British767 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 284 posts, RR: 21 Posted (10 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1626 times:
On BBC1 tonight was Deep Impact. I have seen it loads of times now but every time I watch it, it still strikes me as a powerful and very emotional film. Does anybody else think this? Does it still make you feel different compared to watching other films? It does to me, don't know why, but it just does. Anyone else?
Leezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4042 posts, RR: 53
Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1540 times:
The US spends all that money on defense from attack by other countries, but only spends about 1% or something rediculously low like that on searching space for objects that could collide with us and wipe the lot of us out.
"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 11, posted (10 years 5 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1533 times:
Pure drivel, I saw this crap on a LHR-HKG flight in 1998, (before PTV in cattle class).
Badly named too, this film is neither deep nor has any impact.
But this weeks Time Out TV review said it best, "so lame you'll be rooting for the asteroid".
They hit the nail on the head for 'Titanic' too, "after an hour you'll be yelling 'sink you bastard' at the TV".
A330Fan1 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 856 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1475 times:
Deep Impact from what I remember was a really good film in the sense that it combined emotion, and romance with action and adventure. Although very unrealistic, like Day After Tomorrow, still a good movie to watch - quite a captivating movie.
Sovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2618 posts, RR: 17
Reply 16, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1415 times:
Armageddon was much better. Deep impact didn't have anough action. Armageddon had constant action and it was more sad than Deep Impact. The only part I liked was when the asteroid hit. I still dont get how that kid in the motorcycle went like 1000 miles in half a day to avoid the wave.
Mikedlayer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1391 times:
I know it is a pretty crappy movie....but yeah I think there is something at the end that just makes you think, makes me think at the end christ what if this did actually happen....then it ends and you turn over the channel and don't ever think about it again lol
BO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2771 posts, RR: 18
Reply 19, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1379 times:
I didn't like any of the characters especially the young Elijah Woods.
John Glen on the other hand was better. The action part as usual was pretty neat to watch but I don't agree with skyscrapers in New York toppling over like dominoes when the tidal wave hits.
Armageddon was better, some bigger name actors and Liv Tyler..
The action in that movie plus the special effects were pretty sweet.
Day After Tomorrow from the looks of it, sounds like a ridiculous and predictable plot but none the less the effects and action are unbelivable..
So I am going to see that movie. Maybe the cheesy plot line may somehow work with the whole disaster concept.
Arcano From Chile, joined Mar 2004, 2409 posts, RR: 23
Reply 20, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1377 times:
I loved it!
It's a special effects movie, but for making a difference also cares for drama, lines and conflict. Armageddon follows the typical ID4 argument: the world is in danger, the only one to note it is USA and USA saves the world... so deja vu! I mean, it has some of it, but more sophisticated, not ridiculous as ID4
DI finally recognizes the fact that "there's nothing to do" and this gives a different sight, a different way the characters interact with each other. The scene of the beach, the way the girl farewells her parents, the fear in the face of Morgan Freeman... just a better taste movie!
"Independence and Freedom for all mankind"... come on, so cheap! The only good about Armageddon is Liv Tyler . And that joke character of "the stupid clumsy Russian", just matched by Jar Jar Binks. No, pure icon.
Also, you have to admit that the crash of the comet in the ocean, the wave over Manhattan and the atmosphere reaction is perfect. Armageddon again: "oh yes, lets get rid of Paris although if we remove the sequence the movie does not change at all!"
BTW, anybody liked "The Core"? a very good movie again, with a kind of black humor that makes it a very interesting proposal in this gender.
in order: 721,146,732,763,722,343,733,320,772,319,752,321,88,83,744,332,100,738, 333, 318, 77W, 78, 773 and 380
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 21, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1343 times:
I really wished I did not read all the replies...
My initial take on the movie was that it was a really sad movie. Or at least I felt disturbed coming off of it -- definitely NOT crappy, more like way too realistic, like I was forced to watch the events of 9/11 again. Life sucks and with every attempt most of Hollywood makes to mimic that, they blow everything way out of proportion. We have all been programmed by most of Hollywood to accept pure action, special FX, big names, lots of sexuality and less plot or the reality of it all -- ever hear of ratings?
Armageddon was unrealistic and oddly alike with this movie, didn't the production team actually start afterwards and finish before Deep Impact was out? There should be a law to prevent real-time emulation of movies. The only reason it became a big deal was with Liv Tyler and that Aerosmith song her daddy sang. Big whoopty fucking do...
>> "I cant stand that actor either, the one who found the comet" <<
Considering how much you included, how much of hating the actor in question was a part of the way the movie was to you, i.e. what are the chances you weren't being objective? Who the hell judges a movie by who is acting in it?! Ever heard of a plot, a genre perhaps? If you didn't like it say so, don't make unsubstantiateable excuses!
>> "The only part I liked was when the asteroid hit. I still dont get how that kid in the motorcycle went like 1000 miles in half a day to avoid the wave. " <<
All movies and documentries extend time for prespective's sake, you don't honestly think that comet would take the 2 hours during the moive to hit the Earth from when it was discovered in real life, do you?? Besides, in Virginia (where the kid lived), there are large hills and mountains within 200 miles of the coast, I think that can be done in half a day. At least this made Deep Impact real cuz they showed us that it would take 2 years to hit, unlike Armageddon that assumed (like ID4) we don't see it til the last minute.
>> "The science in the movie is absolute shit and nowhere close to what will actually happen if an asteroid strikes the Earth." <<
Okay smart ass, what will actually happen, hmm? In real life nobody gives a damn (this thread proves that) for the likelihood (as if it will never happen cuz it hasn't in recorded human history) so why look for the killer asteroid. This has got to be the most arrogant stance on the planet. Though that doesn't mean we should pour money into it otherwise, just stop acting like it won't happen [sooner than later]. In the movie, the only mistake I found was that the first chunk hit at an extremely low angle, most of the wave energy should have gone towards Europe. But it was a minor detail.
>> "I don't agree with skyscrapers in New York toppling over like dominoes when the tidal wave hits. " <<
Do you know the power of water at all? A 6-inch deep flood can lift an automobile; many drivers don't know this and get into trouble (unless you have an SUV or truck). At it's density of 62.5 lbs per cubic foot, you only have to go underwater about 30 feet before you have 1000 pounds pressure up against your body per square foot. Let's say the average skyscraper is 50 stories high, and then it would be 500 feet up and sits on a 100x100 foot block of land. That is 50,000 total square foot on one side. Most buildings are designed to take up to 60 mph winds or higher, but the difference of air and seawater is 816 times as dense, which would translate to a wave of water 500 x 100 feet high moving at less than 1.6 miles per hour, which is less than the speed of a river. I can assure you that even a half-mile impact occurred in the middle of the Atlantic, the energy would result in a Tsunami moving at 300 miles per hour and much wider than a few hundred feet by the time it hits the coast. You're right, they won't fall like dominos, more like houses under tornados, and for those who have died this weekend, may they rest in peace.
From reading the pathetic posts above, it seems you folks fell for the Hollywood enterprise, and because of your expectations due to this, somehow Deep Impact sucks? Try thinking a little, put yourself in their shoes, I'll bet all of you here would be like those fools in the movie who lived on the Coastlines did not move til the last minute cuz even you still believed it was not going to happen.
I'm in no way cheering up and down for this movie, it was a sad movie, and just it isn’t crappy by a long shot. If any of you did not like this movie, say so and shut up; you know you don't have to give any excuses or reasons why.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
JGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 5 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1286 times:
I was kind of hoping the asteroid would land on the weepy stupid bloody girlfriend "I'm not going without my parents" dozy cow. The tidal wave is cool, and I'd vote for Morgan Freeman for Prez any day. And of course, as a European I shall demand a refund from the ESA for not spotting the damn thing at all ! Hellooooo - there are actually telescopes and things outside the US, stunning as that may seem.
: Lehpron, Hmmm...nice long post. Anyways, with regards to my earlier quote "The science in the movie is absolute shit and nowhere close to what will ac
: Well... It wasn't the best catastrophic ever made but it wasn't the worst either. I have seen it several times now my self. But the best catastrophic
: Made a change that a movie made in the US actually showed the US getting destroyed and not some other "little" country, like Europe for example.
: Yea that girlfriend and that dude were seriously retarded. First she wants to go then she stays but then he goes and doesnt want to and then he change
: Re: not some other "little" country, like Europe If it had been Europe, nobody in the US would go see the movie - after all, what happens outside the
30 EA CO AS
: specially those LA twisters miraculously honing on the "Hollywood sign"... One thing is constant in all disaster movies - your odds of getting hit by
31 Alpha 1
: One thing is constant in all disaster movies - your odds of getting hit by (insert force of nature or falling space object here) increase exponentiall
: But the best catastrophic movie IMO is Twister... Man I love that movie Qlguy24, gotta agree with you there Twister was a great movie, I liked it a lo
: >> "One thing is constant in all disaster movies - your odds of getting hit by (insert force of nature or falling space object here) increase exponent
: Kinda trying to avoid this (dated?) thread and somewhat similar comments in reference to the other disaster movie(s) genre, I just couldn't help but s