Deep Impact Any good?

[drtre81]

Deep impact is better than armageddon imo. armageddon just has more action but Deep impact has far better acting.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by skatalite

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

Absolutely it does. And Armageddon went into production before Deep Impact. Maybe if Deep Impact had been in production before Armageddon, they would've had NASA's support? Who knows..

[skatalite]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

Absolutely it does. And Armageddon went into production before Deep Impact. Maybe if Deep Impact had been in production before Armageddon, they would've had NASA's support? Who knows..

True that. I think "Deep Impact" came out before "Armageddon," but within relative proximity of one another. Maybe a month or two?

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by skatalite

True that. I think "Deep Impact" came out before "Armageddon," but within relative proximity of one another. Maybe a month or two?

Yeah, what happened was Armageddon put a teaser out a little over a year before the film actually came out. I am not sure if the teaser made the people at DreamWorks go "what a great idea for a movie! lets beat them to the market!" or if they had word of the film before that. So they kind of rushed to get this film done before Armageddon, since Armageddon was the big summer movie that year.

So Deep Impact was actually the copycat even though it came out before Armageddon. Though I wouldn't really call it a copycat, it was happening a lot around that time. Same basic concepts, just totally different ways of telling the story. Dante's Peak and Valcano, Antz and A Bug's Life... I am sure there were more from the late 90's...

[Kryptonic]

Deep Impact is a smart, thoughtful, and often emotional film with some terrific effects sequences. Armageddon is exactly the opposite.

[volcanopele]

Wow, another Armageddon vs. Deep Impact thread

Again, it depends on what you are looking for in a movie between those two. The comet in Deep Impact was actually realistic (somewhat). The size at least is reasonable for a comet that could impact Earth in the next 100 million years. The science of its approach to Earth was again somewhat realistic. Yes, the "rescue" mission again wasn't the best conceived mission, but it was better than sending a bunch of oil drillers...

And Morgan Freeman as president, I could go for that.

A generally decent movie, but I can see how it could be called the chick flick version of Armageddon.

Armageddon, is certainly a much more amusing film. I'll give it that. The asteroid/comet... okay, it is completely ridiculous. First, it apparently was self-aware and sentient, how else do you explain its ability to send targeted meteors at several earth cities (Hong Kong, Paris, New York)? Second, an asteroid the size of Texas, okay, there are like two of those, and it would take the hand of god to knock them out of their orbits. And an asteroid or KBO or comet that big would be a spheroidal object, not some Escheresque thing.

[Buddy Christ]

DVD Beaver just gave DI a decent review


http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCom...deepimpact.htm

[Arkitect76]

If you want a realistic disaster moive, then go for deep impact...if you want an action movie with funny parts and action the way only Michael Bay does, then get Armageddon when it comes out....I for one loved Armageddon MUCH more than Deep Impact, although I can say that deep impact was very true to life, Armageddon was not...

[Blu3]

Armageddon and DI are 2 different types of movies. The only thing they share in common is the storyline "how to save the planet from an ELE".

DI is a between decent and solid drama/thriller type sci-fi. If you want to watch a sci-fi that is believable on some level, with good acting all around, watch DI.

Armageddon is a below avg action type sci-fi, with a hype cast. It's a joke, made to entertain us during our neanderthal hours, when the brain operates with less than an 8th grade IQ level. It's highly entertaining, but a complete joke, scientifically speaking. Who cares how good the space pictures are, when you're reminded every 2 minutes that the entire movie is all BS?

I find that deciding which one to watch depends mostly on what mood I'm in. If I'm in a thinking mood, I watch DI (Armageddon just feels stupid here). If I'm in a mood for sci-fi-ish action/comedy, I watch Willis chase Afleck around an oil rig in Armageddon (DI feels too slow and boring here).

If you're not sure, rent it first. If it's your cup of tea, buy it, if not, at least you've watched it

[JackStraw]

I liked Armageddon but really liked Deep Impact. Armageddon uses every patriotic type cliche...the military drum beats, the serious sounding music, the long, slow mo shots of the crew gearing to save the world, all the stuff you'd see in a Michael Bay movie. Now there's always room on my shelf for a big dumb action movie. The only thing with Armageddon was that it was too dumb. The stretches you have to make to accept what this movie gives you, even for this type of movie, seemed to be too much

Deep Impact had a far more realistic, "how would it feel if you were picked to be the ones chosen to rebuild the planet", "how would it feel to be the ones left behind" type of story which I enjoyed more.

They really are two different approaches to the same scenario, it depends on which approach appeals to you more.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by JackStraw

The stretches you have to make to accept what this movie gives you, even for this type of movie, seemed to be too much

Yeah, like we're supposed to believe that Steve Buscemi could get a woman like that.

[Mobe1969]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

Yeah, like we're supposed to believe that Steve Buscemi could get a woman like that.

Money and fame is a pretty good attractant.

[kernel_thai]

Armageddon = Michael Bay movie ... end of line.

Anywho I picked it up today at Walmart for $19.99

[LordCrumb]

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.

holy crap you mean the movie lied?

[JackStraw]

Originally Posted by KaiGusto

holy crap you mean the movie lied?

You wouldn't believe the amount of scientific inaccuracies I found in every Star Trek episode and every Star Wars movie.

[Jodi]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Deep Impact is a smart, thoughtful, and often emotional film with some terrific effects sequences. Armageddon is exactly the opposite.

Ditto!

Jodi

[bogo5]

that annoying "a thriller with brains" on the front cover bugs me. seems cheaply mocked up.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by skatalite

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

Yeah, but how much of that went into the collective pockets of Jerry Bruckheimer, Michael Bay, and Bruce Willis?

Personally, I like both films for different reasons, but overall, "Deep Impact" gets the higher vote. With "Armageddon", I really didn't find myself caring about a lot of the characters. Yeah, the stuff with Willis, Ben Affleck, Liv Tyler, and Will Patton was cool, but the rest of the story just fell kinda flat...not to mention we have Eddie Griffin surviving a meteor strike in the first few minutes, only to shout, "somebody call 911!"

With "Impact", I cared what happened to almost every character in the story. All of the actors did wonderfully, even toning down the stereotypical, "hey, look at me, I'm famous and in danger" mentality, which gives the film so much more weight. When Jenny returns to the beach and visits her father, its a very touching moment, made even more so by their willingness to die together, as the wave crashes upon them. Leo turning away from his own safety in the ARK caves to rescue Sarah is another one, and the astronauts going on a "suicide run" to save humanity still gets to me. Both movies have many good moments, but in my opinion, "Armageddon" lost some of its purpose along the way.

Also, I just crunched the numbers, and "Armageddon" made about 2.9 times its budget in profit, while "Deep Impact" made about 3.5 by comparison.

[Agent Bond]

The underrated Deep Impact is a million times better than the overrated Armageddon.

[Strevlac]

Deep Impact is, at best, banal. It's OK for a one-time rainy sunday afternoon viewing.

That said it is a magnitude better than Armageddon which is an incredibly stupid movie made for incredibly stupid people. Mainly the ones in my theater who were crying as the credits rolled. Yes, crying at the end of Armageddon. I was wishing for a real armageddon at that point.