Deep Impact Any good?

[UFAlien]

I liked Deep Impact about 10 times better than Armageddon. I have no problem with silly, immaterial films if they're entertaining, but Armageddon, for me, was both too stupid to watch closely and still not quite thrilling enough to enjoy as mindless entertainment - it hit sort of a "dead zone".

Deep Impact has much less action, but that's okay with me, because the emotional, character based part is much, much better than Armageddon. It's not my favorite movie ever, but it's pretty good and I'm sure I'll buy it at some point.

[Iron-Blu-123]

Will be getting it.

[LordCrumb]

Amargeddon is way better than Deep Impact

When the buildings get hit by meteors, and collapsing, you actually see people blown out the buildings hitting cars. wicked scenes.

[Col. Zombie]

Deep Impact is the poor man's Armageddon and a complete snooze-fest. Will gladly pass this up on release day.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Col.Zombie

Deep Impact is the poor man's Armageddon and a complete snooze-fest. Will gladly pass this up on release day.

A Poor Mans Armageddon? Please elaborate....

[Diesel]

I thought the movie was ok. Mostly because Morgan Freeman is in it


Armageddon is the better of the two movies in my opinion. You know, even with the stupid premise of blowing up the asteroid, considering that would be the worst possible thing to do.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Diesel

I thought the movie was ok. Mostly because Morgan Freeman is in it


Armageddon is the better of the two movies in my opinion. You know, even with the stupid premise of blowing up the asteroid, considering that would be the worst possible thing to do.

That's actually a plan from NASA....

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

I liked Deep Impact about 10 times better than Armageddon. I have no problem with silly, immaterial films if they're entertaining, but Armageddon, for me, was both too stupid to watch closely and still not quite thrilling enough to enjoy as mindless entertainment - it hit sort of a "dead zone".

Deep Impact has much less action, but that's okay with me, because the emotional, character based part is much, much better than Armageddon. It's not my favorite movie ever, but it's pretty good and I'm sure I'll buy it at some point.

I 100% agree with you here.

[Blu-Runner]

Deep Impact is much better than Armageddon, and is a lot more realistic. I mean c'mon, sending up a team of oil rig drillers, with mini-gun mounted vehicles, to save the world? Please.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Blu-Runner

Deep Impact is much better than Armageddon, and is a lot more realistic. I mean c'mon, sending up a team of oil rig drillers, with mini-gun mounted vehicles, to save the world? Please.

And I'll say it again... Armageddon felt more real to me because they had the support of NASA and the military when making the film. All the scenes from Deep Impact that take place in space seem much more unrealistic to me.

[fdm]

Not really even worth a rental...

[Blu-Runner]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

And I'll say it again... Armageddon felt more real to me because they had the support of NASA and the military when making the film. All the scenes from Deep Impact that take place in space seem much more unrealistic to me.

Oh, ok. Well, since you said it a second time, I now believe that Armageddon is much more realistic than Deep Impact.

[JRS03]

Gotta go with Deep Impact on this one....that other film was a bunch of tripe! Lets send some fat oil workers up there to drill........silly silly silly....

[MaCruz]

I'll get it when it's $9.99.

[skatalite]

Here's a bit from Wikipedia on the scientific criticisms of "Armageddon":

Armageddon is noted for its large number of scientific inaccuracies. In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Michael Bay said that the solution for the asteroid situation was great for the movie but not possible in real life, while adding that real-life "anti-gravity" systems for such a situation were being worked on by NASA. Bay also said that people who might think that it was possible to deal with an asteroid in the manner depicted in the movie would be mistaken.

The physics and scientific approach of Armageddon was criticized for its poor adherence to the laws of physics, such as the asteroid having gravity similar to Earth. This has led NASA to show the film as part of its management training program. Prospective managers are asked to find as many inaccuracies in the movie as they can. At least 168 impossible things have been found during these screenings of the film. For example, Shuttles could not be landed on an asteroid. And even if they could, they would not subsequently be able to leave. It also wouldn't be possible to build the shuttles fast enough, whether building from scratch or modifying existing shuttles. (Although an earlier scene alludes to the fact that the shuttles had already been built, and were being kept secret by the military, until such time that they were needed.) The movie also adheres to standard Hollywood conventions when it comes to science, such as depicting there being noise in space. Explosions were also shown to be sustained in the vacuum of space.

Not trying to sway anyone's opinion, just pointing it out as good reading.

[Elandyll]

Armageddon is a fun film, but I far prefer Deep Impact.

Someone said that DI is the "Chick Flick" version of Armageddon. To me, it's more the "At least you can bring your brain" version of the same idea (DI is not a "version" of Arm, given that they literally released at the same time or close).

One could also say that DI is the "legitimate" remake of Meteor (a talky kinda boring and campy but classic disaster movie of the 70s), when Armageddon is the Bruce Willis, written by a person on crack, edited by a 16 year old (himself on crack), version

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by skatalite

Here's a bit from Wikipedia on the scientific criticisms of "Armageddon":

Armageddon is noted for its large number of scientific inaccuracies. In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Michael Bay said that the solution for the asteroid situation was great for the movie but not possible in real life, while adding that real-life "anti-gravity" systems for such a situation were being worked on by NASA. Bay also said that people who might think that it was possible to deal with an asteroid in the manner depicted in the movie would be mistaken.

The physics and scientific approach of Armageddon was criticized for its poor adherence to the laws of physics, such as the asteroid having gravity similar to Earth. This has led NASA to show the film as part of its management training program. Prospective managers are asked to find as many inaccuracies in the movie as they can. At least 168 impossible things have been found during these screenings of the film. For example, Shuttles could not be landed on an asteroid. And even if they could, they would not subsequently be able to leave. It also wouldn't be possible to build the shuttles fast enough, whether building from scratch or modifying existing shuttles. (Although an earlier scene alludes to the fact that the shuttles had already been built, and were being kept secret by the military, until such time that they were needed.) The movie also adheres to standard Hollywood conventions when it comes to science, such as depicting there being noise in space. Explosions were also shown to be sustained in the vacuum of space.

Not trying to sway anyone's opinion, just pointing it out as good reading.

There's also the fact that they showed the shuttles as being somewhat like airplanes. They don't fly the way they did in the film.

But I still prefer Armageddon over Deep Impact. In my opinion, the special effects are better, it's more exciting, the score is better (more Harry Gregson-Williams' score than Trevor Rabin's), sadly the acting is better, the action is better, the pacing is better...

Though Mimi Leder did do a great job with the human aspect of Deep Impact. At least some of it (Tea Leoni, Morgan Freeman). Like I said before, the Elijah Wood and Leelee Sobieski stuff is terrible IMO. I wont get into the "this is more real than that" argument because they're both pretty unrealistic (no, a dirt bike wouldn't be able to out run a tidal wave up a hill).

But I will say since we're talking disaster movies, both of these films are probably a trillion times better than 2012 is going to be. Yuck.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

That's actually a plan from NASA....

A very bad one...

[nycomet]

I thought Armageddon was supposed to come out on BD before Deep Impact? Armageddon was announced a long time ago. Apparently, the master was destroyed in a fire at Universal, but Criterion had a copy of the master. I also suspect that Michael Bay has a master copy of Armageddon in his personal vault.

Although I like both Deep Impact and Armageddon, I found Deep Impact to be more disturbing. Armageddon as a blatant action flick in true Michael Bay style. I want both on BD.

[skatalite]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

There's also the fact that they showed the shuttles as being somewhat like airplanes. They don't fly the way they did in the film.

But I still prefer Armageddon over Deep Impact. In my opinion, the special effects are better, it's more exciting, the score is better (more Harry Gregson-Williams' score than Trevor Rabin's), sadly the acting is better, the action is better, the pacing is better...

Though Mimi Leder did do a great job with the human aspect of Deep Impact. At least some of it (Tea Leoni, Morgan Freeman). Like I said before, the Elijah Wood and Leelee Sobieski stuff is terrible IMO. I wont get into the "this is more real than that" argument because they're both pretty unrealistic (no, a dirt bike wouldn't be able to out run a tidal wave up a hill).

But I will say since we're talking disaster movies, both of these films are probably a trillion times better than 2012 is going to be. Yuck.

It does help that "Armageddon" had double the budget of "Deep Impact."