Armageddon and its NASA advice

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
Not sure if this should be on this part of the forum - but it's all about who did what or not in Vietnam on the free space <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Sorry for the out of date film review, but I was bored and watched it just now.<br /><br />Ok, the film, Armageddon. Cool for a NASA buff like myself (given some of the sights - VAB etc.) but woooooow it is about as accurate me taking a pee in a pub after 10 pints <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Anyone know what was going on with the NASA advisors (Even former head Goldin was involved apparently) when they had "fire in space" and messed up the launch sequence (Throttle up, then roll programme, eek lol - SRB and ET seperation at the same time) where as they got some of the Shuttle pre-launch pretty much bang on from memory (ET fueling).<br /><br />Was this Hollywood basically saying "Thanks for the advice, but......." to the NASA guys?<br /><br />I have a feeling Shuttle Guy watched this film as a comedy <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> But to anyone who doesn't know Jack about NASA, it's still something that makes you think NASA is cool (which it is).<br /><br />(Mods, please move if its really not meant to be on this area. Cheers).
 
O

omegamogo

Guest
Never saw Armageddon but I don't think it could be worst then Deep Impact, I was laughing my ass off throughout the movie!
 
N

najab

Guest
Deep Impact was way, way better than Armageddon.<p>I once did a count and I came up with 20 factual errors in Armageddon - BEFORE THE OPENING CREDITS!!!</p>
 
E

elguapoguano

Guest
Yeah, but you've got to excuse some of the errors afterall it is just a movie not a documentary.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
I can excuse some errors, and even deliberately not-possible things done to permit advancement of the plot (I am, after all, a Doctor Who fan!), but there does come a point where the quantity of errors breaks the suspension of disbelief.<br /><br />I guess for me, the moment my suspension of disbelief died was when, prior to docking, the "Russian space station" is set spinning to create artificial gravity. There was just so much wrong with that scene that it was all over for me. (I was already annoyed by the movie, though. Even ignoring the scientific errors it has some major problems in my opinion.)<br /><br />The Bad Astronomer has a lovely <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> review of this movie: Armageddon. My favorite line from it is this: "Here's the short version: "Armageddon" got some astronomy right. For example, there is an asteroid in the movie, and asteroids do indeed exist. And then there was... um... well, you know... um. Okay, so that was about all they got right." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
N

najab

Guest
I'm with Calli on this one - I can take an occasional plot device, but when the whole movie is one plot device after another, and they're badly implemented to boot, then it's not entertaining.<p>Another thing that bugs the hell out of me is when they go as far as to throw in jargon to sound 'authentic', but totally misuse it. A classic example of this was in an episode of the X-Files I was watching last night: I was willing to forgive the Shuttle launch control being in Houston, I was still onboard when they mixed up OMS and RCS (after all they <i>did</i> have opposite meanings during Mercury), I even wasn't too bothered with the fact that they were 'scared' to let the Shuttle crew have manual control but the fact that they kept calling the Space Shuttle "OTC" in the radio messages ("OTC this is Houston, what's happening up there guys?") was the limit!<p>Every time they said it I was thinking "What's shuttle_guy doing up in space?"</p></p>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
I've gotten to the point where I'll usually let them have sound in space, as long as it's not pretending to be a serious movie. For instance, I think the sound the Tie fighters make is pretty cool, even if it is completely impossible. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> But Star Wars really lost a lot of credibility for me when, in "Attack of the Clones", they used "sonic mines". I'm sorry, that's too much. I can understand using sound in space as a sort of shorthand to help the audience know that the spacecraft are moving around. After all, we're so conditioned by our environment on Earth that we expect it. Same for gravity on ships in futuristic sci-fi things. They don't have to even invoke artificial gravity. I know it's a convenience, and I'm okay with that. But when they OUT OF THEIR WAY to introduce a plot element that is TOTALLY WRONG, then that's it. The sonic mines didn't have the excuse of being a convenient way of helping the audience to follow the story. They were just plain in-your-face wrong.<br /><br />I kind of felt that way about the ring around the exploding Death Stars in the "special edition" New Hope and Return of the Jedi. It was added seemingly as a way of showing how cool and aware and scientific the filmmakers were, except that it also showed they'd completely misunderstood the reason such rings will form around exploding spherical objects in space (it's just conservation of momentum, not a result of the object being roughly a sphere). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
B

backspace

Guest
The real problem with Armageddon is that they threw out the realism by not flying the HMS Churchill up there... that crew knew what they were doing...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<font color="yellow">"Sonic mines? I must have missed that part. "</font><br /><br />Yeah, Calli. Are you sure you didn't mishear. They might have been 'scenic' mines. When detonated, I believe they created an expanding ring of debris. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
 
A

astrophoto

Guest
I thought they said Seismic Mines, which has its own inherent issues .... *flash* *thwa-Baawwwwwww*
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
Well, I only saw it once, so it's more likely I'm misremembering. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I couldn't find any reference to this in the goofs listing for it at the IMDB, but when I looked it up at BadAstronomy.com (and he liked the movie, incidentally), he confirmed that I'd misheard. It's indeed <i>seismic</i> mines.<br /><br />Still, it's not as if a seismic wave is any more capable of travelling through space than a sound wave! They're really the same thing anyway.<br /><br />What really bugged me at the time was the way the effect was realized. The mines were seen to explode, with an expanding ring of blue energy leaving the mine. A few second later, a loud bell-like sound was heard as the shockwave advanced to the location of the "camera" (in a CGI universe, of course, there is no actual camera).<br /><br />Here's what the Bad Astronomer had to say in his review:<br /><br /><i>Then there is the matter of the seismic charges. In space, as it is said, no one can hear you scream. Without air, this is literally true: sound needs a medium (like air, water or rock) through which to travel. A vacuum, by definition, is the lack of such a medium, so sound cannot travel in space. I'll accept that movies depict ships making sounds as they move through space, since almost every movie does it, and we, the viewing audience, are used to hearing sounds as things move past us. But I have my limits. The seismic charge, based on sound, cannot work.<br /><br />Now, I expect Star Wars purists will want to argue this point with me, making claims about how the seismic charges use a subspace blast or some such thing (shades of the Kessel run!). However, I'm not buying it. When the charges explode, we see the flash, but hear nothing for several seconds. Then, BOOM! Since sound travels slower than light, we see the flash immediately, but must wait a few seconds for the sound wave to reach us (which is why we see lightning before we hear thunder). So clearly Lucas is implying that</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
God Bless HMS Churchill!! She was one transexual beast of a pretend Shuttle.<br /><br />Another part of this film that gave me a chuckle was the spanner banging Russian who - with panic "if you can't find a way, find a way" (hmmmmm - now there's timely words of advice) calls from CAPCOM - claimed the Shuttle is made in Taiwan and thus a good slap is the way to get the SSMEs fired up <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Still want to stand by the launch sequence as visually superb. I think they used something like 20 cameras for new angles....................but no one involved with the film pointed out that the Roll Programme is NOT after Throttle Up? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
Oh - here's a question for SG or anyone. On the "Making of" film they noted how one scene was in the OPF bay and they were allowed to film under the wing of one of the real Shuttles (Atlantis I think). Bruce Willis said it was very cool, but no one was allowed to touch the Orbitor as "oil in the skin doesn't react well with the RCC tiles".<br /><br />True or false? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
 
C

cookie_thief

Guest
<img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" /> Armageddon is absolutely, positively the worst "science fiction" movie I have ever had the misfortune of watching in recent years. I mean, can anyone explain to me why they needed a large caliber machine gun in the shuttle? Sheesh!<br /><br />Deep Impact, on the other hand, actually had a fairly plausible storyline, IMHO. And, regarding the "sonic bombs" in Ep. 2: Return of the Clones, I thought they were pretty cool. But now that I think about it, I'm not sure why it was okay to suspend my belief while watching Star Wars and not do the same while watching that . . . that . . .<i>movie!</i>
 
S

spacechump

Guest
<i>What really bugged me at the time was the way the effect was realized. The mines were seen to explode, with an expanding ring of blue energy leaving the mine. A few second later, a loud bell-like sound was heard as the shockwave advanced to the location of the "camera" (in a CGI universe, of course, there is no actual camera). </i><br /><br />Yes the approach is fundamentally wrong. But you have to admit; you could listen to that neat sound all damn day. Try that scene with the bass turned up nice and loud and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.
 
E

elguapoguano

Guest
Yeah, well I was playing devils advocate...<br />The movie was pretty bad as far as scientific accuracy. But Liv Tyler is still hot <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
Not to defend scientifically inaccurate movies I did like Armageddon, it was funny like the original Star Treks, just substitute Bruce Willis for Shatner as the over emoting character. The inaccuracies were pretty blatent though.<br /><br />As for sound in Space obviously you could have none, in a vacuum. If energy, say from a explosion or engine firing impacted a vehicle or station I would think it would be transmitted through the structure and propogated through the air in the structure as sound though. Even a spacesuit helmet would have to be affected by being struck by energy, just like you hear a physical impact, a micrometeorite, or space junk, inside while there would be no sound outside from the same impact. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But you have to admit; you could listen to that neat sound all damn day. Try that scene with the bass turned up nice and loud and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yep, I do have to admit that. It was a really cool sound effect! Pity they wasted it there.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Still want to stand by the launch sequence as visually superb. I think they used something like 20 cameras for new angles....................but no one involved with the film pointed out that the Roll Programme is NOT after Throttle Up?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I absolutely agree. Visually speaking, the launch sequence was fantastic, and easily the high point of the movie. A close second would be the sure and certain knowledge that Bruce Willis' character was going to be blown into very tiny pieces. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> (I have nothing against Bruce Willis, but his character in the movie was a real jerk.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
(I have nothing against Bruce Willis, but his character in the movie was a real jerk.)<br /><br />That's what he gets paid to do.<br /><br />There were a lot of good and entertaining parts of the movie. The preflight training was rather accurate and pretty funny. Maybe NASA gave up on it after that part, or they gave up on NASA. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
L

lunatic133

Guest
When I saw the movie I was in the 6th grade and I had only just first (like, a week beforehand practically) started getting interested in space so I didn't know if it was accurate or not <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />. I never actually saw Deep Impact. Though I find it interesting that one had Elijah and the other had Liv Tyler. Lord of the Rings is a much better movie.
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
>Bruce Willis' character was going to be blown into very tiny pieces< <br /><br />Loving your blood thirst <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
>There were a lot of good and entertaining parts of the movie. The preflight training was rather accurate and pretty funny. Maybe NASA gave up on it after that part, or they gave up on NASA.<<br /><br />This is the puzzling thing that made me post a thread about this. Apparently NASA started to really like what they had been seeing on set and gave more and more access to the makers for scenes and info (according to the "making of")<br /><br />The film was likely to have been made out of order (I know the first scene they ever shot was Ben Afflick firing the machine gun (ugg) out of the side of the dead Shuttle)...but what gets me are the end credits. They had something like 15 NASA advisors from KSC, JSC and HQ, DC!! <br /><br />Did they all get drunk or something <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts