Things you noticed in Armageddon without a website

[bujin]

Wasn't he actually the only sane person in the whole movie?

He was certainly more sane than the people who made the movie.

 

[Ghostrider]

Wasn't he actually the only sane person in the whole movie?

No, that was Steve Buscemi. My main gripe about Armageddon is the waste of talent. I mean, they've got Bruce Willis, Billy Bob Thornton (who together have some great on-screen chemistry), they've got Steve Buscemi and Michael Clarke Duncan and William Fichtner. Even Ben Affleck has done some good movies. OK, he did "Chasing Amy", should count for something. And Liv Tyler is great eye candy. And what do they do? "Armageddon". Argh.

 

[Pilot7893]

-They must have had a miracle launch window. Right after MECO, they have the russian space station in visual range. I've only heard myths of people achieving that in Orbiter

 

[Andy44]

Well, IMO any movie with Ben Affleck in it sucks. Something about him is the kiss of death. Either his bad acting ruins the movie (Paycheck), he is poorly cast (Sum of All Fears), or he actually pulls off good acting and is ruined by a lousy movie (Good Will Hunting, which also had another automatic movie-sucking actor, Robin Williams). And let's not forget that other Mike Bay classic he was in: Pearl Harbor.

Billy Bob Thornton and Bruce Willis? Those guys are good sometimes, but when they appear in space movies the movie is always disappointing. Check out Astronaut Farmer to see the two of them in action.

 

[simonpro]

Billy Bob Thornton

He gives me the creeps. Ever since I saw his smarminess in Astronaut Farmer I can't watch anything with him in it. His greasy style in that reminded me of someone who'd go out trawling bars for women, I shudder just thinking about it.
Bruce Willis kicks ass though.

 

[RisingFury]

- Huge G forces the crew survives without passing out... and the huge G forces in general

- Huge velocity that still makes a slignshot around the moon (What was it? 22 000 km/h = 6.1 km/s - orbit around the moon at surface level is just over 1.6 km/s). They would have gone nearly straight past the Moon xD

- At the end of the slingshot maneuver the velocity stops rising but the engines still run

- Huge amount of fuel they managed squeezing into the little shuttle

- Some weird ass gravity on the asteroid

 

[Kyle]

It's a movie, who cares about accuarcy.

Apollo 13 was a great movie, and extremely accurate, right down to what the buttons do.

 

[Missioncmdr]

I can understand fudging the facts a little in order to make a good movie or tell a good story, but Armageddon justs throws every scientific fact right out the window and made a completely s*** movie. It makes absolutely no sense, the story stinks, the acting stinks, and the average shot length makes it seem more like a two hour long movie trailer. It is movies like Armageddon and Pearl Harbor that make me ask myself, "Who made it okay for Michael Bay to make movies?"

The list of errors in this movie is simply atrocious.

 

[Ghostrider]

"Who made it okay for Michael Bay to make movies?"

Trey Parker and Matt Stone asked themselves the same question...

I miss you more than Michael Bay missed the mark
When he made Pearl Harbor.
I miss you more than that movie missed the point
And that's an awful lot, girl.

And now, now you've gone away
And all I'm trying to say,
Is Pearl Harbor sucked and I miss you.

I need you like Ben Affleck needs acting school
He was terrible in that film.
I need you like Cuba Gooding needed a bigger part
He's way better than Ben Affleck.

And now, all I can think about is your smile
And that ****ty movie, too.
Pearl Harbor sucked and I miss you.

Why does Michael Bay get to keep on making movies?
I guess Pearl Harbor sucked
Just a little bit more than I miss you.

("Pearl Harbor sucked and I miss you", Team America: World Police OST)

 

[Andy44]

Unortunately, it's the acceptance of poor standards by the public that enable Bay to keep making bad films. If you care nothing about believability, acting, script writing, directing, musical score, pacing, casting, or story-telling, but instead think that anything with a large but poorly-used special effects budget is just fine, than I guess you might enjoy wasting precious hours of your life watching Bay's garbage.

And Armageddon's disregard for simple science and realism is only the start of this film's woes, as I alluded above. Even if this movie had accurate spaceflight portrayal in it it would still suck, because Bay can't do any of the things it takes to make a good movie. It was pure pain to sit through it; the only reason I didn't walk out of the theatre was because of the company I was with. I accidentally saw Pearl Harbor on TV the other week and had to turn it off a half hour in. Ten minutes of Transformers and I turned off the DVD player.

No more Michael Bay, please, won't somebody think of the children?

 

[Pilot7893]

Transformers was actually pretty good, but it was probably just luck (Or he actually got better)

 

[Missioncmdr]

Unortunately, it's the acceptance of poor standards by the public that enable Bay to keep making bad films. If you care nothing about believability, acting, script writing, directing, musical score, pacing, casting, or story-telling, but instead think that anything with a large but poorly-used special effects budget is just fine, than I guess you might enjoy wasting precious hours of your life watching Bay's garbage.

And it also the same standard that allows whoever to keep making movies like Epic Movie, Date Movie, Disaster Movie, Meet the Spartans, etc. The problem is that some movies have almost no budget, so if six people go and see the film, they make a profit, and they say to themselves, "Durr, we need more money. This must be what the public wants! Let's pinch off another s***-fest!" And then the same retards go and see the same poorly made film with a different name and the studio makes another profit for doing nothing.

 

[darian]

Armageddon IMO is a great movie and it's is very impressive with the special effects as well. Come on some people hear are really criticizing the movie like it was just totally non realistic. Think about it, the movie Deep Impact, its plot was to show the realistic side of how man would take out an asteroid right. However the vehicle they used wasn't all that realistic either. Now Armageddon showed a full mission from launch to touchdown with rendezvous and docking in LEO and with the asteroid in a few hours time. The movie had so many parts to show I was amazed at how well put together it was.

 

[Deke]

Armageddon IMO is a great movie and it's is very impressive with the special effects as well.

That's because most people today are only attracted to the "Ohhh ahhh" stuff. No one cares about realism anymore, which is sad.

Come on some people hear are really criticizing the movie like it was just totally non realistic.

Maybe because it WAS totally non-realistic?

Think about it, the movie Deep Impact, its plot was to show the realistic side of how man would take out an asteroid right. However the vehicle they used wasn't all that realistic either.

Not many here like Deep Impact here either, including myself.

Now Armageddon showed a full mission from launch to touchdown with rendezvous and docking in LEO and with the asteroid in a few hours time.

The launching was unrealistic, the docking in LEO was unrealistic, and the landing on the asteroid, was unrealistic.

The movie had so many parts to show I was amazed at how well put together it was.

How well put together? I nearly died laughing at this joke of a movie. Whoever told Michael Bay to direct movies should be executed by stoning.

 

[tl8]

I think this thread has gone on long enough.

Thread Closed