Mirrodie From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 7456 posts, RR: 61 Posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 988 times:
Deep Impact VS Armagedeon (sp?)
I happened to see Deep Impact months before I saw Armageddeon. In fact , DI came out quite some time before Arm. made it to theaters.
I was extremely moved by DI. It was of excellent quality and seemed to capture the essence of the characters much more deeply than Arm.
I think the Story was MUCH better than Arm.'s
Arm. seemed to be a replica of DI but only seemed to excel due to the extraordinary amount of top actors and money pumped into the effects.
So IMO, the only aspect that Arm conquered was the effects and top name billing.
Does anyone share the same opinion? I have founf drives of people who saw Arm but never even heard of DI. I know droves more who saw both but preferred Arm.
I think DI's story and characters were much more connecting to the audience. What do you think?
Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4748 posts, RR: 32
Reply 1, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 960 times:
I actually feel the exact opposite. I thought Deep Impact was poor, I thought the acting was poor, I felt that Tea Leoni (while easy on the eyes) was not strong enough to hold the lead. I thought the opposite for Armageddon. Willis was clearly strong enough, and Steve Buscemi was a total riot.
Both were a little over the top, but I felt Armageddon was better in just about every dept
IloveBOI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 949 times:
I will say I agree with you 100%! I loved Deep Impact, but thought that Armaggedon sucked and was unrealistic, especially the Paris Explosion.
I thought the explosion of Baltimore in The Sum of All Fears was the most realistic I've seen. Usually people wanna slow it down so it can be longer and the audience can see everything explode.
The Tidal Wave in Deep Impact was real as well, especially for the fact that it actually moved fast like it's supposed to. However, the tidal wave didn't do what it would've in real life.
Usually, the asteroid would hit the water in a big splash, but wouldn't exactly create a tidal wave instantly. Instead, you would see the Tidal wave about 3-500 feet from the shore of the land it'll hit, and it would slowly grow bigger and bigger. This is due to the Continental Shelf and the astroid creates a sort of underwater wave instead of a surface wave and when the bottom goes up to meet the land, so does the wave and the water would rise up creating death and destruction.
Btw, has anyone seen the show on the Discovery Channel "Three Minutes to Impact"? It had an awesome scene where Tokyo is hit by a massive Tidal Wave, complete with a choir song in the background to create a mood for destruction.
Homer71 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2261 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 930 times:
Both movie were ok, but different. If DI was Tony Bennett, then Arm. would be Metallica.
DI - Tea Leoni was lame, but I liked Morgan Freeman as the President. The movie had more of a human element, and it did show an asteroid hitting earth (where Arm. had frequent meteor showers).
Arm - Bruce Willis was cool, but the movie DOES have Ben Affleck - yikes. The editing was so choppy, the movie was like one, long movie trailer (I heard a movie critic make the same analogy). It has it moments, but I'm sure any scientist and/or astronaut would be ROFL at all of it's technical goofs. It is a Jerry Bruckheimer production, so I pretty much expected this kind of a movie.
"On spaceship earth there are no passengers...only crew."
UPSfueler From United States of America, joined May 2003, 430 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 882 times:
I liked both of them. I thought that Deep Impact was a little bit better and realistic because of the Tidal Wave at the end and where the "heroes" somewhat fail at what they are sent to do. I also was watching Arm. a while back and when New York is being hit by the meteor shower it shows the WTC being hit by an meteor. It explodes the exact same way and looks identical to how it did when flight 175 smashed into it. Very erie.
Canadi>nBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 858 times:
As an avid and ardent "disaster movie" fan, I must say that I really liked and enjoyed "Deep Impact". Very well done, and I agree, realistic to a large degree. I liked the fact that, in the end, the protagonists failed to "save the earth", alas, a non-Hollywood ending. Very good effects. I would say it was much better than Armageddon. I didn't like the inclusion of "comedy" in the script, which eroded my interest.
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 14346 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 841 times:
"Deep Impact" vs. "Armageddon" is equal to "Star Trek" vs. "Star Wars."
Deep Impact/Star Trek: both preceded their counterparts (the original "Star Trek" series preceded Star Wars: A New Hope) and both are more "realistic" from a technical side.
Armageddon/Star Wars: both came later than their counterparts, both involve a much higher degree of the suspension of disbelief by the audience.
In short, both sets are enjoyable...but Deep Impact/Star Trek is more for the logic-oriented, realism-seeking audience while Armageddon/Star Wars is more for the "whiz-bang" special effects hungry fantasy crowd.
[Edited 2003-09-29 21:05:48]
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan