; it's an embarrassment on a grand scale.

  • Jan. 25, 2003, 12:17 a.m. CST

    AICN is the geek version of Hard Copy.

    by superfriend

    The Dude's right, no "critic" should ever have this much power by bashing a movie before its released. Harry fucked up when he heard about Abrams superman and hes doing it again. Remember that Harry? remember when you had a tantrum and nearly costs lots of people their jobs and reputation? or how bout that time you said Josh Hartnett doesn't have it in him to play superman? WTF Harry? who the hell are you to say that someone is won't ever be good enough to lay a part. take some responsibilty in your job, AICN is quickly becoming the "Hard Copy" of the internet when it should be "CNN."

  • Jan. 25, 2003, 2:38 a.m. CST

    LastSkeptic ...

    by walldaddy

    ... bud, whats with the fact that because the Nazis were evil and stupid, somehow their science is so bad you can't use it as the basis for some sci-fi? We went to the moon based on V-2 technology. Father Death: this guy's an embarassment because instead of dealing with us behind the wall of media, he actually answers? Anyway, bizarre letter, even more bizarre talkbacks. How'd the accuracy in the science in sci fi get to be the point of whether a movie's good or not? Looks like the guy just wants a fair judging. Reviewer says it's bullshit, he says not and gives the proof. Some people call him on it, but they're getting so nitpicky that if my bud brought up that shit in the parking lot on the way out of the movie Id smack him in the head and say "just a movie, guy. Lighten up." At least this is more interesting and honest than some dickweed nice review we'd all know was a plant in a half a second. I had no interest in seeing this, but the fact this guy stepped up and cares about his shit, no matter how shitty, means he gets my $9.50.

  • Jan. 25, 2003, 2:55 a.m. CST

    Not sure if you're still reading, Mr Rogers . . .

    by ol' painless

    But take it from me: unlike 95% of screenwriters trying to eke a living in Hollywoodland, You. Are. Gettin'. Paid. You don't need us! And you don't need to care about us or our angry little opinions. Take the money, move onto the next project. I am sure that deep down (little pun, that) you know the Core is an Armageddon-style CGI monster. Who cares about the science? Your career is on the move, and soon you will be able to write the movies you really wanna make. Writing a reply to guys like me is no better than sending an angry email to spam in your inbox.

  • Jan. 25, 2003, 4:23 p.m. CST

    Good science. Bad Writing.

    by Darth Ebert

    I haven't seen this film yet. (But I probably will... I love a good comedy.) Even if your science is 100% on the money, it doesn't mean you wrote a good movie. A movie is about entertainment, and suspension of disbelife. Theoretically we can travel through time, fold space, slide to alternate realities through a wormhole, or stroke to fake nudes of Jessica Alba. That doesn't mean any of that is interesting on it's own. It's about entertainment, and entertainment is about one thing and one thing only. PEOPLE! The fact that Darth Siskel didn't give a shit enough about your characters to ignore what he thought was bad science means only one thing. Your story sucked Mole man Ass! You COULD have hed them ride to the center of the earth of in a metal bucket to rewind the magic key of Lava men, and made a story people thought was great. You CHOSE to make RockMagegdon. If you want to teach science class, next time pitch a documentry to the the Discovery channel. If you want to make entertainment... Study Drama!!!

  • Jan. 25, 2003, 6:13 p.m. CST

    hey, i don't stroke to jessica alba photos. i stroke to jude la

    by needle sharer

    god, what a tool. i was getting all excited reading through this diatribe at the thought of a Real Live Writer defending himself to his critics in a reasonably intelligent manner and then he shits away any credibility he may have scraped up with that dumb, wannabe-inflammatory "oh you're all a bunch of compulsively masturbating geeks living in your parents' basements anyways, HAW HAW HAW it's funny cause it's TRUE" line of crap. your sparkling wit has blown me clear off my semen-encrusted chair, Mr. Hollywood Screenwriter. why don't you work that zinger which nobody has ever heard before, ever, into your next hit film.

  • Jan. 25, 2003, 6:17 p.m. CST

    Hey, LearethAK...

    by SleazyG.

    ...while you're busy posting links, why not try looking at this one? See, the dead giveaway was when Rev. SK also said the earth couldn't have a core because it was flat. Read for both content and context next time, and maybe you'll laugh like I did when I saw the post. Or keep being a humorless knee-jerk twat who criticizes the first half of the sentence before they read the second half to find out what's really being said. Whatever works for you.

  • Jan. 25, 2003, 7:28 p.m. CST

    That was friggin great

    by K|LLDOZER

    Yeah, maybe he's got a few extra hours to kill, so he answered a review. So what if he answered? That was a great answer, and a valid point. Film based on hard science. Darth Whazzizface should have looked into it before assuming he knows better. That's fair. What exactly happens when the magnetic poles reverse? Does the weather flow the other way? Does right become left? Does your mom move into YOUR basement?

  • Jan. 25, 2003, 8:05 p.m. CST

    "It's Scienterrific!"

    by Billy Talent

    I think the sequel should star Carl from 'The Simpsons' as Grando Carlrissian. MILITARY/GOVERNMENT TYPE GUY: I'm afraid we have no choice, but to drill a hole to the earth's core, again. - GRANDO: Awww, nuts. I mean... Awww, nuts."

  • Jan. 25, 2003, 11:49 p.m. CST

    Advice to Mr. Rogers

    by Darth Brooks

    Next time, don't act like a felt-up cheerleader at the prom, whimpering the next day in the cafeteria. Go take some narrative strategy classes at a community college. Watch a movie like BREAKER MORANT or SECONDS and learn that it's NOT about the TECH - it's about the audience's CONNECTION TO THE PROTAGONISTS. This is why screenwriters don't get invited to premieres. What a nerd. Grow some, okay?

  • Jan. 25, 2003, 11:58 p.m. CST

    Oh and an OBVIOUS BOYCOTT is in order

    by Darth Brooks

    A screenwriter dis'ing TBers with a raant about a movie that hasn't come out yet really *begs* for a complete lockout of this crapfest by same TBers. I'm not going. Who's with me? Enjoy the roominess of empty theatres, Mr. R. - - oh, did you have points on this film?

  • Jan. 26, 2003, 4:21 a.m. CST


    by TheLastSkeptic

    Superfriend writes: "The Dude's right, no "critic" should ever have this much power by bashing a movie before its released." ---------------------- Oh, bullshit. The only "power" he has is to express his opinion, and it

  • Jan. 26, 2003, 4:22 a.m. CST


    by TheLastSkeptic

    Walldaddy writes: "bud, whats with the fact that because the Nazis were evil and stupid, somehow their science is so bad you can't use it as the basis for some sci-fi?" ---------------------- I didn

  • Jan. 26, 2003, 4:22 a.m. CST


    by TheLastSkeptic

    Walldaddy writes: "We went to the moon based on V-2 technology." ---------------------- The Nazis did pioneer rocketry, but they didn

  • Jan. 26, 2003, 4:22 a.m. CST


    by TheLastSkeptic

    Walldaddy writes: "How'd the accuracy in the science in sci fi get to be the point of whether a movie's good or not?" ---------------------- In my opinion, in and of itself, it doesn

  • Jan. 26, 2003, 4:22 a.m. CST


    by TheLastSkeptic

    Walldaddy writes: "Reviewer says it's bullshit, he says not and gives the proof." ---------------------- No, he gave his ARGUMENTS to contrary, some of which, in my opinion, are not well-founded.

  • Jan. 26, 2003, 4:23 a.m. CST


    by TheLastSkeptic

    Bamf! writes: "[Darth Siskel

  • Jan. 26, 2003, 5:18 a.m. CST


    by walldaddy

    Got your point, but mine wasn't what you're rebuttin'.So would the guys arguments have been valid if he'd based it on Chinese rocketry? --- If you read the guy's letter carefully and a lot of people missed this, he's not saying "My science is perfect, you gotta like the movie." He's saying "Your busting on the science as total bullshit and made up. It isn't, so cut some slack." He's not claiming what makes the movie good is the science, he's just saying its unfair to call the movie science bullshit, and if your gonna to judge his flick, you can't really use that as an arguing point. seems fair. ---- Come on, you gotta admit even if some of his science is "in my opinion ... not well-founded" like you say, WTF my brotha? Even if half of its wrong, it looks like he tried to do more real research than every sci-fi movie I've seen lately, and he respects the audience a lot. Maybe that doesn't count for you 'cause he's not dead on, but fuck I'll watch his movie with an open mind. How many of those Hollywood guys you think care about this stuff? ---- And if he comes back and posts his rebuttals to you, you gonna get into duelling science magazine sources? And for that other stuff, all he says is the stuff was "based on" real world science. ---- All you hatas can post your asses off. Yeah, he was tweaked off, but some Darth says you're full of shit, you'd be tweaked too. He got slammed, he slammed back. Fuckin' A. Its like were all freaked out one of the Hollywood dickweeds we bitch about turned around and payed attention.

  • Jan. 26, 2003, 5:29 a.m. CST

    still going

    by walldaddy

    You saw the film, right, from your post I can tell. You hated it. Solid. Why not post that smart reply about stories and writing first with all the big words - thematic underpinnings -- instead of the science stuff? Science stuff missed the point, but seems like you got solid shit about the film in your last post.

  • Jan. 26, 2003, 5:29 a.m. CST

    just thought of something

    by walldaddy

    I haven't heard about this flick on any of the websites until now. Now there's like a couple hundred posts about it, and its on the front page of the site for two days. Did this guy play us? Is this free publicity? ---- Man, thats almost better than if he was really mad. That'd make me like him MORE.

  • Jan. 26, 2003, 12:28 p.m. CST

    Get over yourselves, please.....

    by the flashlight

    Since when has scientific realism or plausability been a prerequisite for a summer popcorn flick? I must have sick the day that memo was circulated. It's called escapism folks, look into it. I didn't hear anyone bitching about scientific accuracy when The Time Machine came out...maybe that's because it's...oh, I don't know....FICTION?

  • Jan. 26, 2003, 3:08 p.m. CST

    Fluffygreycat2 pretty much nails it on the head.

    by Noriko Takaya

    I was gonna watch this thing but after seeing the screenwriter make such a whining ass of himself I think I'll pass. Gangs Of New York can always use a 2nd viewing. Toppu o Nerae!

  • Jan. 26, 2003, 5:29 p.m. CST

    little info

    by rodion_vs_rodion

    I have no opinion to express on Mr Rogers' note, but for all those people who think it's some ridiculous unheard of thing that a person involved in a film's production would actually respond to a negative review, you wanna want to recall something. A few years ago, a little movie called Titanic was given a bad review from a little critic named Kenneth Turan in a little publication called Los Angeles Times that irked little screenplay write Jimmy Cameron to take out a HUGE full page ad in said publication defending his film and script. Sometimes, not even 800 oscars and 700 kabillion dollars can be consolation enought for the sensitive script writer after the hurt of a negative review. In any case, it's happened before, in grand, lame scale. Not that big a deal.

  • Jan. 26, 2003, 10:04 p.m. CST


    by Big Dumb Ape

    I have to say this is an amazing Talkback. One of the best in ages since it CLEARLY shows that AICN is basically divided into 2 sides (which I've long noticed.) Overall, EVERYONE goes under the blanket umbrella of "geek movie fan" since that's why we all come here in the first place. But in this CORE debate we now see the emergence of 2 distinctly different camps: CAMP 1 wants AICN to only be a fan site where you come and pick up a few rumors about upcoming films, maybe shoot your mouth off in the Talkbacks about one in particular. CAMP 2, however, wants AICN to be taken seriously. It wants it to be a "force" in Hollywood -- or by extension, a site that allows THEIR voice to somehow magically via the internet become a force in the industry because somehow Hollywood is going to tremble or balk at what the "fans" are openly saying. To show this division, take what FDRESURRECTED said(and I quote) "The fact that John took the time to write an e-mail defending a film...violates the rule that Hollywood and Internet movie web sites and message boards must maintain healthy distance from each other. AICN is published and developed by movie geeks for movie geeks. John's argument given his involvement in a Hollywood production is more than just a mere disagreement; it's an embarrassment on a grand scale." Well, as a sidebar, I take issue with that on one basic level. WHY is it a "grand embarrassment" for someone to bitchslap someone back(as Mr. Rogers did Darth Siskel) when someone (like Darth) uses a very popular or widely read site to write a negative review when he didn't get ANY of the science right in the first place? And in essence, was simply bagging on the movie in an over the top way just because HE didn't like it? So to that end, what exactly IS wrong with being a creative person (like Mr. Rogers) and DEFENDING your work...or at the very least saying "Maybe you didn't like it, but here's WHY I made the choices I did." For that matter, what's WRONG with defending yourself or your work from a ridiculous fanboy attack when they were simply being rude? DARTH BROOKS wrote (and I quote again) "Advice to Mr. Rogers. Next time, don't act like a felt-up cheerleader at the prom, whimpering the next day in the cafeteria. Go take some narrative strategy classes at a community college. Watch a movie like BREAKER MORANT or SECONDS and learn that it's NOT about the TECH - it's about the audience's CONNECTION TO THE PROTAGONISTS. This is why screenwriters don't get invited to premieres. What a nerd. Grow some, okay?" Excuse me??? Have you SEEN the movie yet? How is it you can ALREADY strike a holier-than-thou and lecturesome tone towards Mr. Rogers telling him HOW he should write when you haven't even SEEN his work yet? For that matter, who exactly ARE you to be giving out "writing advice" in the first place? DO YOU have any professional creditionals that make your opinion worth listening to? Oh, I'm saw BREAKER MORANT and SECONDS so now ALL movies must be judged against those 2 along for a lesson in writing. And of course, it's fair to call someone you've never met -- whose work you haven't fairly seen yet -- a "nerd" as well. Nice manners there, too. I have to say I just love how some people here complain about being called "Geeks" or some other sort of name, yet don't seem to mind leaving their own manners at the door. Apparently at AICN it's okay to FLING mud, but God forbid you should have to take some back. So I say to Mr. Rogers...more power to you. ALOT more power to you, in fact. As someone else said, you're earning a living doing something you enjoy, and that alone is a better opportunity than some people get. As for standing up to geeks like Darth Siskel, again more power to you. Whether I agree in the end that THE CORE is -- or is not -- a good genre film remains to be seen. At least I'll be fair enough to NOT pass judgment on the film till I've ACTUALLY SEEN it. But I certainly salute someone who's willing to go to the mat and defend their work. Because in the end, SUPERFRIEND said it best in his post (quote) "The Dude's right, no "critic" should ever have this much power of bashing a movie before its released. Harry fucked up when he heard about Abrams superman and hes doing it again. Remember that Harry? Remember when you had a tantrum and nearly cost lots of people their jobs and reputation?" So, yes, you geeks have to decide WHICH SIDE of the fence you're on. Is AICN a site that NO PROFESSIONALS should give 2 shits about...or should it be a place where professionals ARE willing to listen to expressed ideas? A place where they can come and open up a bit? If you think it's the latter, than I'd add that it's only right they should expect a bit of basic human courtesy as opposed to stepping into a forum where intellectual debate is marked by 2 people saying "Fuck you!" "No fuck you more!"

  • Jan. 26, 2003, 10:39 p.m. CST

    Screenwriters: 1, Smartass Wannabes: 0

    by phasmatrope

    Man was that amusing. Even though I could really give a shit about this dumb apocalyptic movie, I have to respect this guy's effort. Since I haven't met or talked with Darth or most of the many people here who've ripped on this film, my opinion of them means squat. I'm sure they all have somewhat decent taste. Like most of you here, I may love film more than the next guy (which in context, really doesn't mean shit), but regardless, anyone who pathetically stands in line for a month--exaggerating or not--to be the first to see ANY film, has no right to bag on the filmmakers who are actually trying to do something constructive with their time. This guy may have failed miserably, but at least he's trying. You don't like the movies that are being made? Try it for yourself first, and THEN you'll have ground to stand on. Really, what do you have to show for all the time you've wasted standing around in line? A personal invite from George Lucas out to the Ranch? A job? Certainly not in Hollywood, and most everywhere else in the world. Productivity is what counts, whether you suck or not. And honestly, was "Episode II" really that great or worth it? I think not.

  • Jan. 27, 2003, 12:57 a.m. CST

    Jessica Alba stroke pics????

    by Douglas Goldstein

    What's this about Jessica Alba stroke pics? Can someone recommend a good web site with hot pics of Jessica Alba to stroke to? Nudes perhaps??

  • Jan. 27, 2003, 1:04 a.m. CST

    We arrogant weenies

    by wyatt39

    Man, the stuff you find when looking for Hulk pics. --- "Give me your budget, I will make a better movie than The Core. Give me your budget, and I won't complain if people mock me. You took the money, now you get to listen to people talk about what you've made." -- Big dumb Ape tells the truth, and FluffyGrey, what the hell are you talking about? --- Rodgers doesn't say not to talk about his movie, read it again, he says go ahead, says it a couple times. READ BEFORE YOU QUOTE -- Yeah, you go to Hollywood champ. You go make a better movie. You think you get the money, you're going to beat up all the studio guys, all the directors, all the actors, even all the obviously nuts writers and make a better movie in the System? You're so bad, why don't you go? You one of those guys who thinks everybody in Hollywood knows somebody, and you only got your chance, you'd show them? Lotta people in Hollywood, bud, they can't all be somebody's nephew. --- And DarthBrooks, glad BigApe got him. Gee, you think maybe the guy who got a movie made, something almost none of us could ever do can get better by going to a community college class? He's going to learn from some man teaching that class instead of working in Hollywood? Yeeeeaaah. If only the pathetic dudes in Hollywood who did better than us were just as smart as us, huh guys? New favorite thread.

  • Jan. 27, 2003, 7:25 a.m. CST

    Big Dumb Ape....

    by Darth Ebert

    You talk like this site has to be one or the other. It doesn't. The bottom line is if Hollywood had a clue as to what the fuck the American public wanted, none of this would exist. Quite honestly, I'm glad the dumb ass writer fired back. It's hilarious to see some one try and defend a script this stupid. It's like getting William Shatner commetery on Star Trek V!!! You think we come here on some power trip.... Movies are as close as I come to religion. The theater is my church. When a movie costs $10 plus gas, I think it's our Duty to bag and Rag on Hollywood crap. We don't rag GOOD movies. We don't even Rag Mediocre movies... which we see a lot of. We don't deal spoilers because they ruin good films. We DO WARN people not to spend money on crap! Like or not... people know a good movie when they see it.

  • Jan. 27, 2003, 8:12 a.m. CST

    The problem with the "If you haven't made a movie then you can't

    by Sith Lord Sauron

    --is that very few people would be allowed to express an opinion on film at all. This site would consist only of commontary by Lucas, Michael Bay, Cameron and other Hollywood directors. Admittedly that would be kinda neat but I don't think that that is what Harry had in mind when he started this place. Also, apply that mentality to everyday life: if you haven't made a car, you can't complain about how much yours sucks. If you haven't written a novel then you have nothing to say about any books you've read. See what I mean? Sorry people but this is a free country (sorta--thanks, Ashcroft) and we all have the right to speak our minds on things even if we don't know what we're talking about. From the trailers I thought the film looked like good cheezy fun but now that I've heard the screenwriter insult his potential audience in a crybabyish screed I will be taking my money elsewhere. And *that* is my right as well. **AUFT**

  • Jan. 27, 2003, 12:38 p.m. CST

    Darthebert&DarkLord Sauron

    by wyatt39

    Did you guys even read the writer's letter or the one I was responding to before writing your own? This guy never says he's defending the movie, he goes out of his way to say your opinion's valid. He doesn't diss any of DarthSiskels' character or plot problems. He just says ridiculing the science out of hand because you ASSUME all Hollywood writers are fucking morons is unfair. Yeah, he got snippy, but I don't see what's unreasonable about that, and has everybody up in arms. That doesn't interfere with your "religion" at all, as far as I can tell. But do you really prefer the "religion" metaphor so much, with the filmmakers up on the mountain and never coming down, that when one does you hate it? --------- I might be reading into this, too, but it seems like he wrote Harry something privately before, and Harry threw it back in his face (based on the Harry quote from the intro) which to me is pretty wrong -------- DarkLordSauron, I don't think if you didn't make a movie, you can't have an opinion. I have pretty strong opinions, and I value them, and the closest I'll get to Hollywood is puking on a ride at Universal City. You're totally able to have your own opinions. I was responding to FluffyGreyCat's "Give me your money , I'll make a better movie" statement. That seemed pretty arrogant to me, and I called him on it. And again, what in this writer's letter is out of line that's got so many people not just ticked off but ANGRY and FREAKED OUT? ------------- This is one of the first times I've posted, and I probably won't again, because I can see the weird spiral I'm going down, moving from posting about the article to cross-posting to reactions about the article to head-to-head misquotes and arguments with other talkbackers. This can't be healthy. ---------- and is that GrgLwBnd guy a regular? Because that dude is just disturbing and wrong. It was like the equivalent of an on-screen obscene phone call.

  • Jan. 27, 2003, 6 p.m. CST

    Blinded by Science

    by jbreen

  • Jan. 27, 2003, 6:37 p.m. CST

    Fluffy, vacuous Grey Matter....

    by PopeFlick

    Along with the budget the size of The Core's come along several people in suits who have little regard for the story as submitted: call that "Working at Studios 101." Include at least one solid financial institution that would question the wisdom of the person that gave you that much money: call that "Studio Financing 101." Try as you might to now qualify your statement, but that does little more than confirm you have NO IDEA what you are talking about: call that "Shit Talking 101." Now, read John's statement again. He doesn't defend the film at all, just the science that had dismissed out of hand. Gleaning that information is called "Reading Comprehension 101." Add those up and you get "404" which is what you get when you try to access the logic section of your brain.

  • Jan. 27, 2003, 6:47 p.m. CST

    Yikes Fluffy

    by wyatt39

    Way to stay reasonable. -------- and I stand by my assertion, respectfully, at no point does this guy say you should take it easy on him or should like his movie, he says that automatically assuming that the science is crap when you don't know anything about it is wrong. Of you don't know, don't assume the other guys an idiot just because he works in Hollywood. You're ranting and angry about something that the guy never said. Why? Anything else is what you're bringing to the table, friend. ----- [QUOTE:] "So, yes, I also stand by the statement that if I had the budget that was provided to the makers of The Core, and if it was simply GIVEN to me, without the need for the movie to be presold, I could probably get a better movie made." Naturally, we will never find out, so it's all hypothetical bullshit anyway..." [QUOTE] Not hypothetical, if that attitude's the basis for your ranting both at the guy and at me So you stand by the assertion that if you were just given the money, somehow independent of the actors, the directors, and EVERY OTHER LIVING HUMAN NEDED TO MAKE A MOVIE AND DISTRIBUTE IT SO ANYONE EVER, EVER SAW IT, you could make a better movie. So saying that somehow, given a set of imaginary, ideal circumstances, you could do a better job than someone NOT working in those imaginary, ideal circumstances. Wow, in that case the people frustrated they can't broker peace in the Middle East are dickheads and should never complain, because given absolute ideal imaginary circumstances, I could bring peace to the region! ---- On what PLANET is that a valid comparison?

  • Jan. 27, 2003, 7:02 p.m. CST

    Chinese Rocketry

    by TheLastSkeptic

    Walldaddy writes: "Got your point, but mine wasn't what you're rebuttin'.So would the guys arguments have been valid if he'd based it on Chinese rocketry?" -------------- The technology in question for which he cited Nazi ideas was the Project DESTINI weapon, not rocketry. My point was that 1. Merely saying that it was an idea worked on by Nazis doesn

  • Jan. 27, 2003, 7:03 p.m. CST


    by TheLastSkeptic

    Walldaddy writes: "If you read the guy's letter carefully, he's not saying "My science is perfect, you gotta like the movie." He's saying "Your busting on the science as total bullshit and made up. It isn't, so cut some slack." -------------- And in the opinion of some here, it is bullshit. I already opined why. He defended certain premises in the movie that neither Harry nor Darth even mentioned as implausible, like Project DESTINI, and refused to address ones that they DID bring up, like how this laser, even if it could punch a hole through the Earth, could do so traveling as fast as it did, or how Deep Earth Control can maintain constant contact with them, or as I pointed out, how the Virgil could ascend back to the Earth

  • Jan. 27, 2003, 7:03 p.m. CST


    by TheLastSkeptic

    Walldaddy writes: "He's not claiming what makes the movie good is the science, he's just saying its unfair to call the movie science bullshit, and if your gonna to judge his flick, you can't really use that as an arguing point." -------------- Of course I can. It

  • Jan. 27, 2003, 7:04 p.m. CST


    by TheLastSkeptic

    Walldaddy writes: "Why not post that smart reply about stories and writing first with all the big words - thematic underpinnings -- instead of the science stuff?" -------------- 1. I did. On the message board following Darth Siskel

  • Jan. 27, 2003, 7:05 p.m. CST

    One last thing Fluffy

    by wyatt39

    Way to throw marketing jargon around while you mock the guy throwing science jargon around. Why the anger, Fluffy? Why the rage which makes you misread what people say so you can vent unrelated frustrations (and we can tell you're not reading things correctly, we can look just above us to the text)... Why the imaginary successful movie career in your head if only the real world didn't interfere? Do you look at everyhting in the world and say "If only it didn't work like it does, I'd be GREAT at that!"? --------- I pray for you, Fluffy, and hope the power and light of Christ will drive the demon rage from your heart. If you were here with me right now, I'd hug you, and say "I love you." God bless.

  • Jan. 27, 2003, 7:05 p.m. CST


    by TheLastSkeptic

    The Flashlight writes: "Since when has scientific realism or plausability been a prerequisite for a summer popcorn flick? I must have sick the day that memo was circulated. It's called escapism folks, look into it. I didn't hear anyone bitching about scientific accuracy when The Time Machine came out...maybe that's because it's...oh, I don't know....FICTION? -------------- It is a fallacy to argue that escapism and believability are mutually exclusive, or that fiction and believability are.

  • Jan. 27, 2003, 7:05 p.m. CST


    by TheLastSkeptic

    phasmatrope writes: "This guy may have failed miserably, but at least he's trying. You don't like the movies that are being made? Try it for yourself first, and THEN you'll have ground to stand on. Really, what do you have to show for all the time you've wasted standing around in line?" -------------- So in order to complain that a car is poorly made, I have to be an automotive expert? If my dining room table falls apart after one use, I have to be a carpenter to criticize the guy who made? I respectfully disagree.

  • Jan. 27, 2003, 8:21 p.m. CST


    by wyatt39

    Nobody said anything about "bowing before him like a serf." Where does anybody demand or even suggest that? Again, the baggage. And the rage, although moderated, but I can still see it peeking out from behind the sofa cushions of your soul. ------- And still you don't listen to my point. I'm not saying "it's obvious" you couldn't make a better film. Maybe you could. Maybe you're the lost Wachowski. That would be cool if it were true. I'm not saying that's the only way your argument's valid. You seem to take every comment as a personal attack on you in some way. ----- I'm saying that you claiming you could do it in some imaginary world is not a fair basis for superiority, because we don't know what THIS GUY could do in your imaginary world. YOU'RE taking a moral or creative high ground when you say you could make the better film. YOU'RE the one saying that because you could make the better film in an ideal world, this guy who can't has no right to bitch about the process. Somehow, you know that you're a better writer and film-maker, with no empirical knowledge or experience, and this guy's just a salesman. I envy your confidence. I still don't see how you can continue to defend the "give me the money" arguement when it just makes no darn sense. ------ and so your advice is for anybody who gets bad input from the executives is to quit and refuse to cooperate. So who does that leave making movies? The WORST guys with NO standards, if you follow that argument to its logical conclusion. Do you never compromise in your work? No, I'm not being sarcastic, I just don't know the job where that's possible ----- Again, the guy doesn't use the collaborative process to make excuses about stupid stuff in his movie, he steadfastly REFUSES that it's stupid. Even though, frankly, it sounds stupid. Ha. And he doesn't say the public's not allowed to comment, again he validates other peoples opinions in the letter, as many, many other Talkbackers point out. --- and I even disagree with that idea "you get paid, so shut up about your job", but I don't even want to get into that, because it'll be misattributed back to the writer and I'll have started that slide again. ---- The weird thing is, I wouldn't have gone to see thie movie (don't like the Swankster) but I don't like people being smacked for something they didn't say. But it's almost like this far down the Talkbacks, it's an entirely new discussion based on ECHOES of the original one. Man, has anybody ever done a PhD on this?

  • Jan. 28, 2003, 3:23 a.m. CST

    I reall liked your response, John

    by The Dude Abides

    cogent, fact, i'll go see the movie because now i feel like i know who it's coming from. now, if only more people in hollywood would put harry's arrogant ass into place a bit more often.

  • Jan. 28, 2003, 3:24 a.m. CST

    and that should read: REALLY not REALL

    by The Dude Abides

    never said i was fucking thomas wolfe, here.

  • Jan. 28, 2003, 7:37 a.m. CST

    a point of clarification...

    by phasmatrope

    ...seeing as how some of you here seemed to take my previous point, about those who waste their lives obsessing over movies and berating them do themselves an injustice, so unnecessarily literary. Need I remind you, I said: if you don't LIKE the kind of movies that are being made, but are perfectly happy standing in line for weeks on in to be the first to see "Star Wars," or whatever, when you could have been spending that time more constructively working on your own damn screenplay, your opinion means shit. And I used ONLY that as an example. I'm not saying that you have to be some fucking expert to criticize a film or whatever (because otherwise I myself and certainly all of you wouldn't be able to say jack). But if you're one of those who are perfectly happy to sit in line for a month for anything, then you really can't get that mad, or expect that many people to validate your criticism towards those filmmakers who most likely spend that time actually working and producing something, and have something to show for it. That is all.

  • Sept. 28, 2003, 8:38 p.m. CST

    Keep up the good work!

    by YouRockJohn

    Loved your post, bought the movie. Keep up the good work, good SCI-FI!