Roland Emmerich's 2012 was the worst science fiction movie ever made, according to a couple of NASA scientists fed up with having to explain that the world isn't really going to end next year. The blockbuster movie, staring John Cusack, took around $100 million at the box office but with continents crumbling, a tsunami overwhelming Mount Everest and asteroids flying around everywhere, it may be great fun to watch but is a travesty of science, state NASA.
The problems are, far from affecting the Earth's core as the movie suggests, neutrinos originating from the sun do little more than screw up radio broadcasts. Nevertheless, both before and since the movie's release last year, it has had a stream of concerned members of the public asking what they should do when the time comes with some even accusing NASA of being part of a conspiracy to cover up the impending end of the world. "Most of what's claimed for 2012 relies on wishful thinking, wild pseudoscientific folly, ignorance of astronomy, and a level of paranoia worthy of Night of the Living Dead," said E C Krupp, director of Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles. In the end, NASA felt obliged to set up a special website debunking much of the film's more egregious scientific howlers. Other blockbusters that come in for a slating from NASA include The Core, Armageddon and Volcano. But NASA praised some other science fiction movies for showing a little more scientific understanding. These included Gattaca, Contact and Metropolis. Jurassic Park was also singled out for explaining genetics accurately and clearly.