Armageddon
(Note from Phil: I think we’ve done all we’re going to do on this movie. Time to seal the file. You’re welcome to send additional comments but I’ll file them away instead of uploading them.)
(Haven't seen this movie yet but enough nitpickers has sent in stuff that I thought I'd start a file. Obviously, I can't do a plot summary if I haven't seen the movie but from what I gather an asteroid hits the Earth. Big kowabunga. Paris buys it. Life goes on.)
Brash Reflections
I'll have to sit this one out!
Reflections from the Guild
[Note from Phil: I have not verified these but they sounded good to me!]
Joseph P. Pintar: I just saw Armageddon. I enjoyed it a lot but it is needlessly dragged out to 2 1/2 hours. This might be the shot in the arm that this otherwise ho-hum summer needed (Sorry, I'm not a big X-files fan, so I didn't bother with the movie.)
I don't think this movie does much to crush stereotypes about oil workers. This truly is a motley crew they put together. This movie tries hard to convince us that oil workers are the only ones who can go up there to drill on the asteroid. I wasn't quite convinced. (No doubt the producers of this movie saw that Deep Impact was going to use astronauts as drillers, so they had to do something a little different.) Is Ben Affleck bad in this movie or is just me? Does the actress who play the female astronaut look familiar? She played the doctor in Earth 2 (unfortunately she's given precious little screeen time). I like the in-joke reference to Godzilla early in the movie. A dog is chewing on Godzilla toys (and they look like the Godzilla we know and love, not the computer-generated freak in theaters now) in New York. I don't know about you, but I'm staying away from New York for the time being. It's been destroyed in three movies this summer alone (Deep Impact, Godzilla, and Armageddon). Does anybody else really believe that after detonation of the nukes, the asteroid parts would really just pass by the earth in real life. You know with his impending divorce, Bruce Willis might be tempted to move to an asteroid and stay there just like his character in this movie. With the world in such danger, would NASA really take the time to train inexperienced people to be astronauts. Why did that Russian Cosmonaut leave Ben Affleck's character alone with equipment Affleck didn't know how to use? Did anybody else have a hard time following which shuttle we were supposed to be looking at? I wonder how they kept the news of New York being hit by a meteor shower quiet.
There are other burning questions to be asked but I'll leave to others to ask them.
Jim Ferris: First, I'd like to say this was one EXCELLENT film! Constant action and the spfx were out of this world (literally). I don't know if you've seen it, but I'm going back tomorrow to see it again...it's THAT good. My best friend said "It the movie I wanted to see when I went to see 'Deep Impact'".
Ryan Hutnick: I have a few more nits for Armageddon (which I saw last night for the 2nd time.) I must have seen a different version than the one shown to the movie critics, because I still think it's a great movie.
1. When AJ (Affleck) and the other survivors meet up with Harry (Willis) and his crew on the asteroid, Harry does his "I've got five words for you" thing. I THINK he says "Dang I'm glad to see you buddy." AJ then says "That's six words." This sounded funny to me when I saw the movie for the first time, so I listened carefully the second time through. If I didn't foul up anywhere, then both Harry and AJ need some help in math because "Dang I'm glad to see you buddy" is SEVEN words. :)
2. Before going into space AJ and his crew do some simulated tests for drilling underwater at NASA (it's done underwater to simulate a weightless environment.) Two problems here - first, when the drilling is actually being done later on the asteroid, everyone is standing around watching; they're not floating around, as they were prepared to be with the underwater simulation. Second, underwater everyone is crowded around the device, doing their thing...when the actual drilling is taking place, though, only one person sits in the chair operating the drill, the rest of the team is just standing around watching.
3. Sorry, Phil, but CNN is mentioned in this film. But I have a question - NASA also lended it's hand to the film-makers...does that bother you as well? I personally have no problem with either NASA or CNN getting involved with films (I hardly ever watch CNN anyway.) :) (Note from Phil: NASA isn't involved on a day-to-day basis reporting the real news--supposedly. The problem that I have with CNN in fiction is it blurs the line between fact and fantasy.)
Brian Straight: First off, I did, really, like this movie. Probably obne of the best of the summer, and right up there as one of the best of the year for me. The action was well played, and even though Bay has some rather eratic directing styles, alot of it worked well in this movie. That "life flash" thing towards the end was wonderfull. The specail effects were also AMAZING! The sceens showing New York and Paris in ruins were breath-taking.
Sydney Carton: I must admit, I was shocked when I heard you were starting a file on Armageddon. This movie just had SO much that seemed wrong with it. I saw the movie four days ago, and I can still remember many nits.
First of, small things: 1) Do I need to mention that it seems dangerous to fire a shotgun in a place where you are drilling oil? 2) When the shuttles dock at the Russian station, why doesn't the cosmonaut- who knows what he is doing- control the fuel transfer, rather than leave it to an ignorant oil-driller who ends up blowing the station up? 3) While these people are performing dangerous maneuvers- like piloting the shuttle in a debris field and driving the Armadillos- they simply refuse to put on their helmets until it's too late. After all, in space, one teeny-weeny hole in the hull and you're dead. 4) So... are chain guns standard equipment on Armadillos that were meant to do nothing but drill? 5) I'm no oil-driller, but why doesn't Ben Afleck's character, even though he doesn't know his exact location, at least TRY to find a decent drilling spot, like Willis's team did?
Now, here's where I really get mad... It seemed like the creators disregarded every scientific principle they could think of when they made this movie. When the boys at NASA finally decide to launch the shuttle, everything in the science books is thrown out the window. While it was a nice money-saving trick to have the Russian space station rotate to create gravity, the way they handled it was absurd. Sure, the thing rotates, but that would NOT create gravity, at least in the way shown. OK, moving on, when the shuttles (which, by the way, maneuver more like X-Wing fighters than space shuttles) pass behind the moon, they have a radio blackout. Just as they should; the moon is blocking the path between them and Earth. But then, they swing around, and while directly behind the uber-comet and amidst massive amounts of debris, they CAN get a signal through? And speaking of this Earth-Moon stuff, you're telling me it takes this comet over 17 hours to travel from the Moon to the Earth? Then the land on the comet... After making a big deal about how there won't be much gravity, and they'll have thrusters on their space suits to compensate (yeah...), the creators simply flat-out refuse to abide by the rules they made. Sure, while most people wear their suits everywhere, the female shuttle pilot prances around in a tee-shirt and pants the entire movie and she doesn't seem affected by the miniscule gravity at all. Not only that, but the gravity seems to change to fill the scropt's needs. It can be weak when it needs to be (like the cavern-jumping scene) or Earth-like when necessary (falling pillars everywhere; Willis took WAY too much effort crawling out of the hole at the end, I think). Then, the Earth's gravity is ignored; after the nuke splits the comet in two, the two halves just fly by Earth, rather than be pulled towards Earth, which they would have been. Arrrrrgh. One more thing: I thought the reason shuttles were specifically NOT used for lunar landings was their airplane-like way of landing, and subsequent inability to take off effectively. Why should the comet be any different?
In case you couldn't tell, the science butchery in this movie really frustrates me. At least TRY to get some of this stuff right. (By the way, sorry if the nits sound harsh... it's mainly due to the fact I'm writing this at 1:00 in the morning. ;-)
One final note: does anyone else think it odd and somewhat fitting of society that even in an overly-patriotic movie such as Armageddon, the U.S. military is still painted in an unfavorable light? :-) (Note from Phil: You have to consider the source. I don't find it odd at all!)
Maureen: I just saw Armeggedon. Hmmm. So much to say I wont remember it all but, I will try!
The NITS:
In the beginning, meteorites start hitting that Astronaut who was fixing that satellite. Now, wouldn't NASA's great big radars see SOMETHING? It all came out of nowhere. Why do these people get paid if they can't detect a meteor shower that is right on top of the poor guy and the satellite?
The part where the Independence and Freedom go around the Moon and reach 9 G's. Umm...they were all screaming and yelling! This would not happen if they were under the force of 9 G's! I have seen many documentaries on G-forces and the Blue Angels and pilots. They would get VERY disoriented and finally pass out after only about 5 or 6 or so G's. Ok, MAYBE these guys are "Specially Trained" and all...but in the documentaries, Astronauts and pilots are taught to clench their teeth and flex their muscles tightly to fight to keep themselves conscious-- they even grunt a lot with the strain, but they don't talk and they don't scream! Also why does Ben Affleck (AJ) say, "Is this what it's supossed to be like?" Didn't they give these guys any training besides that big tank of water and vacuum stuff? You would think a bunch of civilians undergoing 9 G's around the moon would find out what that might feel like before going up.
Is it just me or did EVERYONE get to walk in slow motion in this film at one time or another? (We were clapping in slow motion at them :)
And when they kept showing all of those "poignant" slow motion shots of people in all different nations...did that look to anyone like a HUGE AT&T or Sprint or VISA commercial? I kept thinking, "Only 10 cents a minute, anywhere in the world..." When you think of going to Outer Space to save the World, bring Your VISA cause they don't take American Express" etc.
After the Independence and Freedom are launched, shouldn't the booster have come off earlier than it did?
Why was the Russian Space Station only called "The Russian Space Station"? I would think someone would come up with a less generic name than that. "This is The Russian Space Station..." "Yes, We Copy, Russian Space Station..." If NASA is NASA (Not "American Space Program")why can't MIR be MIR? Puh-leeze!
Convenient how that woman only tells her son that Daddy is NOT a salesman AFTER she sees him on TV. I guess ALL is forgiven if you become an astronaut. Or maybe she wants to cash in!
I could do without that stupid useless bar scene with the half nekkid chicks. Puke.
And HOW did that blonde chick from the bar suddenly show up at the end to tackle Steve Buscemi when the shuttle landed?? Who found her and told her to be there?
I don't see how NASA could let Bruce Willis pick this World Saving team from a bunch of untrained civilians. I just don't see this working at all.
How come everything in France gets demolished but the Arc d'Triomphe gets a teeny corner knicked? Everything around it is toast!
That's all I can think of for now, but I am sure I can come up with more !
All in all, I thought Deep Impact did a better job. this thing made me dizzy, though it was a fair attempt at a more action-y depiction of world annihilation by heavenly bodies.
Craig Livingston: Here's my nits for the movie Armageddon: Durring the mission briefing, the NASA guys say the shuttles will dock with the Russian space station and pick up "liquid O2, that's your fuel" liquid O2 is Oxigen, you need to combine it with a fuel (usually Hydrogen) to make rockets burn. How come the little asteriods that destroyed the shuttle Atlantis and later the little ones whizing by the crew on the big Asteroid leave bright little trails? They are not (yet) burning up in an atmosphere. These new super-shuttles must work much differently than current shuttles. They don't separate the solid rocket boosters until they are already in space and separating the main (external) tank. And they separate the tank BEFORE they announce Main Engine Cut Off. But then the super-shuttles must have a large internal tank anyway (unlike normal shuttles) because they can refuel in space. When AJ and the others were trapped in the crashed shuttle, AJ jumps in the Armadillo and quickly uses the big gun to blast his way out. Later however Rockhound seems supprised to learn there is a big gun and says "how come we never got trained on this?" Did they train AJ but not Rockhound with the gun (that would be very good foresight)? I guess AJ could have just figured the gun out while he was stumbling around in the cargo-bay (Rockhound figured it out pretty quick). And of course Rockhound was crazy at the time so his supprise might just have been part of his crazyness.
Eva Enns: Anyway, have you seen the movies Armageddon and Deep Impact? Boy! They're a field day for nitpicker's; almost every event that happens has something inconsistant or just all out wrong!!! Like in Deep Impact, they decide to blow up the comet with a few nukes (funny how in Armageddon, that plan won't work, even though the two objects seem to be about the same size. . .hmmm). Seems okay. Then, they drill them into the asteroid and set them off. They seemed to have a little problem with spacing them though!!! They position all the nuclear bombs in a circle on one side of the comet. When the nukes are set off, a big chuck of the comet comes off. Now why didn't they think that would happen???? If you're going to blow up a whole comet, you have to position the bombs equally around the comet!!!! Now, in Armageddon, isn't kinda strange that the President of the United States is addressing every single country? And isn't it funny that the only telescopes that could see the asteroid were controled by NASA? Hello!!! I don't think so. I have a friend who works with SPACEGUARD (a program that catalogues asteroids and looks for ones particularily dangerous to Earth) and he has colegues all over the world, and they are completelly imdependant from NASA. And only nine telescopes can see this HUGE asteroid? Yeah right. What about university telescopes? What about the telescopes that SPACEGUARD uses? There are hundreds of telescopes out there and an asteroid that is months away from impact would be pretty visible to a moderately big one. If you ask me, Armageddon was majorly puffing up the ego of the USA, trying to make them feel like they're the world power, but in reality, if an asteroid was going to hit, I think it's pretty safe to say that ALL countries would have to be involved!!!!! You could've done a whole guide on just Armageddon!!! (if they were still publishing guides!). Have fun watching Deep Impact and Armageddon!!!,
Joe Griffin: Responses to "Armageddon" Nits:
>4.Why, or how, could NASA steal Harry's drill design?
Why: a) they wanted to develop a way to mine on other planets or asteroids to supplement Earth's dwindling natural resources. Or to support colonies or bases on those planets. They looked for water on the moon this year to see if it can be used to make a base there cheaper to build and maintain. b) they didn't want to spend billions of dollars developing something that had already been developed by someone who actually knew what he was doing. And they didn't want to pay him those billions, either. c) Because they can. How: They accessed the patent office's copy of the design. Not exactly legal, but effective. This was in the dialogue during that scene.
>>9.Who leaked that "Dottie" was on it's way to impact?
Again, in the dialogue, we hear that Dottie will be visible to any schlep with a telescope any day now. It was only a matter of time before someone with a telescope and a brain saw it and said , "jumpin' jeepers on a pogo stick! Thar's a mighty big rock out thar!" Who that bright young lad was is not important.
But, for the record, it was me. Sorry.
>>10.So that guy, that was HIS super-massive telescope/observatory?
Or he's a physics grad student or Prof...using the University's 'scope.
>11.How did Rocky (?) and Bear get out of jail?
You're allowed one phone call--call NASA.
>>In order to generate gravity on Mir it would have to spin at 1-G
Which is why they showed the cosmonaut floating, then had some dialogue talking about starting to spin Mir, then showed him walking in normal gravity.
>>Why is there gravity on the asteroid? Like I said before if it's spinning to give them gravity, it has to be >>accelerating to give them gravity.
Gravity is not a function of acceleration, it is one of mass. Any object with sufficient mass will have a measurable gravitational pull. Acceleration or spin can give the illusion of 1G gravity in an environment where there is not sufficient mass to provide it naturally (say, on a spacecraft that's not actually the size of the Earth. This of course happens more efficiently in movies than in real life.).
>>Then, the Earth's gravity is ignored; after the nuke splits the comet in two, the two halves just fly by Earth, rather than be pulled towards Earth, which they would have been.
I don't think the Earth's grvity was ignored; I think it was accounted for by the NASA scientists in the movie who calculated how far, how fast, and at what angle the pieces had to move in order to miss the planet. If the chunk's forward momentum is suffucient, and the distance from the planet is great enough, it oughta fly right by.
>>>Not only would NASA N-E-V-E-R launch two shuttles so close to each other, (both in location and time frame), and shuttles DON'T maneuver like those did. They were pulling turn like they were x-wing fighters...something that big CAN'T turn corners like that! >>
I'll give you the location thing; it would've made more sense to launch from two seperate locations, but desperate times call for desperate measures--if in the interest of time you have to launch simultaneously, then do it. You can't exactly wait a week for another launch window.
And the size of the shuttle isn't the reason it couldn't move like that--it's the fact that when airplanes do that kind of thing they're using flaps to direct the plane through the atmosphere. There is nothing to push against in space like that, so space ships must use thrusters to change direction, and the process is a whole bunch slower. X-wings wouldn't work in space either.
Joe Griffin: Although, I did think that showing the Arc d'Triomphe standing intact four blocks away from a huge impact crater was a bit of a stretch.
Must have been so us lamebrains would know we were looking at an ex-Paris, even though we'd just seen the sequence where Paris was intact and then a big rock hit it and the standard Star Trek Blast Radius Effect spread everywhere...
Richie Vest: Why do you think that having CNN in a movie blurs the line between fantasy and reality How? People watch CNN in real life when something big is happening so why would characters in a movie watch ZNN when everyone knows that's a fake network and takes us--the audience--out of the picture. (Note from Phil: See ../movies97/thelostw.htm for the fuller discussion/)
chris ashley: re various comments concerning "armageddon":
the asteroid might not have been spherical, but more a flat stone plate of sorts (haven't seen the film, so i can't confirm that), but it could easily be the size of texas in area but only 1600 feet deep.
as regards the counting error, harry and a.j. were probably just python fans ("3, 4, 7!" "5 sir." "oh yes. 5.") :-)
>from what i hear about the film, it may also give us an example of a new glossary term: photts (political harangue of the traditional sort). this is when a film or episode contains a blatantly obvious political speech. "armageddon" apparently provides quite a platform for harry (no pun intended) to express his views about greenpeace in the form of golf balls. trek examples of this abound: soviet-american geopolitics in tos, euthanasia and recovered memory in voyager, historical deification in first contact, the end of the cold war in undiscovered country ......there have got to be more.
murray leeder: this film epitomizes the summer movie... dumb, loud, explosive, over-stuffed, decadent, shallow and emotionally empty. fortunately, it is aware of that and doesn't drown in pretentions (as "deep impact" did, while remaining a better film than this one). too long, too many trite crises (particularly the bits with the "unnamed russian space station", immensely unnecessary), only decent acting from all (billy bob thornton aside). too much fire in space! too many noises in space! (wouldn't it be great if a flick like this one kept space quite, like 2001 did and was more haunting for it). there's only 18 days advance warning of this? yeah right! there are people who do nothing at all but chart the sky and look for asteroids and comets. and there are only 9 telescopes that can see it, and one of them is controlled by a slobbish amateur? yeah right. wouldn't the astronaut fragments wreck havoc with the tides? and isn't it nice that bruckheimer and bay depict the intelligentia as being completely incompetent and powerless to save the world, which can only be done by "grunts".
this harry stamper character is a psycho! in his opening scenes, he manages to be a murderous crazy and seem completely detached and collected at the same time. i'm surprised he passed his own psych exam. what did the writers have in mind? we're supposed to like this guy? and what about the ending? they return to earth and... everybody's there! shouldn't they spend at least a few months in quarantine? what if mankind is destroyed by an extraterrestrial disease? funny that the steve buscemi character mentioned "pulp fiction", a movie he was in (as the buddy holly waiter, blink and you'll miss him). so the army man doesn't know which wire to cut in his own bomb? hello! it's not a terrorist bomb! he should know right off, and for that matter, there should be a disable code. the end of the movie, naturally, features four funerals and a wedding. wow, this film gets worse every time i think about it.
since the shuttle lands over solid iron, why not just take the armadillo a certain distance and drill where it's better? this suffers from the same over-patriotism that "independence day" did, only even more so. it goes out of its way to insult non-americans. a japanese tourist has the stupidest line in the film. the russian (played the peter stomare of "fargo" and slippery pete from seinfeld) is oafish and semi-incompetent. are the producers going out of their way to limit its international appeal?
donald carlson: the nits go on --
1) how can something as big as the state of texas not be detected until its only 18 days away from impact? the director of nasa blamed it on the low budget, using words that reminded me of phil ("it's a really big sky"). however, this doesn't explain the tens of thousands of amateur astronomers (and institutions) that scan the sky every night. somebody would have noticed the object much sooner (the movie deep impact was much more accurate, having their comet discovered by an amateur astronomer while it was over a year away).
2) it's as big as texas, yes? every shot of it shows hundreds of smaller fragments traveling along with it (they call it the "debris field" in the movie). so, how big are the fragments? the size of, oh, dallas? houston? san antonio? even a few dozen the size of amarillo or victoria would kill hundreds of millions of people. the filmmakers don't even offer a weak explanation for how we would survive these impacts.
3) as it has been pointed out, no way shuttles would be launched so close together, but even in the world of the movie, there is yet another nit regarding this. both shuttle crews ride up in the same elevator when boarding their respective shuttles. at the top, there's a ground crewmember yelling "independence crew to the left, freedom crew to the right!" not only is that a bit odd (you mean nobody told them before that moment which shuttle was which?), but the shuttles are that close together that two crews can use the same elevator? apparently not, because later shots of the liftoffs show the launch complexes separated by some distance, and each with their own service gantries (i.e., each with their own elevators).
4) once the shuttle fuel tank is jettisoned, the main engines cannot continue to run. the shuttle uses rcs thrusters to manuver, and smaller retro thrusters for reentry. the freedom and independence in the movie, however, continue to burn their main engines after dropping the external fuel tank. to do this there would have to be a large internal fuel tank inside the shuttles, leaving little room for a large vehicle like the armadillo.
Shawn Vincent: I was reading the nits and they are very true (and funny.) But I did read something that I didn't agree with. In response to the nit concerning the shuttle not being able to burn the main thrusters after EFT seperation, The shuttle can, and does, carry 6 minutes of fuel (also these are the "new" shuttles. They might have a larger fuel cell.) This can be used for the main and retro rockets I'm sure of. The shuttle carrying fuel also supports the reason for the re-fuel. The fuel was not for the extra SRB on the shuttle. SRB are just that---SOLID. Much like a model rocket engine, they are useless after the contents are used, unless repacked.
Brian Straight: My reputation is at stake here..
>> in response, to a response on my nit concerning NASA stealing Harry's >> drill
design <<All things granted, just dosen't seem to me NASA would be so sneaky. They're not necesairly a conspiratorial government organization.
>> a response to a response on my Mir/Gravity nit<<
The station is only shown spinning, not necessairly accelerating while spinning to generate a false gravity. On a second note, since a "gravity" would cause you to have "work" against that force to do any work. Where as, without any "gravity" you would only have to float along, no "lifting" no real work. So would it be easier to work with or without gravity (falsly generated or not). Even more, the plane the shuttles dock at, and the plane the station is orinated differs, in other words it seems that the "floor" made by the spinning station, would cause the shuttle's "floor" to be its walls.
Furthermore... >>Gravity is not a function of acceleration, it is one of mass.<< Not what Iw as trying to say, I know about gravity being related to mass, my point was that well... not sure I had one. I was probably thinking the creators were trying to explain away the gravity problem by saying that the spinning rock was generarting some false gravity. I think. But that little rock would have very little mass to generate gravity. It's was said the rock was "the size of Texas." Texas is, give or take, 800 miles across. Assuming the asteroid was a perfect sphere (which it wasn't but let us assume! ;-). The Moon is, roughly, 2100 miles across and has about a quarter of our gravity. So, the asteroid is, roughly, a third the size of the moon and therefore would (if my thinking is correct on this) have a third of the moon's gravity. Or roughly 8 percent of the Earth's gravity, not much at all.
Another, slight, nit. Watts, after explaining the thruster packs, leaves this large chamber and says "in a few minutes the air will be sucked out of this vaccum, and you will know what it is like to be in space."
A) You can't take air out of a vaccum, think about it ;-) B) Somehow, I don't think simply removing the air, from a large chamber (which would take an enormous effort, considering the size that room appeared to be) would be a fairly acurate example of a space-like enviroment. Unless they cranked the A/C all the way up and somehow shut off the gravity under the room, maybe they stopped the Earth from accelerating ;-).
We have characters named Harry S. and Truman. Hmm... are the writers giving us the message that Truman saved the world when he bombed Japan?
Stephen Mendenhall: I haven't seen Armageddon, but it brings up something, a special-case nit. A month or two ago, Sky and Telescope Magazine had a cover article on comets, impacts and the two movies, Deep Impact and Armageddon. And they had a whole feature on how the producers of Armageddon had some NASA types, scientists, advising them, getting every detail right...oh? So how come they have all these errors in the movie? There oughta be an acronym. (As well as a law...<g>) Considering the Biblical title, they could have had some religious reaction in the movie, but I guess they didn't have time, and it's just as well. But there could have been some funny moments, with conflicting literal interpretations, but I can imagine why they avoided that.<g>
Matthias Roth: Today "Armageddon" has started in Germany. The cinema was full and the audience laughed at the right places - good. I found it really difficult watching the movie and writing my notes at the same time (and it was even harder to decipher my notes :-). It was a real popcorn movie: no great art, but very satisfying (like I read somewhere about ST6). Before it they showed a trailer for the X-Files movie, with the subtitle "Fight the Future" (!). Now for some nits:
65 million years before the continental landscape looked NOT the same like today. IIRC even northern and southern America weren't connected. But in the movie even Cuba was in the right place and with today's shape.
The shuttle Atlantis had its bay doors closed. AFAIK it's a standard procedure to open the doors while in orbit for release of internal heat.
It is very dangerous to shoot on an oil rig, even without oil. The chance of damaging important parts is too high.
The NASA explained that Dottie crashed through the asteroid belt and took lots of debris from there with it. That's awful like in "Meteor". Why didn't they use the fact that in some meteor streams certain large objects were detected, probably exhausted comets and the origin of those meteors.
>From where does the NASA have the exact geological data of Dottie ?
Did they land some probes on it ?Dottie moves with only 35000 km/h. That's very slow (first cosmic velocity is 29000 km/h).
Does the NASA have a B-2 in the hangar ?
The shuttles approached Mir like airplanes, not like space vessels.
The artificial gravitation doesn't work like in the movie (the same level in the whole station etc.). Mir isn't designed to rotate.
First Mir was set to rotate and then the shuttles docked ?!
The Russian spaceship docked at Mir didn't look like a Soyus and Mir didn't look like the real Mir (additional modules). And the Mir doesn't have some kind of frozen sewer system for last second escape purposes.
Russian cosmonauts are indestructible ! 18 months in space at zero gravity and no problems with the muscles when the g's come. In reality they need some days or weeks for adaptation after long-time flights.
The explosion of Mir is extremly unrealistic.
The shuttles accelerate with 10g for a few minutes but the untrained crew members can still talk. Even trained pilots can withstand 9g only for a short time (blackout). 10g for a longer period of time are lethal !
Like in most SF-movies Newton's Law is off duty. The main engines are working for the whole time. It seems that the new shuttles have really big internal fuel tanks (and a really big cargo bay).
At the landing place the gravitation was stronger than on the moon (again violated Newton...). Or was it magnetism ? No.
In the crashed shuttle fire burns like under normal air pressure.
The bomb was user-friendly - time display, changing beep frequency.
There were too many ruins standing in Paris after the hit. The blast wave would have wiped out everything including the triumphal arch.
Dottie's fragments miss the earth by 100000 km. That's roughly one third the distance earth-moon. But the earth looked like viewed from low orbit (wrong proportions through the whole movie).
Emma Poon: This movie had a plot and visual resemblance to Independence Day. In both movies, New York was shown to be the first to get hit/attacked. The unlikely hero saves the day. The brave father sacrifices his life for his child/children. And the tearful reunion at the end of family and friends.
I swear this movie was just another version of Independence Day. The ending in particular. How the estranged husband meets up with the wife and they fall in love again. And the two young lovers meet and live happily ever after. And for Armageddon, instead of the bits and pieces of spacecraft falling from the sky, there was the formation of planes.
This movie was quite unbelieveable in many ways: how the heck did NASA engineers NOT figure out how to properly build a drill that a roughneck designed?!?
And why would they install a machine gun on the Armadillo? No.. wait, I see the answer: To ward off the Independence Day aliens.
I would really want to believe that under NO circumstances would NASA EVER send up such people into space.
The Russian was funny though.
Chris O'Hair: I went and saw Armageddon today. Good movie, very good movie. I do, however, have some nits. The first is after the Independence crashes on the asteroid. AJ is walking around in the cargo bay of the wrecked Independence, calling to anyone who might still be alive. He walks past a piece of burning (on fire, mind you) wreckage!! AJ is in his space suit -- the cargo bay is a vacuum!! No oxygen in a vacuum. No oxygen = no fire.
What's the deal with the gatling guns on the Armadillos? Why were they installed? Wouldn't that take up space and add unnecessary weight to the spacecraft? (My brother decided that the guns were installed at the request of the drilling crew, as a provision for their going on this mission.) That's all the nits I could find in Armageddon, I hope you can find more. ;-)
(Note from Phil: I think we’ve done all we’re going to do on this movie. Time to seal the file. You’re welcome to send additional comments but I’ll file them away instead of uploading them.)
If you would like to add some comments, drop me a note at chief@nitcentral.com. Please put "Armageddon" in the Subject line and include your real name, city and state (or province and county as the case may be) in the body of the e-mail so I can give you credit if you are the first person to bring up a particular nit. (Remember the legalese: Everything you submit becomes mine and you grant me the right to use your name in any future publication by me. I will do my best to give you credit if you are the first person to submit a particular nit but I make no guarantees. And finally, due to the volume of mail received at Nitpicker Central, your submission may or may not be acknowledged. However, your submission will earn you a membership in the Nitpickers Guild if you are not already a member!)