For the cinephile members here, why do you think this movie was/is appealing? Personally, I love this movie, but I can certainly sense that there is a difference between it and movies that are considered "classics" (or part of your criterion collection).
For the cinephile members here, why do you think this movie was/is appealing?
Liv Tyler.
I really liked this movie when it came out but as I have gotten older it just doesn't work as well for me anymore, except this scene with Steve Buscemi.
Joined: Apr 2001 Posts: 121,384PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,384
Miami, FL USA
Here's the deal with the movie IMHO.
1. Even with its huge number of factual and technical inaccuracies, it's still an entertaining movie to watch.
2. The main cast members had some great chemistry and some of the humor was pretty well written and acted.
Having said that, I watched the movie maybe 2 or 3 times and that was enough. I haven't seen it now for at least 10 years or so.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
a) Yes b) I'm sorry, but I can't get past the GLARING issue that comets have a closure rate of 10...40km per second, and the Shuttle's orbital limit is a mere 400km above ground.
It can't match velocity with the comet, and even if it could they would have only 40 seconds to drill the hole under the best of circumstances, probably just 15.
The rest, I can live with. I doubt that Texan oil drillers can be qualified for EVA operations within a few weeks, but I'm willing to look past that, and a lot of other nonsense. But the fundamental premise of the film is SO wrong, there simply is not enough handwavium in this universe.
Joined: Apr 2001 Posts: 121,384PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,384
Miami, FL USA
Originally Posted by Ssnake
a) Yes b) I'm sorry, but I can't get past the GLARING issue that comets have a closure rate of 10...40km per second, and the Shuttle's orbital limit is a mere 400km above ground.
It can't match velocity with the comet, and even if it could they would have only 40 seconds to drill the hole under the best of circumstances, probably just 15.
The rest, I can live with. I doubt that Texan oil drillers can be qualified for EVA operations within a few weeks, but I'm willing to look past that, and a lot of other nonsense. But the fundamental premise of the film is SO wrong, there simply is not enough handwavium in this universe.
You make valid points and while I agree that the technical and scientific errors are HUGE, they were probably only noticed by about 5% of the mainstream movie public.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
Yeah, this is one of those check your brains at the door types of films that somehow still manages to be entertaining. If you think to much into it, you just can't watch it. For instance, why did they go up to the asteroid so heavily armed. What the hell were they expecting to encounter!? And wouldn't it have been a better idea to give some astronauts a quick course in mining, than to give a bunch of uneducated nutcases a quick course in space travel?
"From our orbital vantage point, we observe an earth without borders, full of peace, beauty and magnificence, and we pray that humanity as a whole can imagine a borderless world as we see it, and strive to live as one in peace." Astronaut William C. McCool RIP, January 29, 2003 - Space Shuttle Columbia
Joined: Apr 2001 Posts: 121,384PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,384
Miami, FL USA
Originally Posted by Pooch
And wouldn't it have been a better idea to give some astronauts a quick course in mining, than to give a bunch of uneducated nutcases a quick course in space travel?
Yup! But then it would have been boring and the opportunity for comedy not nearly as great.
Speaking of "check your brain at the door" movies, check this one out that will be coming out soon:
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
You make valid points and while I agree that the technical and scientific errors are HUGE, they were probably only noticed by about 5% of the mainstream movie public.
That's no excuse, really. They could have presented a prototype rocket that could reach the comet farther out. All that it would have required would have been literally ANYTHING that was NOT a Space Shuttle. They wouldn't have had to show the months of space travel. Boom. Problem solved. With that single point addressed I could lean back and actually enjoy it. Heck, make it a one-way mission and they sacrifice themselves, and you actually get a touching and heroic ending that would elevate the film above "action comedy in space for people who took sports as their main couse during high school". I don't demand an engineering study from NASA University to convince me that this could work. I have learned to switch off most of my higher brain functions when watching Hollywood drivel (but then come along films like Gravity, The Martian, or Interstellar and demonstrate that their practice of treating the audience with utter intellectual contempt isn't actually a requirement to get a film done).
What I'm getting worked up about is that tiny changes to a script that wouldn't even cost more to produce it the film could be so much better on a number of levels. I mean, the cast is good, Buscemi's impersonation of Slim Pickens is great, this could actually have become an absolute classic. If only they give a token nod to orbital mechanics.
Joined: Apr 2001 Posts: 121,384PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,384
Miami, FL USA
Originally Posted by Ssnake
They could have presented a prototype rocket that could reach the comet farther out. All that it would have required would have been literally ANYTHING that was NOT a Space Shuttle. They wouldn't have had to show the months of space travel. Boom. Problem solved. With that single point addressed I could lean back and actually enjoy it. Heck, make it a one-way mission and they sacrifice themselves, and you actually get a touching and heroic ending that would elevate the film above "action comedy in space for people who took sports as their main couse during high school". I don't demand an engineering study from NASA University to convince me that this could work. I have learned to switch off most of my higher brain functions when watching Hollywood drivel (but then come along films like Gravity, The Martian, or Interstellar and demonstrate that their practice of treating the audience with utter intellectual contempt isn't actually a requirement to get a film done).
What I'm getting worked up about is that tiny changes to a script that wouldn't even cost more to produce it the film could be so much better on a number of levels. I mean, the cast is good, Buscemi's impersonation of Slim Pickens is great, this could actually have become an absolute classic. If only they give a token nod to orbital mechanics.
The simplest reply I can give you is that Michael Bay directed the movie. Bay's directing style is having lots and lots of action, lots of explosions, simplistic plot and dialogue and minimal adherence to scientific and technical facts. He is the American version of Roland Emmerich.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
So far all of the critiques are centered around the technical inaccuracies, what about technical aspects of the filmmaking? I mean such as cinematography? I thought it looked gorgeous.
Joined: Apr 2001 Posts: 121,384PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,384
Miami, FL USA
Originally Posted by letterboy1
So far all of the critiques are centered around the technical inaccuracies, what about technical aspects of the filmmaking? I mean such as cinematography? I thought it looked gorgeous.
I had not heard of him but the DP for Armageddon has done several high profile movies so he must be pretty good!
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
Few pictures these days are flawed when it comes to the craft aspects - photography, CGI, sound ... and acting, actually (there are exceptions, of course). To that extent Hollywood is professional through and through. It's the quality of the scripts that make it into production that I often find lacking. Whatever the reason may be, script vetting/quality control is a marked contrast (and within the context of that contrast I'd call it "unprofessional"). Now, maybe the producers and directors have good reason to accept these scripts. Maybe they are even responsible for the bad ones. Maybe it is marketing/customer group profiling driven. Whatever the reason may be, it has consistently ruined a number of films that otherwise could have been instant classics. The most recent/egregrious examples that spring to mind are Star Wars Ep. I, II, VIII, Prometheus, Covenant.
I accept that film is first and foremost a business, and a business with extremely high risks if you look at the ballooning costs of production and marketing budgets outside of arthouse (and even there the typical budget (and production values) today exceed those of most 1970s AAA features, (probably) even if you adjust for inflation). What irritates me is that many of the problems that I see with these films is that the flaws in the script were rather obvious, and probably easy to fix. Also, the fact that scripts are the cheapest element in the production chain, and the one thing that's easiest and least costly to fix at an early stage. Script changes late in production, however, are usually extremely costly to fix (if at all possible). I don't know if directors and producers have lost the ability to recognize plot holes and implausible story developments, or if they just don't care. I'm not even sure which explanation would be worse. Or maybe, if script changes for the worse are intentional, the underlying methodology that yields the kind of arguments that drive such changes (marketing?), is flawed - so people are doing what sounds rational within a business context which then leads to disaster. Or maybe they are right, and the audience simply doesn't care, so why should they. I'm not sure that I want to know the truth.
@Ssnake, I agree. It makes me think that all the things that I love about the movie Armageddon could only have improved with more attention paid to the script. I still would have my fun, funny, romantic, action movie except so much better.
I especially like your idea of a prototype rocket - then I could "have my cake and eat it, too." That would have been truer to the idea of science fiction as opposed to fantasy without hurting the money-making aspects of the story.
Having said all that, I will still stubbornly ignore those facts and enjoy the movie until by some miracle of immaculate production they manage to make the perfect Hollywood sci-fi-romantic-action-adventure-comedy!
I just noticed the title of the clip I posted earlier. I can't believe it has been twenty years since this movie was released.
Wheels
Armageddon was one of the DVDs I got free with my Sony DVD player, it was a double sided DVD and there was such a fuss made about it being double sided that they recalled the DVDs and gave you a single sided, double layered, DVD in exchange. I decided to hang on to my double sided one
Chlanna nan con thigibh a so's gheibh sibh feoil Sons of the hound come here and get flesh Clan Cameron
Joined: Apr 2001 Posts: 121,384PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,384
Miami, FL USA
"Armageddon" was my very first DVD purchase way back in 2000. It was part of a dual-pack along side "Face Off". Remember that movie with Nicholas Cage and John Travolta?
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
"Armageddon" was my very first DVD purchase way back in 2000. It was part of a dual-pack along side "Face Off". Remember that movie with Nicholas Cage and John Travolta?
That, The Perfect Storm, Contact, and Soldier, that's 5 of the 6 DVDs I got with the Sony player. I will have to go and look through my collection to see what the 6th one was
Chlanna nan con thigibh a so's gheibh sibh feoil Sons of the hound come here and get flesh Clan Cameron
a) Yes b) I'm sorry, but I can't get past the GLARING issue that comets have a closure rate of 10...40km per second, and the Shuttle's orbital limit is a mere 400km above ground.
It can't match velocity with the comet, and even if it could they would have only 40 seconds to drill the hole under the best of circumstances, probably just 15.
The rest, I can live with. I doubt that Texan oil drillers can be qualified for EVA operations within a few weeks, but I'm willing to look past that, and a lot of other nonsense. But the fundamental premise of the film is SO wrong, there simply is not enough handwavium in this universe.
IRL the Tungaska comet was intercepted by a craft from Heaven with a nuclear bomb 900 Gigaton shaped charge that when detonated broke the comet into pieces but the left over pieces are enough to move the planet far enough away from the sun to cause an ice age.(4 meters) The impact of that debris is enough to destroy life on the planet as well so it was teleported to another dimension whilst the entire region was in perpendicular or idle time. The size of the Tungaska comet is 1/4 the size of the moon. The big comet that started the ice age was slowed down prior to impact for the intent of terraforming the planet with mountains/hills and glaciers forming truncated spurs. The intent of the Tungaska comet is for people of earth to know that there had been an intervention from a more advanced civilisation and this would later be revealed to be from Heaven.
"Trust me I know what I'm doing" Detective Sledge Hammer
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
Joined: Apr 2001 Posts: 121,384PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,384
Miami, FL USA
LOL
Well, at least posts like Sub's help to liven up a dying website.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”