A terrible plan.

Spoilers for 2012 follow. Although I’m not sure giving away the plot to a special effects pornstravaganza constitutes “spoiling” it. It’s a lot like revealing the plot to an actual porn movie–that’s not really why you rented it in the first place.

Roland Emmerich loves to destroy the earth. 2012 is his third disaster epic, after Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow. But there’s one crucial difference this time around, and it’s not just the lack of the word “day” in the film’s title. In 2012, the leaders of the world know about the impending apocalypse. They have years to plan. But the plan they come up with is mystifying stupid. Basically, they keep the news very quiet while they construct a bunch of giant boats high in the Himalayas. This is largely financed by charging the richest people in the world one billion euros for tickets.

Deep breath…

1. Why not just tell everyone? Evil bureaucrat Oliver Platt explains that there would be complete chaos if the truth got out. The important thing is to preserve the human species, and if everyone knows they are going to die in three years, there’s no way they can pull off the logistics of building and stocking giant-ass boats. There’s a certain logic to that. But I also think that if everyone knows they’re going to die in three years, then everyone would work really, really hard to prevent that. Think about how many giant boats could be built if everyone in the world was spending every waking moment welding? Not to mention, the extreme secrecy means that 99.99% of the world’s smartest scientists never even knew about the problem, much less get a chance to solve it. I’m not saying anyone could have stopped the earth’s crust from collapsing. But they could have tried, or at least corrected some of the dumber parts of the ark plan. For instance…

Before the first X-Men film, Wolverine was a backup dancer for Madonna.

It’s spring now in New York.  The sun is shining, the birds are singing, the swine flu is mutating…  It’s a time to be positive.  After all, as that old poem said, April is the coolest month, and May is also rad.

I feel my posts have been negative lately, and that needs to change.  First I wrote a post that said, “No more flat female characters!”  Then I said, “No more Nazi movies!”  I even went so far as to say, “No more ignoring the leap second!”

So many “nos.”  How about a “yes” for once?  So, today, when I thought I might write a post entitled, “No More Prequels!” I held back.  Instead, I bring you, “More Prequels, Please!”

And why shouldn’t there be more prequels?  Just because almost every prequel ever made has disappointed, that doesn’t mean we should write off the whole genre!  Today, I’m not going to just complain.  I’m going to be positive, a fixer!  Here are the three most common problems with prequels and how to fix them.

In this Oscar Week edition of the Think Tank, the Overthinking It writers announce the first annual OTIs Awards for the year 2008.

So waaaay back in February, I mused over the scene in Raiders where Indy apparently stows away on a Nazi submarine.

What is going on here? Are we meant to believe that Dr. Jones somehow snuck onto the sub, found a hiding place, and stayed unnoticed for however long the trip to Secret Nazi Island was? In the comments of the original post, some people assumed that the u-boat just cruised on the surface the whole time. It’s true that we never actually see the thing go underwater. However, in my sub movie experience, the only time you hear that klaxon is when you’re preparing to dive.

At the time, the Sub Controversy remained unresolved. But part of Overthinking™ is continuing to think about something well beyond the point at which any reasonable person has moved on. And recently, I had an epiphany: what the hell are those guys saying?

I recently read an article about the possibility of more Indiana Jones movies, which included this little gem:

Lucas sat down with AP Television at his Big Rock Ranch outside San Francisco, where he said he didn’t pay much attention to the reception from critics and fans to “Crystal Skull,” a sci-fi adventure set in the 1950s.

Let’s just mull over that for a sec.

• Seeing Movies Alone (and being a dick)
• Mocking the Afflicted
• Tyler Perry, Entrepreneur
• The Nature of Spoilers
• The South Park Indy Rape Episode

Email questions and comments to podcast AT overthinkingit DOT com or leave a voicemail to be played back on the show at (203) 285-6401 (include your name — or pseudonym! — and location). And come on, give us some ratings on iTunes!

Download Episode 15 (MP3)

The movie begins with a heavily-armed group of Russian soldiers attacking an American military base. That seems like the kind of thing that could touch off a war. Can we at least agree that it’s probably something the Russians wouldn’t risk without good reason?

Actually, they’re after an alien carcass that turns out to be useless. But that’s not my issue.

Not to step on Matt’s toes, but this has been bothering me.

The Indiana Jones franchise has always been about searching for an artifact that is tied into a major world religion.

1)  Ark of the Covenant : Judaism.

2) Weird glowy rocks : Hinduism.  Kiiind of.  While none of the Indiana Jones movies are going to win any cultural sensitivity awards, I suppose I really should pause to mention that Temple of Doom’s depiction of Hinduism is ludicrous and offensive, even if the bad guys were supposed to be a nutty fringe cult.  Still, narratively speaking, the rocks get the job done.

3) The Holy Grail : Christianity.

But then we get to the latest film…

Part 3 in a series of disgruntled rants.

So towards the beginning of the movie, Dr. Jones tells us:

Legend says that a crystal skull was stolen from a mythical lost city in the Amazon, supposedly built out of solid gold, guarded by the living dead.

But guess what? When they get to the city, it is NOT guarded by the living dead. Instead, it’s guarded by the cast of Apocalypto.

No, George Lucas! Bad Lucas! You do NOT promise your audience zombies in the first reel, and then flake out!

And If any of you are feeling generous towards Lucas, you might suggest, “Well, just because they don’t look like zombies or act like zombies doesn’t mean they’re not immortal, magical guardians.” But the official novelization of Crystal Skull describes these guys only as “Ugla warriors” (p. 272) and “tribesmen” (273). And more importantly, when Indy first mentions the legend, the novel entirely omits the part about the “living dead” (p. 86). (By the way, I didn’t buy the book. I just looked at it in a Barnes and Noble. I just want people to know that.)

Survey the damage after the jump.

So a while back, I complained about the relative lack of violence in the latest Indiana Jones film. Indy doesn’t shoot a single person. I blamed this on Lucus – the only person in the galaxy who believes that Star Wars is a better film when Greedo shoots first.

Anyway, I’ve edited together a little protest. Here’s Raiders of the Lost Ark, getting the Lucas “Special” Edition treatment:

By the way, a couple months ago, there was a very strange photo floating around the internet.

That’s George Lucas, on the set of Crystal Skull, wearing a “Han Shot First” t-shirt. This is basically the same as George Bush wearing a “No Blood For Oil” t-shirt. Does not compute.