May 29, 2004


Jonathan V. Last writes that The Day After Tomorrow won’t hurt George W. Bush, and praises the film’s disaster-movie fidelity:

A divorced couple torn apart by the husband's work, who must reconcile in the face of death? Check. A character who sacrifices himself for the good of the team by falling to his death? Check. Two attractive adolescents who struggle to reveal their true feelings for one another? Check. Rich people learning valuable life lessons from the poor? Check.

The film doesn’t have any grinning Canadian minisheep, however. Every disaster/horror/slasher movie needs these brutes, regardless of theme or location. Look at the hostile, unearthly expression worn by the monster in the second pic. Tell me you won’t see that in your nightmares for the next twenty years.

Posted by Tim Blair at May 29, 2004 05:48 AM

I'll be damned. An unbiased review, tweaking the left and the right about this film. There's hope for the media still. Mr. Last makes his points well. Perhaps the movie will do OK, even if Algore endorsed it, the left wingers love it, and Emmerich seems to be a classic EU elitist.

But I doubt that I will see the flick in the theater; I'll wait for the DVD. I've seen too many bad movies (science and war) to do otherwise. That way, I don't have to stand in line for the popcorn, I can watch the flick in my shorts, and I have, in my hand, thanks to modern technology, the miraculous remote control.

Plus I can smash the DVD if I feel that I've been ripped off. I almost did that to Terminator 3. I still might.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 29, 2004 at 06:07 AM

But what about:
-The father and son who have a troubled relationship, but when the father accepts his son as a man, they learn how much they love each other?
-The despondent suicidal teen who begins to appreciate life by watching others struggle to live?
-The religious zealot that condemns evil behavior in others, but attempts some vile act toward the end of the movie to show how hypocritical he is?

Posted by: arlo at May 29, 2004 at 06:50 AM

If I start counting those sheep I'll be awake all night! Brrr... I have looked upon the face of eeeeevil!

Posted by: Pixy Misa at May 29, 2004 at 06:58 AM

Hey, good review. I notice, though, that the movie ends with everyone fleeing to Mexico, which is presumably still balmy. But Mexico is part of North America, too. Does all the ice miraculously stop at the Rio Grande?

As for the sheep, I think they're kinda cute - and just the right size to mow your lawn and fertilize it at the same time.

Posted by: Annalucia at May 29, 2004 at 07:14 AM

Sadly, Annalucia, sheep have a tendency to pull grass out by the roots, rather than cropping it - which means you need a lot of pasture for them to allow the grass to recover.

This puts the cattle rancher's enmity toward sheep herders in the American west into some perspective - plus, of course, the fact that they were probably EVIL sheep...

Posted by: Parker at May 29, 2004 at 07:58 AM

No, no, no, Parker, the old range wars were caused by evil CATTLE. How could dem cute widdle wambs be evil, I ask you?

Think about it. The sheep graze to the roots of the plant life, and keep other livestock from grazing. The cattle should go somewhere else, never mind that sheep were introduced to much of the west after cattle ranching was introduced. Plus, of course, the Evil Cattle Ranchers (TM), refused to share the pasture land, move elsewhere, or just roll over and die. Besides, the sheep are so gosh darned cute, plus they are the underdog. So, of course, the cattle are to blame, not the sheep.


That's probably the way someone from the left wing would analyze the range wars today. Because the introduction of sheep to the west did start the range wars; even today, most cattle ranchers really hate sheep.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 29, 2004 at 08:08 AM

Does the movie have any great lines that condemn humanity for it's short sighted foolishness? Something worthy of Charleston Heston such as:



"It's people. Soylent green is made out of people! They're making our food out of people. Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle for food. You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them!"

Posted by: Junkyard God at May 29, 2004 at 08:21 AM


Those mini-sheep would make terrific shark bait I think. Can we get them in SW Florida?

Posted by: Hatcher at May 29, 2004 at 09:54 AM

That sheeps pictur'es was funny! haR!!

Posted by: Bilal at May 29, 2004 at 10:32 AM

Does all the ice miraculously stop at the Rio Grande?

Good question. The local paper reviewed the movie today, citing the border scene and saying that our ribs would be sore from the many times Emmerich digs his elbow into them. Geddit? Geddit? Huh? Huh? It's irony. Pretty clever, huh? Huh?

I say it would've been more clever if they'd also shown Mexicans flowing north, in the belief that even under a foot of ice, the US still had to have a better economy than Mexico.

Posted by: Angie Schultz at May 29, 2004 at 10:42 AM

Does the movie have any great lines that condemn humanity for it's short sighted foolishness?

There's a few. Kyoto is brought up right out of the gate. Later, when the Dick Cheney look-alike Veep is insisting that there must be another way (other than evacuation) to save lives, the environmentalist says something like, "There was, but you didn't listen when policy could've prevented this."

There's also: 1) an atheist who vows to save a rare Bible; 2) a librarian who saves a life then says, "See, books are good for things other than burning"; and 3) a scene where the POTUS (who doesn't survive) is shown scratching his head and asking the Cheney look-alike "What do you think?"

I like disaster movies (thought it could've used more tornados) and this one was pretty good on special effects, but it seemed as if I was watching a badly written after-school special with all the environmental doom-sayer talking points thrown in. Oh, and in the end, after initially shutting down the boarder to prevent "illegals" from entering Mexico, the newly ascended President (Cheney look-alike) thanks the "Third World" for saving our ass by taking us in.

Posted by: Lawrence at May 29, 2004 at 11:40 AM

Sheep? What sheep? Those are your normal Canadian Liberal party voters.

Posted by: Jack M. at May 29, 2004 at 01:29 PM

Sorry, for me the movie's entire premise falters on a scene quoted by the movie review in my local paper: the Cute Teen Hero is shivering "with the cold" (I guess he forgot to take his sweater to school despite the looming glaciers or whatever) and a Cute Teen Girl cuddles up to him, and Cute Teen Hero's only response is to say "What are you doing?" I have only one thing to say:


Godzilla could be riding a bicycle through this movie and juggling midgets and that wouldn't be any more unbelievable than the idea of a teenage male (straight or gay) not knowing how to respond to a girl hugging him.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 29, 2004 at 01:41 PM

Especially when it's cold and the end of the world is looming.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 29, 2004 at 02:01 PM

Why has everybody forgotten about Gorgo?

Maybe if Gore bellows loudly & long enough, a Giant Gore-mom will come ruinously through a city to fetch Al Gore back to the nest.

(Then at last we will know Al Gore’s species. As of now we don’t even know whether the concept applies to him.)

Posted by: ForNow at May 29, 2004 at 02:52 PM

>Especially when it's cold...

Probably a shrinkage factor there.

Posted by: Dave S. at May 29, 2004 at 02:57 PM

It wasn't but one, maybe two years ago that the doomscreamers were telling us that the polar ice cap would melt, the coasts would be in the ocean, and I'd be growing palm trees in my backyard in Maine while refugees from the burnt-to-cinders equatorial regions would be flooding north and south. Now they're telling us it's actually going to get really, really cold, which is what they were saying back in the '70s, except then it wasn't warming that was causing the cooling, but cooling that was causing the cooling. Or something. And not once - not fucking once - do they have the decency to preface their latest about-face with a simple, "OK, I was wrong before, but hear me out..."

Why, why, WHY do people keep taking these idiots seriously?

Posted by: Dave S. at May 29, 2004 at 03:12 PM

I can only imagine what the sheep pics are doing for your hit count from New Zealand.

Hubba hubba!

(or whatever horny Kiwis say)

Posted by: Dave S. at May 29, 2004 at 03:19 PM

I still say that we need to keep burning them fossil fuels to keep the ice age at bay. To the SUVs!

Posted by: Katherine at May 29, 2004 at 03:39 PM

YES! Thank you, Katherine. I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who uses that argument. The Earth is on a regular Ice Age cycle, we're due for one, so if pollution causes warming, we could be averting ecological disaster.

Kyoto is our death warrant! IT'S IN REVELATIONS, PEOPLE!

Posted by: Dave S. at May 29, 2004 at 03:53 PM

Andrea, I think you underestimate the above-average stupidity of the average male. Myself included. (Sorry all the other blokes reading this, but it's true, you know it.)

Posted by: TimT at May 29, 2004 at 04:41 PM

I don't know if I've ever posted a comment at Mr. Blair's blog before... I actually want to post a comment at this past entry of his, which I just came across (it is troubling, the flawed and absurd logic, and statist, left-wing arguments that some there used to justify their positions), but I don't think that comments can be posted at that entry now.

As for the topic in this particular entry, I don't really know anything about this particular film. The Weekly Standard, by the way, supported the R.I.N.O. John McCain for President in the 2000 primary elections, and more recently praised another liberal U.S. Senator, John Kerry, for advocating that more U.S. troops be sent to Iraq. It is a pretty bad magazine.

Posted by: Aakash at May 29, 2004 at 04:42 PM

I won't be seeing "TDAT", as I didn't see "The Patriot", or "Godzilla". Emmerich got my last cent after "ID4". That on top of "Stargate" was enough to convince me that all his films are made with a pre-schooler, a whiteboard and an egg timer for the script, and US$100M for the explosions.

The average Thunderbirds episode does the same schtick way cooler, and with better excuses for wooden acting.

Posted by: Craig Mc at May 29, 2004 at 07:17 PM

I want one of those sheep so badly!

Posted by: Liz at May 29, 2004 at 09:54 PM

TO: Tim Blair
RE: Horror!

"... the hostile, unearthly expression worn by the monster in the second pic." -- Tim Blair


I just finished reading The Legacy of Heorot. That thing is grinning like a grendal!

The fleece is just camoflage for the flexible armor. They bobbed their tails. Who on earth imported these things from Tau Ceti IV?



Posted by: Chuck Pelto at May 30, 2004 at 12:02 AM


Heh. Now you've got me thinking of turbocharged killer sheep. Legacy of Heorot is a great book. Beware the sequel though, it's not nearly as good.

Rather like how The Moat Around God's Eye was such a poor follow up effort to The Mote in God's Eye (and after a 10 -15 year wait, a terrible disappointment).

Posted by: bargarz at May 30, 2004 at 01:12 AM

Just to let you know how bad this film is, NPfrickin'R panned it for bad politically motivated science. Truly a flying pig moment...

Posted by: Cybrludite at May 30, 2004 at 01:25 AM

I think we've forgotten the most important element in any disaster movie (as seen in the Airport franchise)--nuns with guitars. Doesn't get any scarier than that!

I can't wait until the crew that made the Airplane and Hot Shots movie do a parody of TDAT.

Posted by: kj at May 30, 2004 at 02:46 AM


Posted by: Mr. Bingley at May 30, 2004 at 03:14 AM

Aakaash, keep on topic. I delete comments that wander off into never-never land. You have your own blog, or blog outlets, I see, and the proper place for worrying at your own concerns are those outlets, not random comment threads on other blogs.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 30, 2004 at 03:19 AM

anybody notice how the LoonyLefty™ scientists always make sure that they're able to say "we told you so!!!?
exhibit a: they really have no clue about whether temperature variations in the world are caused by man's (i.e. bushhitlerronaldraygun) activities or are simply part of the natural cycle which is rather unfortunately well documented by all availible evidence, so they produce a movie which has global warming leading to global freezing.

brilliant, really.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at May 30, 2004 at 03:19 AM

Well, as I think I kind of indicated in that comment, I would have liked to have posted a comment at that other entry, but I think that comments there are no longer permitted.

Posted by: Aakash at May 30, 2004 at 04:54 AM

TO: bargarz
RE: Beoralph's Chidren

Yeah, the sequel reminded me of a latter-day Heinlein on qualudes and groupies.



Posted by: Chuck Pelto at May 30, 2004 at 06:04 AM

TO: Mr. Bingley
RE: Nursery Rhymes

"ummm...lambchops...yummm" -- Mr. Bingley

Mary had a little lamb....

...with mint sauce.

Bon Appetite,


Posted by: Chuck Pelto at May 30, 2004 at 06:06 AM

P.S. I'm afraid of what he'll do if he ever decides to finish the Janissaries series.

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at May 30, 2004 at 06:11 AM

Aakash, comments are closed on all old posts. There is no "think" about it. And if you want to comment on old posts, the solution is to do it on your own fucking blog. If Tim is sufficiently intrigued by what you have to say about his old post, he may write a new post about it and then you can have a conversation about it to your heart's content. Until then, simply deal with the fact that this isn't a random free-for-all message board.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 30, 2004 at 08:57 AM

By the way, if you are wondering why I'm making such a big fuss, it's because I administer this website. With an iron hand.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 30, 2004 at 08:58 AM

Chuck(le) — For manly science fiction these days, the hot new boys on the block are John Ringo with his Legacy of Aldenata series (the first volume, A Hymn Before Battle, is available for free download through the Baen Library at and David Weber with the Honor Harrington series. Plus David Drake is still plugging along...

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at May 30, 2004 at 09:22 AM

TO: Richard McEnroe
RE: New Books

I'll have to check them out soon. I'm running out of things to read, other than blogs, that is.

TO: Andrea harris
RE: Such a Temper(ment)

"...the solution is to do it on your own fucking blog." -- Andrea Harris

Bad day today?



Posted by: Chuck Pelto at May 30, 2004 at 10:06 AM

Chuck, it's always a bad day when someone disobeys me. (Cracks whip.)

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 30, 2004 at 10:12 AM

TO: Andrea Harris

RE: Right on! (lol)

CC: Everyone in the comment thread

Dear Andrea,

Right on!



Posted by: Sortelli at May 30, 2004 at 11:43 AM

Chuck, it's always a bad day when someone disobeys me. (Cracks whip.)

Yes, mistress. ;-)

Posted by: rosignol at May 30, 2004 at 01:16 PM


You've probably already twigged this from the comments above, but since you're new around here, I'll give you four valuable words of advice about this blog:



Posted by: Pacman at May 30, 2004 at 01:44 PM

Actually the limits here are liberal enough for reasonable folks who don’t enter sounding from the gitgo like there’s something wrong with the limits here—i.e, who don’t enter seeming ready to wrassle for a little power & influence over the framework here, ready to try to make a site manager’s job harder for no good reason. Give those vibes off & Andrea will respond to you atque subvenire tibi Cthulhu ipse non volet etsi vocares Cthulhu Cthulhu spiritum meum devorari per te volo Cthulhu.

Posted by: ForNow` at May 30, 2004 at 04:53 PM

well I went to see the day after tomorrow with my young child.. as the schools were on strike (thats my excuse) - I love watching sci fi and special effects and the tornados and freezing sequences and special effects were visually a lot of fun.. I can happily lay aside my critical faculties and just enjoy what a film has to offer. great disaster visuals

I loved the tornado sequence, and could have watched that a few more minutes, lots of wind swirling around.

the storms, the snow, the ice, were all a lot of fun

and really, the characters were palpably thin and wooden and for those who who cannot lay aside critical faculties the pathetic attempts at political commentary. luckily my child is too young to pick up on the politics, so I didnt have to explain a lot. But she said they were doing stupid things now and then, so I explained, that if they didnt do the stupid things that the film would end sooner so they had to get them running out into the snow and the wolves chasing them..

I really had to push the critical faculties back a bit when the whole room listened to the young boys advice about staying inside.. as it was an attack on older people being wiser. whilst they showed the older less educated black policeman as the ignorant one (was that unintentional racialism)...

the president was made to look stupid, and I was a bit puzzled if the vp based on cheney. There are so many conspiracy theories that cheney secretly rules the USA that when he took over and apologized (something everyone wasnt GW Bush to do about everything) that I lost track as to which conspiracy theory this was based on. Isnt GW Bush the puppet and cheney the evil puppeteer, therefore why kill the puppet? wouldnt it work the other way around..

maybe I missed the relevant conspiracy theory website for this senario. after all theres the moon landing never happened vs the moon landing happened and they hid the aliens..

maybe its the same with cheney-busy. maybe cheney is the puppet on the sites I missed.

so in this film. the young make all the wise decisions. those associated with those who were wise to the global catastrophes all along were sacrificing themselves all over the place.

and the northern hemisphere froze over, ie europe and the USA leaving the refugees to run to mexico and third world countries where they lovingly held out their arms in welcome (according to the vp who became president after the president was killed in an unfortuate accident that sounded like many modern democrats favourite fantasy)

mexico is firmly anti war of course, and is the hero here.

there was a big inference that europeans were taken lovingly into the bosom of war ravaged africa when they said all northern hemisphere inhabitants were now in third world countries.
the final note being that all of thse countries have higher moral values that we are unable to see under the wars and terrors many of them are currently perpetrating on their own poeples, just waiting for an enlightened film producer to poitn out.

oh, and I am NOT watching the film any more. so did I ever say I would not criticse AFTERWARDS?

Posted by: d at May 30, 2004 at 05:23 PM

In all seriousness....

Go see the movie! No really. I saw it today and found it very enteraining and fun. I don't even think its a bad movie. No, really! But, its obvious that its makers think it is far more serious than it is. As long as you don't you WILL have a good time, because you will be laughing or chuckling through the whole thing.

Even my friend, who hates GWB, thoroughly enjoyed it. But..... I guess I'd suggest seeing a need to spend $10 bucks ya know?

Posted by: Richard at May 30, 2004 at 05:24 PM

Andrea, this is an understatement, but you're getting quite a reputation, judging from the nicknames you're getting:

Andrea "Can't you fucking read? Don't you have eyes in your fucking head?" Harris (From ILNXS, or whatever his name is, on this blog)
Andrea "you're a poopyhead" Harris. (Mork, on Tim Dunlop's blog)
Andrea "the solution is to do it on your own fucking blog" Harris. (This blog)

Posted by: TimT at May 30, 2004 at 10:00 PM

No, I haven't seen TDAT yet. But I do have fond memories of some of the quirky stuff in "Independence Day":

- The White House blowing up. (Of course, that was during the Clinton Administration.)

- The armada of Winnebagos driving across the desert to the secret Army installation.

- "Data" in a fright wig and saying, "They don't let us out often."

- Jeff Goldblum doing his endearing stammer.

- Will Smith at the controls of the alien spacecraft, shouting "I just gotta get me one of these!"

- The killer aliens, with their killer technology and hundred-mile-long spacecraft - all running Microsoft Windows.

Tell me, O tell me that TDAT has quirks like these - that it isn't just special effects and earnestness.

Posted by: Brown Line at May 30, 2004 at 11:36 PM

"Andrea, this is an understatement, but you're getting quite a reputation"

Oh really? (Examines fingernails, applies file to one that looks a tad dull.) Tell me more.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 31, 2004 at 01:57 AM

TO: Pacman, rosignol, et al
RE: Hardly...

"You've probably already twigged this from the comments above, but since you're new around here, I'll give you four valuable words of advice about this blog:


I'm not 'new here'. I'm just an occassional poster. Andrea and I have crossed (s)words before. Albeit mostly off-line.

TO: Andrea Harris
RE: Whips?

Not particularly effective. I prefer a rapier. Or a .45 ACP. Then again, I've done some interesting things with electricity. [Note: I thought those bozos in that MP unit were holding impromptu Prop-Blast ceremonies, when I saw that pic of the guy 'wired for sound'. Got PO'd. They're nothing but a bunch of legs. They have no right.]



Posted by: Chuck Pelto at May 31, 2004 at 02:51 AM

P.S. Or we could just 'go to the mats'.

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at May 31, 2004 at 03:04 AM

I don't fight the unarmed.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 31, 2004 at 04:08 AM

I thought “Hardly...” was addressed to Aakash.

Posted by: ForNow at May 31, 2004 at 04:34 AM

TO: Andrea Harris
RE: Unarmed?

Oh. I got 'arms'. Two of them. And two feet, too.


[I may not always be 'armed', but who needs weapons to get 'up close and personal'?]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at May 31, 2004 at 07:16 AM

You're holding that rapier by the wrong end, Chucklehead.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 31, 2004 at 11:24 AM

When we see everyone in northern Australia fleeing to Melbourne to escape the ice age, we'll know it really is fiction.

Altogether, now: "There's got to be a morning after..."

Posted by: narkynark at May 31, 2004 at 02:38 PM

TO: Andrea Harris
RE: The Wrong End?

Hardly, as I'm not into masochism, madam. Nor self-inflicted wounds.

However, if you're not into direct physical contact, how about IFV's, with full infantry compliments, at 10 klicks?


[God is alive...and airborne-ranger qualified.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at June 1, 2004 at 01:29 AM

TO: Tim Blair & Others
RE: A Good Disaster Movie...

...could be made from Niven and Pournelle's classic Lucifer's Hammer.

And it would be much more plausible too.


P.S. We ARE a bit overdue for another cosmic whack. The evidence building is that we seem to get something like a 100-300 meter diameter comet or something ever so often. The last one being around 542 AD, which brought on the infamous Dark Ages. I think the mean time was around 500 years. And it's been almost 1500 years since that last event.

Admittedly, such things do not run like a bus schedule, but they do happen. Witness Shoemaker-Levi. If that had happened here, we'd of been history for some alien archeologists to study in '94.

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at June 1, 2004 at 01:36 AM


What about the Tunguksa event in 1908? That comet didn't leave a crater, but it certainly left an impression. Besides, cosmic impacts are old news for a movie. Check out Deep Impact and Armageddon.

Oh, and I couldn't find any references to a cosmic impact in AD 542. And if there was one, it didn't cause the Dark Ages -- that era was due to the collapse of the Roman Empire and a slide into barbarism. The Little Ice Ages in Western Europe between 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850 were well after that. The cause of those events are uncertain, but seem to be variations in the Earth's climate.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 1, 2004 at 02:26 AM

TO: The Real Jeffs
RE: Tunguska Event of 1908

But that event didn't generate the global 'winter' that the other 5 events, starting with the one that was the source of the Biblical Flood (Iraq/Mesopotamia c. 1650 BC) did.

The "Little Ice Age" was more than likely the result of a solar cycle, akin to the 11-year solar max cycle. There is a growing body of evidence that there are more cycles in that star than we are currently aware of. A recently discovered 206-year cycle correlates well with the collapse of the Mayan and Anasazi cultures and the 1930s Dust Bowl.

Deep Impact and Armageddon were 'okay', but not nearly as good as Lucifer's Hammer could be.



Posted by: Chuck Pelto at June 1, 2004 at 04:47 AM

TO: The Real Jeffs
RE: Correction

That should be c. 2350 BC. Not 1650 BC. Had my dates mixed up. The c.1650 BC event was actually around 1628 BC and relates to the detonation of Thera. There is some speculation that the Thera event might have been triggered by a cometary impact, but it's rather 'iffy' information.

Sorry for my confusion.



Posted by: Chuck Pelto at June 1, 2004 at 07:43 PM