Re: Did anyone watch the two parter on TV; 10.5?

David Oberman wrote:

Oh, it's a winner, all right. Just like "10.5"--only slightly shorter.
This is the one where the guy in the car races down the highway,
successfully outspeeding a pyroclastic flow. In fact, there's a photo
of that very scene on the Web page you gave above.

Such a scenario didn't hurt /Dante's Peak/ any -- let alone the scene
in DP where they not only successfully drive over the flowing lava but
also rescue the dog in the middle of the flow, and nobody so much as
gets their hair singed -- and would you argue that movie was "just like
10.5" (which I haven't seen, BTW, and don't want to, based on the
reports from comments at my favorite weather board, whose denizens
aren't any more impressed with it than the experts here are)?

No -- /Dante's Peak/ was pretty good, and not just because of the
exterior shots of the USGS building in Vancouver, either. The overall
premise had some believable science behind it that made even the
fantastic parts work.

Everybody approaches these things from an entertainment perspective - a
straight "what if" documentary about a very big Yellowstone eruption
would be short, unpleasant, and very dark and ashy (g). Something like
the intro to DP, actually -- dramatic but not something you can get a
grip on until recognizable characters enter into it and start relating
to each other and to you. There has to be a plot, preferably a good
one -- and in disaster movies a sure-fire set-up is the little guy or
pickup or whatever pitted against the big guy or pyroclastic flow or
whatever. It does sound like plot is one of the weak points for
/10.5/, as well as the science of it (um---I forget the math of it now,
but based on an undergraduate geophysics class, could the earth even
withstand a magnitude 10.5 shock?).

Sure it's hard for the scientists to watch any such fiction, but it
encourages more accuracy to applaud moviemakers when they take the time
to consult the scientists during the filming and use, as it was given
and without distortion, that advice in the finished product. It sounds
like /Supervolcano/ is one of those rare movies where that has
happened. It's good, therefore, for the YVO director to say something
positive about it.

Plus, I think this movie (which is already about three years old)
represents an unfortunate--& possibly dangerous--new trend in TV
disaster programs: mixing documentary reportage with fictional
dramatization, probably to the point of confusing viewers even more
about the scientific facts behind these events.

That is not how Dr. Lowenstern characterizes the movie in the
/Geotimes/ article. He calls it authentic: "In the end, the reporters
and filmmakers have the final say. They write the articles and scripts,
they choose the quotes and sound bites, and they have the attention of
the public. When they work hard to get the facts correct, it pays off.
The Supervolcano drama was successful in large part because it was
authentic, making the plot more gripping and the whole experience more
educational. When the science is ignored, or misunderstood, everyone
loses. The challenge for us scientists is to relay both the details and
the context of our work, so that society understands that science is
ultimately a human endeavor - sometimes uncertain, often complex, but
always exciting."

Barb

----------
"Gondwana-land: that rare venture of geology into poetry."
-- J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter 324, 1971

.

Relevant Pages