Talk:The Core/Archive 1

lack

There should probably be a film poster here, in case anyone besides me is interested. Scorpionman 00:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Boiling water note

I removed this section:

"A beam of microwaves is shown wreaking havoc in San Francisco. When it hits the water, the water boils almost instantaneously. While water does capture microwave energy relatively efficiently, it does not instantly boil. It must first be heated to its boiling point and then receive additional energy to surpass the heat of vaporization. Sunlight cannot do this, since the volume of water is too great. The entire bay would have to be heated to the boiling point before any of the water could boil."

This is not true. If water (or any other material) is heated very fast in one place, the heat exchange does not take a place (or it does not transfer significant amount of heat so fast), so one part of the body can reach boiling point and even evaporate, while other parts would remain (at least for some initial time) cooler. You can imagine this like when forger is forging an iron rod, one end is so hot, it is red, and the other end is cooler. Or when you put a spoon into cup of hot tea, it takes some time to heat the end not in tea, while at same time, the "tea end" of the spoon would be hot. Heating the water to boil as depicted in the movie has to be extremely fast, but generaly the quoted paragraph is not true.

Ship issues

As I remember it, the only part of the ship that collapsed under pressure was the first part to be ejected (The weapons control). In that case, the hull had been breached (which should have been a bit more devastating than a slow crush) but this is different from the other ejections where a section was ejected in tact. I can't believe I'm defending this :)

Also, citation needed on "vilated second law" etc, converting energy is ok, you just can't create it. So i'm deleting that.

Original research in the Scientific Inaccuracies section

I've tagged the Scientific Inaccuracies section for lack of references and the possibility of original research. This section should only include inaccuracies whose identities as such are verifiable by reliable sources that actually discuss the movie. It is indeed tempting to point out every instance in such movies where the plot disagrees with accepted science, but to infer that "Movie says X, but science says not-X, therefore, movie is wrong" is original synthesis. Even if you avoid directly making the inference, the mere juxtaposition of scientific beliefs with events in the movie contitutes original research by mere implication (and if not, they're wholly irrelevant). I'm going to look for sources when I have time, and I suggest that anyone who wishes for the section to stay do the same, for at some point I'm going to delete what can't be sourced. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, and to disagree! I challenged the deletion of the "Scientific Innaccuracies" section previously, as I feel it has value. Whilst I agree that under normal circumstances a discussion of a movie simply to discount all of the "science" therein could be deemed destructive (e.g. "Lightsabers in Star Wars are technically impossible, therefore...."), I feel that The Core deserves a little extra merit simply because of the nature of the science contained within it. In no other film have I seen a film where the entire premise relies upon scientific inaccuracies and invented science. Almost every scientific device used in the film is fatally flawed in some fashion, and I feel these flaws deserve to be highlighted. These both criticise and also elevate the film, highlighting how bad the science is, but at the same time celebrating the sheer brazen usage of said "bad science", to create entertaining popcorn fun with a casual disregard for any genuine accuracy. I got as much pleasure from reading all the scientific flaws in this article as I did from watching the movie, it helped me to fully reinforce my "suspended disbelief" by making it absolutely clear this wasn't science used for authenticity, or with subtlety, but instead used and abused blatantly and deliberately and with no apologies made. Sometimes it's nice to see just how many liberties the filmmakers took, and how much fun they had sidestepping all of the technical hurdles by simply making stuff up. This article goes a long way to helping The Core become more than a cheesy Sci-Fi movie, this article makes it feel more like some crazy spoof of every Sci-Fi movie, showing that you really can do anything you like, and call it whatever you want, and to hell with credibility! Hope this helps keep the SI section alive! --Damage (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm glad someone else is also bothered by this awful section. It has no business being here; not only is it a bizarre collection of often-false nitpickery, it also spectacularly fails any test of relevance one might care to devise, completely misses the point of a movie that bunks its science at a very high level (viz. "unobtanium"), and frankly makes the Wiki look like it is written by clueless and humorless people with pocket protectors. It's as out of place here as a detailed discussion of aeronautics and banking flight maneuvers would be in a Star Trek summary - this stuff simply has absolutely nothing to do with the film.

  Damage, I take your point about guilty pleasures, but that's really here nor there for this article, which is a Wikipedia entry on the all-star comedy adventure major motion picture The Core. As such, it should concern itself with the movie, not with an off-topic list of cruft that is pretty much completely either Original Research, whole-cloth speculation, or wrong.

  Much as I sympathize with your view that "This article goes a long way to helping The Core become more than a cheesy Sci-Fi movie," that is not in the scope or purpose of the Wiki. I recommend this be moved to userspace or relocated to a web page somewhere, it really can't stay here. I'll move it to this Talk page for archival purposes in a couple of days, barring a consensus against. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked for sources directly related to the movie, and all that turned up were blogs, forums, and close equivalents; nothing I found approached a reliable source. There may be something to be found in professional reviews, but Amazon didn't list any besides its own, which made no mention of inaccuracies. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I would vote in favor of retaining the "Scientific inaccuracies" section because the errors in this move were exceptionally glaring. Just my humble opinion :-| ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

We could always open a request for comment to get more opinions. The thing is that, while some of this might be verifiable, it is pretty obvious original research. The question then is whether it is sufficiently important to be worth ignoring that rule, which I don't see a strong argument for; IAR exists to prevent policies from damaging the encyclopedia, not to prevent policies from achieving their purpose for existing. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Haven't been on this page for a year or so, noticed that the mistakes section had vanished. While no doubt there are websites devoted to this sort of thing, I think highlighting the mistakes is a good educational device - the movie certainly is thought provoking, and a lot of people who see it will come to Wikipedia for more information. A point by point rebuttal, while being largely uncited, is in effect an index to learning more about the many scientific and geological areas touched upon by the film. At the least a more obvious link to the Bad Astronomy site might be an idea. Kenneth Charles 12:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If one believes in Lagrange's assumption (proven for certain cases by Noeter) the mechanical momentum of the Earth is conserved ... even in the presence of arbitrary friction. The moon will add a P too, but given the 1-mo rotation it will be a few percent only. A stopped (relative to the stars) core will cause something else to take the relative P. That'll be the rest of mantle and crust. It'll need to rotate 2x faster. Atomic bombs wont help as only mechanical energy is released ... not momentum. All the before bang and after bang momentums are all 0. Nuclear, quantum, mechanical, angular, linear, etc, momentum are not the same stuff, unlike energy.220.240.225.135 (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Descent (2005 film) with similar plot

There's a movie with a very similar plot, called "Descent (2005 film)". Oops requires the secret capability to read reviews.. ;-) Electron9 (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

There a no citations that it has it is similar to The Core (on either article) and has not been previously mentioned in The Core's article. Look at this guy who compares Star Trek XI to Star Wars Episode IV. Looking at it that way, the plots are virtually identical (though that's no bad thing). However, that is also original research and no comments are made on either article about the plots being similar (though there are references in the STXI article about Abrams being influenced by Wars) and there are no links to each other in the See Also section of the articles (possibly because they don't have See Also sections, but whatever). If you would like, we can leave it off the article for now but invite other editors to establish a consensus. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether the plots are similar or not, I don't think there's a reason to link the articles unless there's an actual connection between the films. If one is a remake, a knockoff, or a clone of the other, then it might be relevant. Otherwise, they're just two movies with shared story elements. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What about Deep Core (film) from 2000 identical Story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:C81B:7600:DC9D:930F:CBEB:A668 (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Article with movie director on scientific accuracy of the film

[1] dropping the link to be included later. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

grammar/construction of Plot section sentence three

Someone who has seen the movie needs to rewrite the sentence about the death of the captain to use present tense and to explain what or who falls into the magma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.111.84.187 (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

DESTINI or Destiny?

Although the acronym explanation suggests the project is called DESTINI, all on-screen references in the film use the spelling Project Destiny (numerous messages on computer screens, the headlines at the end, and at least one time/location caption, in addition to the signs refered to in the trivia section of the article). Perhaps we should either just adopt this spelling in the article, or point it out as an error? 81.76.116.141 22:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

DESTINI is when it is called. That is how they spell it in the film.3rd captian Gin Ichimaru (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

DESTINI is the program which included the seismic weapon; Destiny is the mission featured mainly in the film, in which they team is journeying to the core. So...both are correct, but refer to separate things. 23:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlloyd3 (talk • contribs)

Anybody have a screenplay? Jimw338 (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not correct. At the 20:06 mark in the movie, Zimsky pulls out a top secret folder marked "Project Destiny", this is seconds after he first realizes there might be a problem with the core, and it's also long before anyone suggests that they need to travel to the core, and at this point, he has no way of knowing that Delroy Lindo has finished making something that can travel to the core. It is impossible following that chronology for the voyage to the core, to also be the "Project Destiny" referred to on the cover of this folder at this point in time, as that plan doesn't exist yet, they don't even know someone else is going to suggest they need to go there yet. Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

Unless someone has a source for showing that somewhere in the movie, this is referred to as "DESTINI", I will be re-reverting the reverts of my edit by @Masem. What is the basis for the claim that the name is an acronym? Am I missing something obvious here?? Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête}

"DESTINI" is coming directly from the dialog line "Deep Earth Seismic Trigger Initiative" that spells it out as an acronym for the project; further most RSes on this film use this spelling. From what I have read, the fact that the onscreen labels/etc used "Destiny" is a result of the plot line being added as a last minute change for test audience per the DVD commentary (which I have not seen), that the FX dept did not get the right message on, apparently. --Masem (t) 15:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I have screenshot the first moment of the movie when the document is pulled out that says "Project Destiny", can you give me a reference time for the line of dialog that claims to be the source for the acronym? Otherwise, this feels like NOR doesn't it? Regardless of what "other places" have used, do we have an actual source for the assertion that it is "DESTINI"? (here is a screenshot from the 20:06 point in the movie, before there's a plan to go into the core, this is straight from the movie, and I'll leave it here long enough for ppl to confirm it. https://www.dropbox.com/s/d17qp6e5tvw67lw/PXL_20201212_082913596.jpg?dl=0 ). It would seem to me, that even if other research claims they *meant* it to be DESTINI, but the FX dept got it wrong, that in fact, the movie is what it is, and in this case, it's "Destiny", despite whatever it could have/would have/should have been. Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, its specifically said in the dialog of the film, not on screen. I know the visuals say differently, but the line of dialog spells it out as an acronym with a trailing I. --Masem (t) 17:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Update: I found the dialog in question.

1:25:27 Zimsky: "It's a device. Deep Earth Seismic Trigger Initiative, "D-E-S-T-I-N-I". We had reason to believe that our enemies were building a weapon that could generate targetted seismic events. They would be able to create massive earthquakes under our territory. No way of telling who did it. So? So, we built one too.

And while my immediate understanding of that dialog is, that he thinks it's called "D-E-S-T-I-N-I", that is not what the movie shows, I don't see how this line should overrule about a half dozen visual printouts of the actual name of the project. In addition to that, if you carefully read the English here, he says the device built by "our enemies" is called "D-E-S-T-I-N-I", and because of what it does, "we built one too". Even if you don't read it that way (and I grant, that's not the most obvious reading, even if it is slightly ambiguous), I don't think this one line of character dialog is strong enough to override the multiple visuals onscreen (including all the shots when Rat is hacking the defense department to shut it down, every single relevant screen says "Destiny". I count at least 6 "in-movie official" sources for the spelling of Destiny, and zero sources that back up Zimsky's claim, despite what Zimsky wants to believe... and with his ego, maybe he just felt it was clever and he wanted to use that name, but that's not what the army did, I dunno, but I don't see how this 1 line from a character can override so many on-screen refutations of his claim, especially when the onscreen references are from the authoritative source in the movie (the US govt owns this project, they named it, not him), and his dialog is not. If it's helpful, I can give you the timecodes for every single time that the name "Destiny" or "Project Destiny" appears onscreen, they're numerous. Also I just noticed this too, yet another authoritative reference, at the 1:33:35 mark, this one is harder to see, but the giant screen in the background of the Project Destiny control room (when James is called over to take a phone call), you can see on the screen at the top (on the right), it's hard to read if you don't have a big screen, but it says "Project Destiny" and the next line is a bunch of text that's smaller, and I can't read that even with my projection system showing it to me at 8ft across... More easily readable from another shot at 1:36:15, it very clearly says Project Destiny, on the wall, at the facility. This seems pretty much the end of "DESTINI" claim here. Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 17:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not doubting the visual placements of "Destiny" over DESTINI. But as I said, from what I can see of where the issue is, this is explained on the DVD commentary, that the whole subplot on DESTINI/Destiny was added after test screenings, so creating the inconsistency between the screenplay and the visuals. The screenplay (and thus the given dialog) is considered the authorative source since it explains why the project is named that, and thus we have tended to ignore the visual mismatch. --Masem (t) 17:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm ok with changing the text to refer to the fact that the "out of universe" intention was for it to be "DESTINI" somehow, but the fact remains, this is about the movie, not the screenplay, and there's nothing in the movie itself that validates Zimsky's assertion, and we have many scenes that refute it. I'll try and find the DVD commentary so I can learn more, I think I do own the DVD (somewhere!), but I'm still not convinced it's relevant to the point of changing my opinion, which is that that the movie calls it Project Destiny, regardless of what they "might have wanted" to call it. Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 18:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

When I look to books (via Google Books search) and news articles from RSes (these mostly reviews of the film), they all state "DESTINI" and the acronym expansion that Zimsky states, and do not mention "Destiny". Now, if we can can reliably source that the movie visuals say one thing and Zimsky says another (if that is in the DVD commentary), we can footnote the difference but we should be following the RSes way of presenting the name of the project. --Masem (t) 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow that logic, we can already reliably source that the movie visuals say one thing and Zimsky says another. Both of those things are literally in the movie, which, I'm pretty sure is also RS. Is it not? Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 05:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Problematic addition

An IP user has repeatedly added a new piece to the article:

"...To Mixed Reviews And Grossed Only $74 Million Against An Production Budget Of $85 Million."

1) In English, capitalization of words occurs in limited circumstances, not with every word.

2) "An" is used as an indefinite article only when the following word starts with a vowel sound. Otherwise, "a" is used.

3) "Mixed reviews" is synthesis, as we do not have a reliable source saying this. It is your judgment.

4) "Only" is your judgment as well.

The most you can say here is "...and grossed $74 million against a production budget of $85 million." - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with points 1 and 2 only, and they should be changed (this seems to have already been done).

However, on point 3, we have several sources, some claim the movie was good, some claim the movie was bad. That is by definition, "mixed", this is not synthesis. Synthesis is when you take 2 (or more) unrelated facts, and you merge them together to make a new point. That is not the case here. eg: One reliable source says an object is blue, and another reliable source says the object is red. It is not synthesis to say there are mixed opinions on the colour of the object.

Regarding point 4, it's not a judgement call, as the second half of the sentence contains the phrase "against a production budget of...", which is a direct comparison to the actual budget. In this case, "only" makes sense, as it's a qualifier that indicates that it was not enough to recoup the costs of production. Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 18:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Destiny or DESTINI, again

Ok, I've looked at it from every angle, but at the end of the day, I can't get past what seems obvious.

Even if the source material is a book, and spells it one way, the movie does not. There is no reason to continue to refer to it by the book's acronym, even with the claim made by Zimsky. "Destiny" is clearly in the movie as the project name, as it's written plainly in multiple places, as previously discussed (currently sitting in Archive 1, along with multiple examples throughout the movie showing only the "Destiny" spelling written on screens, dossiers, and walls). We could note that the book has an alternate spelling that is an acronym, which is what Zimsky refers to, but, that is conjecture on our part. The movie says it's "Destiny", the book says it's "DESTINI", but this isn't a page about the book. Many movies make changes beyond the source material, I don't think it's up to us to decide which ones we choose to use, and which ones we don't. The Movie shows us "Destiny" in too many places to ignore, and not once does it show us "DESTINI". I think this change has to be made. I think you are right that it's a screw-up in the movie, and someone dropped the ball in the props and background departments, but again, that's not for us to decide. The fact remains that throughout the movie, all official sources in-universe, refer to it as "Destiny".

I'm happy to discuss it further if you have additional reasons why you think it should not be changed, but if not, then I will be making this change in a few days. Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 17:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that we're not supposed to make interpretation from source material. Using "freeze frame" screenshots to prove something different compared to direct dialog from a character is problematic in that area. We may be able to footnote that "visuals in the movie show the spelling as "DESTINY" but the dialog takes precedence here. --Masem (t) 18:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

But we're not interpreting, we're literally taking it from the movie, as written on the screen. That is, in fact, what the military of this movie-universe called it, over and over. I don't think the book as "source material", is relevant to what's actually in the movie, for the reasons I mentioned above. Also, the dialog from Zimsky only shows that's what he thinks it's called (or what he personally refers to it as, or what he wanted it to be called). That's not backed up by anything else in the movie, maybe he wanted it to be that, maybe he even invented the acronym (his character certainly has enough ego to want to push to have it done "his way" even if the military had already decided against it), but none of that matters really, Zimsky is not an authority above what's written in the movie in plain sight without any need for interpretation. If we can come up with a couple sentences that explain the issue clearly, without making a mess of it all, I'm ok with that, otherwise, I think it still makes more sense to go with what's actually in the movie, not what we think it was supposed to be, but isn't.

If you think it'd be helpful, I'm happy to request a wp:3O on this issue too. Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 19:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Home media

That's if someone wants to add the section in.

The Core was released on DVD (on separate full screen and widescreen releases) on September 9, 2003 by Paramount Home Entertainment. It was later released on Blu-ray on March 22, 2022 by Shout! Factory. A 4K release is set for March 14, 2023 (on the film's 20th anniversary) by Paramount Home Entertainment, making this the first film to receive a DVD and 4K by its sole studio while its Blu-ray release was handled by another home video company.

Hope it's not too wordy at the end. XSMan2016 (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC) XSMan2016 (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Blu-ray.com isn't a reliable source for release date information. This has come up at WP:FILM. Is another source available?. DonIago (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

How about DVDs Release Dates.com?

XSMan2016 (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

You could use IGN for the DVD release. Or AllMovie since it lists all the home media releases. I could not find a source to collaborate "the first film to receive a DVD and 4K by its sole studio while its Blu-ray release was handled by another home video company" Mike Allen 05:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

References

subject

what is the setting of the movie THE CORE? 119.93.252.96 (talk) 04:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)