Armageddon

J

JordanTheGreat

New member
Was watching Armageddon last night. As much as I like that movie, how did they get away with such shoddy realism?

I mean, the movie is set on an asteroid in space. The spaceship that crashes contains scenes of it on fire - really? fire in space

The, it shows scenes of them flying through space in their land vehicle, obviously because there is no gravity but then shows clear gravity when he picks up dust from the ground and it falls back down to ground. Wouldn't it just float? Also, the cables hang down showing clear gravity.

Finally, when he's about to save the world and there is a small explosion shouldn't he fly into space not fly a few yarRAB then crash land on the asteroid?
 
There's a scene is showing people from all over the world just before the shuttles take off. It's daylight everywhere!


Great film, some mistakes, but I enjoy it so much that I can overlook them. :)
 
Full marks on your observations! I think the answer lies somewhere in the minRABet of both the movie makers and the audience. The producers/director know that the audience know that the whole concept is pretty far fetched, so they gamble on being able to get away with unrealistic sequences on the basis that most of us won't notice. And if we do notice, we won't particularly care because we will be prepared to make allowances. Filmmakers can argue that the best films aren't always technically and scientifically perfect, that movie making is an artform after all, and as such the end can justify the means. If people enjoy it, and are thrilled by it, then it doesn't really matter how implausible it is.

A lot of movies take that argument to extremes and, to be fair, there have been some very successful science fiction movies that have pushed the boundaries of plausibility beyond what many folk would consider acceptable, to the point where they almost become fantasy.

On the other hand, some movies really do depend on plausibility to retain credibility. But I don't think that Armageddon was one of them.

The crux lies where the filmmakers' aspirations meet the publics' expectations. Armageddon was intended and perceived as a primarily action adventure movie and scientific fact was essentially subservient to that theme.
 
I understand what you're saying and a very good point too, but the movie is meant to be based on events that could (although unlikely) happen and they should stick to scientific fact (like fire burning in outer space)

There is no consistency in the movie, i.e. they use the lack of gravity to their advantage in one part of the movie (when they fly over the canyon) then in another scene totally disregard it.
 
If you want to nitpick, then try Deep Impact or The Core*. Who cares if there is no way for sound to travel in space or that due to the lack of oxygen nothing can catch fire? Its escapist fun and I thoroughly enjoy Armageddon for what it is, a film someone's vision of a global disaster with some humorous moments.

In other worRAB put away the note pad and grab the popcorn.

*The Core has something like 300+ scientific inaccuracies.
 
Back
Top