Moreover — and to reunite strands of the ?lmic that I have temporarily considered discretely — what happens when these technologies, coupled with the imaginative possibilities of worlds disrupted from within (terrorist attacks, freak weather, human error, resurrected dinosaurs) or without (aliens/‘outer space’, apocalypse, Armageddon), are dwarfed in affective power by poor quality, hand-held video footage of the 9/11 planes, or tourist images of Indonesia or Malaysia after the tsunami? In an industry that relies not only upon happily-ever-afters for consumer catharsis, but (re-) presenting the climatic life-or-death moment for fetishistic consumption, is the disaster movie rendered impotent by mediatised sights of ‘the real’? One reason to respond in the negative to this ?nal question is axiomatic, and something to which I alluded towards the opening of this discussion: the ?lmic, in this sense, invites (indeed