Armageddon was soo poor film!

[karia]

i think the film Armageddon stucks! in the film the female pilot (jessica steen) in one scene she is wearing rubber slippers inside the space ship and she is running here and there to repair it! look carefully she is on rubber slippers , i have got a pic too in that she is wearing them!<br />it's mad that film intends that she has taken her slippers even to space , the thing is that she had forgotten to remove and put on boots!<br />the film stucks!

 

[CalliArcale]

We can discuss the technical errors of the film here if you want, but yeah, if one wishes to discuss it from a literary level, Science Fiction is probably the best place.<br /><br />So since it's in M&L, shall we tear apart the technical failings of the movie? <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />* You cannot create artificial gravity on board Mir by spinning it. It would probably suffer structural failures, as it was never built to tolerate those kinds of stresses.<br /><br />* If you could spin Mir, the "gravity" would be strongest the farthest you were from the axis of rotation. It would not go at right angles to itself at the center of the station, and it would never be equivalent (or even close) to Earth gravity.<br /><br />* It's insanely stupid to "spin up" a station *before* docking, rendering the docking process orders of magnitude more difficult. And it's insanely stupid to spin it up afterwards, too, because your docking system isn't going to tolerate that very well.<br /><br />* No way can the pitiful excuse for a Mir-simulacrum deliver enough fuel to Shuttle to get it to the Moon.<br /><br />* Even if it could, where would the Shuttle put it? The ET is gone.<br /><br />* Running a drill is really harder than operating a space ship? Wow. I'm amazed they ever let this group of incompetents anywhere near a drill, let alone a spaceship. And given their complete inability to handle the isolation of a offshore oil rig, what lunatic thinks they'll do well in the considerably more cramped quarters of a space ship?<br /><br />* Why will drilling 800 ft at a shallow angle into an asteroid nearly a thousand kilometers across do anything to improve the results from a nuclear bomb? That's barely scratching the surface. And these guys, if they really are even minimally competent drillers, ought to know that.<br /><br />* Even if it did make a difference and they could blow up the asteroid with such a puny thing as a nuclear bomb (yes, it is puny on this scale) <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>

 

[ascan1984]

I found these hgoof on imdb.com<br /><br />Factual errors: There are numerous errors in Shuttle procedure and in the depiction of space flight. See trivia.<br /><br /><br />Factual errors: There are numerous errors in the depiction of the physics of space and microgravity and of asteroids (their characteristics, their behavior and their effects). See trivia.<br /><br /><br />Anachronisms: The opening scenes show a meteor impacting the Earth 65 million years ago, yet the Earth's modern geography is shown. In particular, Florida would have been under water at the time.<br /><br /><br />Continuity: Shots in the shuttle launch sequence alternate between close-ups of the X-71 (metallic, with boosters over the wings) and panoramic shots of a regular shuttle (white, with no boosters over the wings).<br /><br /><br />Continuity: When preparing for launch, the two shuttle crews board from the same gantry tower, but later shots it is obvious that there are two separate gantries.<br /><br /><br />Continuity: The Russian space station simulates gravity when it is rotated. The direction that this force applies to people and objects within the station and the two attached shuttles is inconsistent with the geometry of the station. in reality, when the station is spinning in that manner, gravity can be simulated however the two shuttles would experience the gravity a different way, one crew would be able to walk on the floors of the station, where the other shuttle (being on the opposite side) the other folks would end up walking on the celing, appearing upside down to their friends from the first shuttle.<br /><br /><br />Continuity: Falling objects near the surface of the asteroid fall as if affected by gravity as strong as the Earth's.<br /><br /><br />Continuity: On an asteroid that has little atmosphere, dust can't billow and fires can't burn.<br /><br /><br />Revealing mistakes: Grass is clearly visible at the edge of the cliff when the Armadillo comes to a rest after jumping the canyon.<br /><br /><br></br>

 

[ascan1984]

I found this goof poster for armagedon

 

[najab]

I once watched that film and counted 22 factual errors - then the opening credits rolled.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>My excuse for watching it was that my son (17 at the time) rented it. What's yours?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />My folks rented it back when I was still living at home. (I was in college at the time.) I rarely turn off a movie that I rented, even if it sucks. (There have been one or two exceptions. I turned off Disney's animated "The King & I" after just five minutes because it already was too horrible to even enjoy taunting it.) This is partly because I'm an MST3K fan, and so's the rest of my family. If the movie sucks, we'll watch it, but we'll make fun of it. It was enjoyable that way, but not in any of the ways the filmmakers had intended. <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>

 

[ace5]

this scene was never part of the film.<br />it seems that it was a picture taken at one of the set filming intervals.<br />Jessica is a very beautiful girl, but it seems to me that she doesn´t have nice feet.

 

[ascan1984]

Another problem i have is that when the military officer takes control of the station of one of ther lfight controlers to arm the weapon, how could he know what to do so quickly and be so good at typing.

 

[najab]

Ascan, it's like The Bad Astronomer said, it's easier to say what they got right, than to list what they got wrong: <br />(1) There these things called asteroids, in space. <br />(2) Sometimes they hit the Earth. <br />(3) They...well...erm...okay, that's about it.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Are you a lady that's so how on a one-woman crusade against Jessica, seen as she's actually good looking? Seems that way. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />The film is excellent for people who want to see a Shuttle launch for the first time, as the photography is excellent. <br /><br />It's only geeks like me who stand up at the cinema and go "noo noo noooooo, Throttle Up is AFTER roll program!" <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[CalliArcale]

Ah, grasshopper, you have mastered shuttle geekdom if you notice errors in the Shuttle's ascent sequence during a science fiction movie. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />Hey, speaking of noticing geeky stuff when nobody else does, has anyone seen the recent ad for Chevys (I think) with OnStar? They're running that promotion again where during a test drive you can press the OnStar button to find out if you've won a free car. They show a Shuttle sitting on the pad and the countdown goes down until the guy says "Ignition..." Pause. "Ignition...." Nothing happens. Cut to a generic mission-control type room (notably *not* looking like the firing control room; a common and rather understandable mistake) where a guy has his finger over a big red button, presumably the ignition button. But he doesn't press it. Instead, he dashes away from his post, to the consternation of his colleagues, apparently to a car dealership. "Saving that button push for something important?" says an announcer, and we see the man sit down in a new car, push the OnStar button, and be told that he has won a new car. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />It is a mark of geekiness that the things I noticed most were:<br /><br />* the mission control set resembled JSC, not KSC<br /><br />* there isn't a big red button for ignition; the sequencer handles that because human reflexes can't time it right<br /><br />And, most prominently:<br /><br />* the stock Shuttle footage was clearly of Columbia. (It's always easy to spot Columbia; for those who don't know, she was the one with extra black on the wings.) It was a strangely mixed feeling to realize that it was Columbia. I doubt that was a deliberate choice, but you never know. Maybe some lackey assigned to come up with good stock footage thought it would be nice to see her sitting on the pad again, awaiting launch.... <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>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Suspension of disbelief, folks! <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />If you enjoyed the movie, that's fine. It's art, and art speaks differently to different people.<br /><br />But for me, to borrow a phrase I once saw on Usenet, there's a difference between suspension of disbelief and hanging disbelief by the neck until dead, dead, dead. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <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>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>Ah, grasshopper, you have mastered shuttle geekdom if you notice errors in the Shuttle's ascent sequence during a science fiction movie.<<br /><br />Heh! And I didn't even mention how they called SRB Sep and off comes the ET at the same time, yet the SSME's keep on firing all through the film.....but pray tell, where are they getting the fuel....opps, propellent (NajaB's gonna slap me for saying fuel <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ) from? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[vogon13]

Did you see the shuttle Churchill in the movie Lifeforce with the NERVA booster engine?<br /><br />Another sci-fi classic. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Not seen the film but here is a link to a page on the Churchill<br />

 

[vogon13]

dot be it!<br /><br />thanx! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

I remember enjoying it. Then again, I loved the movie "The Car".<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Ain't art wonderful!<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[lunatic133]

I was 12 when I saw it. I was just old enough to be interested in space but not yet old enough to know any of the technical details. I thought that it was cool beans except that some of the action scenes dragged a little (ok. stuff go boom. let's move on.) ... I watched it again this time but I was able to laugh at the technical faults and enjoy the film as an entertaining movie. That's what it is, people, a movie. A science fiction movie. There's no such thing as elves, hobits, wizards, or orcs, either, yet I don't hear a lot of people complaining that Lord of the Rings is unrealistic. We don't have faster than light ships or a force and yet nobody complains that star wars is unrealistic. It's a MOVIE, people. Of course it's not going to be realistic. Movies about everyday life are not realistic, you think sci-fi's going to be any better? Alas, life goes on.

 

[najab]

While I agree that it's just a movie, it annoys the hell out of me that it was made <b>with the assistance of NASA</b>!!! They filmed at the actual locations - for example they were the only outsiders <b>ever</b> allowed to film in the WETF.<p>Yet beside all the technical assistance they were given they managed to completely screw up just about every technical detail - it's like they were <b>trying</b> to be wrong.<p>Compare that to Deep Impact, made at about the same time and about basically the same topic, they got no help from NASA at all - to the point that their mission patches <i>almost</i> say NASA - yet they got the technical stuff so much better.</p></p>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Oh yeah and they were under an Orbiter wing, in an OPF! Right next to one!!<br /><br />I bet one of the actors said "Oooh, let me touch this" and a USA guy shouted "Touch that and I'll smack yer."<br /><br />Orbiters don't like being touched, right? Oil in the skin ain't good for the TPS?

 

[ve7rkt]

<font color="yellow"> Compare that to Deep Impact, made at about the same time and about basically the same topic, they got no help from NASA at all - to the point that their mission patches almost say NASA - yet they got the technical stuff so much better. </font><br /><br />They might have got the space science a little better than Armageddon, but I couldn't take Deep Impact seriously after the first five minutes, when the astronomer spots the killer asteroid that will impact in two years:<br />1) Tries to send an email, but can't. Fair enough, my ISP sucks too, making this the most realistic part of this segment.<br />1a) He doesn't try landline telephone or fax. If he's on dialup internet, it makes sense that the internet problems are actually telephone problems -- but in 1998, the height of the dotcom boom, this observatory is on dialup?<br />2) He decides to drive, packing a floppy disk copy of his data. He uses his cellphone while driving -- apparently, he couldn't have phoned from the parking lot.<br />3) He gets run off the road while playing with his phone (realistic), the Jeep rolls over (realistic), falls 10 feet, and EXPLODES IN A GIANT FIREBALL. Because, y'know, Jeeps do that.<br /><br />I was watching this movie, expecting to have to suppress the desire to point out tiny flaws in orbital physics. When the Jeep exploded, I laughed so hard...<br /><br />Now, above all, note that if he did send the data off by his first choice, email, <i> nobody would have read it until they got to their office the next morning anyhow. </i><br /><br />But at least the space science was better. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I thought Deep Impact sucked. It was all about facial expressions and that ship looked like a mix of an Orbiter and the ship off 2001.<br /><br />Indipendance and Freedom rocked. I mean, they could run their SSME's without an ET! And watch those RCS' fire away like crazy thusters! Plus, if you've got a problem, just get a crazy Russian to give her a slap with a wrench! Got to love that <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[cookie_thief]

The reason I liked Deep Impact was that it gave me a glimpse of how people and governments would respond to a globe threatening asteroid. This aspect of the movie allowed me to overlook some of the technical holes and concentrate on what I thought was a decent story. Armaggedon, on the other hand . . . . awful, just awful. I remembered walking out of the matinee vowing I would never, ever watch another Jerry Bruckheimer movie again. I think I've kept that vow.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Did you know the aforementioned producer is actually in Armageddon?<br /><br />You know the really crap line "We're moving to Hubble"...and a load of boffins swing their chairs over to the other side of the room, in a 'we're working with Swift, now we're working with Hubble' bollocks. Well Jerry is one of the boffins!!<br /><br />I also remember saying to my lady friend of the time, OUT LOUD so most people heard me "What's the bloody point of giving a single engine failure call from the Orbiter TO JSC when they are just literally a second away from MECO!?!?!"<br /><br />I think the call was "Single engine press to MECO" or something daft.<br /><br />I'd of loved to be at the NASA showing of the film. I bet sick bags were complusary <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I can just see SG grabbing Jerry by the shoulders and shaking him saying "You're nuts, totally nuts, you hear me??? Fire and Sound in space???? Where did you get that crap from????" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Oh, I'm so going to transcribe the launch sequence now for (bleep) and giggles. Just got to find the DVD....which I think's in the trash can <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />