The world ends in '2012,' or does it?

Posted Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 3:09 PM Central

by John Couture

If you've seen any of the previews at all for the upcoming disaster porn flick 2012, then you know that director Roland Emmerich picks up where he leaves off in Independence Day. The guy likes to destroy things, as much as I'm sure Michael Bay likes to play with robots and blow stuff up.

Forget the French, I think Emmerich easily holds the record for the number of times he's destroyed the White House. So, it holds that since the whole thrust of the movie involves the predicted end of the world on December 21, 2012 that it would limit your sequel choices, right? Wrong.

Entertainment Weekly is reporting that talks are under way with ABC to develop a TV series called "2013" that would be a sequel of sorts to the movie. Basically, the series would follow a group of forgotten survivors here on Earth and how they deal with the "end of the world" and go about rebuilding civilization.

Oops, I guess I should have said "spoiler" in there somewhere, but honestly how does that give away anything in the movie? I'm assuming (big assumption here) that the movie doesn't end with the annihilation of the human race. That would be a bit of a downer, no? But, I'm pretty sure that the movie will lead you to believe that everyone left on Earth perished.

But I think it's reasonable to assume that even in a mass extinction event, there would be some small survival rate at least initially given the vast scope of the world. Well, unless of course the Empire just happens to be testing out their new Death Star. In that scenario, all bets are off.

The movie is set to hit theaters next Friday and if the box office returns are good, then "2013" will most assuredly show up on your TV next year. Still, a full two years before the Mayans predicted that the world would end.

What do you think about this sequel idea? How would you like the world to end? With a whimper or with a Death Star blast?